Cover not available
Part of
Semantics in Language Acquisition
Edited by Kristen Syrett and Sudha Arunachalam
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 24] 2018
► pp. 352–377

Chapter 15
The acquisition path of near-reflexivity

| University of Leeds
| University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Classical statue sentences (‘Ringo hit himself’ meaning ‘Ringo hit his statue’) are a long-standing puzzle for binding theories. We enrich the Partition theory (Schwarzschild, 1996) to allow semantic partitions (based on contextual contrasts) to explain acquisition experiments. The semantic partitions, in turn, correspond to a syntactic analysis of bimorphemic versus monomorphic reflexives. Only morphologically complex anaphors allow near-reflexive reference to a statue. Two experiments on the acquisition of near-reflexivity in Italian and English show that this innate interface is present very early. Results from yes/no questions-after-stories given to children 4;0–6;0 years (Italian: N = 29; English: N = 36) and adult controls (Italian: N = 30; English: N = 72) supported our prediction: English children allowed near-reflexivity with herself, Italian children blocked near-reflexivity with se.
Keywords: reflexivity, near-reflexivity, proxy, partitions, binding, clitics, anaphora, acquisition, Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Innate interfaces and theory within experimentation
  • 2.Metonymy, proxy readings and near-reflexives
    • 2.1Morphological constraints on near-reflexivity
    • 2.2The syntax and semantics of near-reflexivity
  • 3.Mapping reflexives to partitions
  • 4.The acquisition challenge
    • 4.1Homogeneous and heterogeneous partitions
  • 5.Experimental studies
    • 5.1Experiment 1: Near-reflexives in child Italian
    • 5.2Experiment 2: Pilot English data
    • 5.3Near-reflexives in English
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.24.15bru
References (35)
References
Andrews, A. D. (1990). Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In J. Maling & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 24: Modern Icelandic syntax. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., & Thornton, R. (1994). Distributivity and binding in child grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 165–171.Google Scholar
Baauw, S., Escobar, L., & Philip, W. (1997). A delay of Principle B effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock, & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Proceedings of the GALA 97 conference on language acquisition (pp. 16–21). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunetto, V. (2012). The pronoun interpretation problem in Italian complex predicates (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Clifton Jr., C. & Frazier, L. (2013). Partition if you must: Evidence for a no extra times principle. Discourse Processes, 50, 616–630.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 446–486.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C., Conway, L., Lillo-Martin, D., & Woodams, E. (1996). Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition, 5, 83–153.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2001). Reanalysing selbst. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 371–412.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1981). Reciprocal interpretation. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1, 97–117.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). On belief-contexts. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 53–93.Google Scholar
(1992). Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 10, 1–31.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In P. Beninc (Ed.), Dialect variation and the theory of grammar (pp. 85–103). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J., & Roeper, T. (1992). Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 89–125.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. (2008). The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 26, 833–876.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J. (2001). Condition R. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 123–140.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language (pp. 127–146). Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marelj, M., & Reuland, Eric. (2013). Clitic SE in Romance and Slavonic revisited. In I. Kor Chahine (Ed.), Current studies in Slavic linguistics (pp. 75–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. (1999). Reflexive clitics and the specifiers of vP. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 35, 137–160.Google Scholar
Pica, P., & Snyder, W. (1997). On the syntax and semantics of local anaphors in French and English. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays on modularity (pp. 235–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (1997). Logophoricity as orientation (Unpublished manuscript). Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. J. (2011). Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, E., & Winter, Y. (2009). Binding without identity: Towards a unified semantics for bound and exempt anaphors. In S. L. Devi & A. B. R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications (pp. 69–79). Berlin: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. (1996) Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.) OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in Semantics, 1996. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2014). Strict interface principles and the acquisition engine: From unlabeled to labeled and minimal modular contact. Language Sciences, 46, 115–132.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J., & Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (1998). The self as other: A minimalist approach to zich and zichzelf in Dutch. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 28, 359–373.Google Scholar
Safir, K. J. (2004). The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (1996). Pluralities: Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zesiger, P., Zesiger, L. C., Arabatzi, M., Baranzini, L., Cronel-Ohayon, S., Franck, J., Frauenfelder, U. H., Hamann, C., & Rizzi, L. (2010). The acquisition of pronouns by French children: A parallel study of production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 571–603.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, S., Avrutin, S., & Vasić, N. (2002). The syntax-discourse interface and the interpretation of pronominals by Dutch-speaking children. In S. Fish & A. H-J. Do (Eds.), BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 781–792). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, S., & Vlasveld, I. (2004). Reference to a ‘guise’ in child language. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), BUCLD 28: Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 681–688). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar