1. 1 The acquisition of the morphosyntax and pragmatics of reference Evidence from the use of indefinite/definite determiners and pronouns in English Margot Rozendaal & Anne Baker - University of Amsterdam IPrA, July 12, 2007, Göteborg

2. Introduction2 The acquisition of reference involves learning morphosyntax and pragmatics 1) I have drawn a cat. It looks a bit like a tiger!! 2) A: What’s that? B: It’s the cat I drew at school!

3. Introduction3 Acquisition of morphosyntax Determiners: –acquisition starts around two-years-of age in English. Pronouns: –Demonstrative pronouns (this, that etc) before two- years-of-age. –Third person personal pronouns (it, he) around two years-of-age. –Other third person forms of personal pronoun paradigm follow later.

4. 4 Pragmatics of Reference Non-specific reference (not familiar to speaker) Shift Discourse-new Specific reference (familiar to speaker) Discourse-given MaintenanceIntroduction No Mutual Knowledge (NMK) Mutual Knowledge (MK) +deixis-deixis Mutual Knowledge (MK) +deixis-deixis

5. Research Questions5 Main Questions 1.How do children use morphosyntactic forms with respect to different pragmatic factors when they are in the process of acquiring these forms? 2.What is the influence of the language the children hear around them on the acquisition of the morphosyntax-pragmatics interface of reference?

6. 6 Pragmatics of Reference Non-specific reference (not familiar to speaker) Shift Discourse-new Specific reference (familiar to speaker) Discourse-given MaintenanceIntroduction No Mutual Knowledge (NMK) Mutual Knowledge (MK) +deixis-deixis Mutual Knowledge (MK) +deixis-deixis Discourse: Indefinite vs. definite Discourse Noun vs. pronoun ToM Indefinite vs. def ToM Noun vs. pronoun

7. Research Questions7 Influence of input in acquisition Input-driven model of language acquisition. Speed of development is influenced by cue strength: Frequency of form-function association Reliability / consistency of form-function association Bates & MacWhinney, 1989; Tomasello, 2003

8. Method8 Data Three English-speaking children Longitudinal, spontaneous speech (CHILDES) Reference to persons and objects 2;0-3;3 every three months Input to each child analyzed at 2;3 and 3;3 Morphosyntactic and pragmatic coding Interrater-reliability pragmatic coding: 81%

9. Results9 ToM: indefinite vs. definite (1) Are children aged 2-3 sensitive to NMK vs. MK in introductions? Expected form-function combination in input: NMK: indefinite noun MK: definite / indefinite noun Expectation from the acquisition literature: Late acquisition of appropriate use of indefinites in NMK in narratives from pictures (over 6;0). Better performance in spontaneous speech. Hickmann, 2003; Roelofs, 1998

10. Results10 ToM: indefinite vs. definite (2) Input: infrequent, no form-function cue Children: growing sensitivity for NMK in use of indefinite Adult level: at 3;3 still error: use of definite N=1

11. 11 Example:definite for NMK *CHI:Lot a money! *LOI:Where'd you get it? *CHI:Downstairs. *LOI:From whom? *CHI:Huh. %int:rising *LOI:Who gave it to you? *CHI:The man. *LOI:What man? *CHI:Downstairs. Peter 2;9

12. Results12 ToM: noun vs. pronoun (1) Are children aged 2-3 sensitive to deixis vs. no deixis in introductions? Expected form-function combination in input: No deixis: nominal form Deixis: nominal or pronominal form Expectation from the acquisition literature: Cognitive basis present before two years-of-age. Encoded in language from three years-of-age. Brooks & Meltzoff, 2002; Matthews et al, 2006

13. 13 ToM: noun vs. pronoun (2) Input: infrequent (3%), form-function association consistent (no pronoun) Children: distinguish between form use in deictic vs. no deictic introductions. Adult level: restriction on use of pronouns in intro without deixis from 2;0

14. Results14 Discourse Are children aged 2-3 sensitive to (different degrees of) givenness of referents in discourse? Expected form-function combination input: Given:definite, no indefinite noun New:indefinite or definite noun Maintenance:pronominal form Expectation from the acquisition literature: Cognitive basis present before two years-of-age. Sensitivity in use of (zero) pronouns around 2;0. Sperber & Wilson, 1995; Tomasello & Haberl, 2003; De Cat, 2004, Serratrice et al, 2004.

15. Results15 Example:maintenance & shift *CHI:You put it on the reindeer. %com:Nina wants her mother to put the mouse on the reindeer *MOT:I can't fit it on the reindeer. *MOT:He's too big. *MOT:He's going to fall off his back. Input to Nina at 2;3

16. Results16 Discourse: indefinite or other noun Input: frequent (85%) and form-function association consistent (no indefinite) Children: Significant differentiation in form use from 2;0 onwards. Adult level: at 2;9-3;3.

17. Results17 Discourse: noun or pronoun Input: frequent (23%), form-function association not so consistent (noun and pronoun) Children: developing sensitivity for use of pronouns in maintenance Adult level: from 3;0 onwards

18. Discussion18 Form-function cues from input Strong cue: –Discourse-given: frequent + cue consistent (no indefinite nouns) Weaker cues: –Discourse-new-no deixis: infrequent + cue consistent (no pronouns) –Discourse-given-maintenance: frequent + cue inconsistent (preference for pronoun, but nouns also used). No cue: –NMK: very infrequent + cue consistent (indefinite nouns)

19. Discussion19 Discussion (1) Conflicting results on the children’s sensitivity to pragmatic factors involved in form-function associations: Indefinite vs. definite determiner MK/NMK (ToM – no cue):  developing New/given (Disc -strong cue):  present by 2;0 Pronouns vs. nouns ± deixis (ToM - weaker cue):  present by 2;0 New/given (Disc - weaker cue):  developing

20. Discussion20 Relationship to cues in input: Correct prediction for nominal forms, i.e. form- function combination with strongest cue earlier acquired. No correct prediction for pronouns: low occurrence rate of introductions without deixis in input (3%)  how do children learn not to associate this function with pronouns? Other factors may play a role, for example association of pronouns with deicitic use of forms only. Discussion (2)

21. Discussion21 Conclusion Aspects of morphosyntax-pragmatics interface present from start of language acquisition…. Morphosyntax-pragmatics interface is acquired on a form-by form basis… Different aspects of this interface are acquired at different rates….. Sensitivity for these factors might be partly influenced by cue strength (i.e. frequency) in the input.

22. 22 More information Contact: m.i.rozendaal@uva.nl http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.i.rozendaal/ Downloadable (submitted) paper: “A cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of the pragmatics of indefinite and definite reference in two-year-olds”

23. 23 Literature (1) Ariel, M. (1996). Referring Expressions and the +/- Coreference Distinction. Reference and Referent Accessibility. T. Fretheim, Gundel, J.K. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 13-37. MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (eds), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brooks, R. & Meltzoff, A.N. (2002). The importance of eyes: How infants interpret adult looking behavior. Developmental Psychology 38, 958-66. Brown, G & Yule, G (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Cat, C. (2004). A fresh look at how young children encode new referents. International review of Applied Linguistics 42, 111-27. Gundel, J. K. (1996). Relevance theory meets the givenness hierarchy. Reference and Referent Accessibility. T. Fretheim, Gundel, J.K. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 141-153. Hickmann, M. (2003). Children's Discourse; Person, Space and Time across Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, N.J.,Lawrence Erlbaum.

24. 24 Literature (2) Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 403-22 Roelofs, M. (1998). Hoe bedoel je? De verwerving van pragmatische vaardigheden. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT. Rozendaal (in prep). The acquisition of the morpho-syntax and pragmatics of reference: A cross-linguistic perspective, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam Serratrice, L., Sorace, A. & Paoli, S. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 183- 205. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. Tomasello, M. & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12- and 18-month- olds know what is new for other persons. Developmental-Psychology. 39, 906- 12.

25. Discussion25 Related question…. Are form-function associations made by children related to the timing and speed of acquisition of a morphosyntactic form? Speed of determiner development differs across languages…. See next Figure….

26. Discussion26 Acquisition of determiners Differences between languages significant P<.001 Rozendaal & Baker (subm.)

27. Discussion27 Discussion (4) Form-function associations go hand in hand with age of determiner acquisition. French children make similar form-function associations as the Dutch and the English from the moment that they start to use determiners. More information on this topic…..