The acquisition of the morphosyntax and pragmatics of reference Evidence from the use of indefinite

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

2. Introduction 2 Introduction 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! Reference is crucial in language acquisition, because it is the way to make clear about which person or object you are talking. Children must acquire the relevant morphosyntactic forms (determiners, pronouns) and the pragmatic discourse conditions under which these forms can be used. Example (1) & 2: Child must learn that different forms can refer to the same referent A cat ? indicates that the referent is new in discourse (and new to the listener) It in second part ? referent is already given in discourse and active in memory That: Object of reference is present in the environment, attract attention by pointing ? use demonstrative pronoun is grammatical. The cat: identify the referent Reference is crucial in language acquisition, because it is the way to make clear about which person or object you are talking. Children must acquire the relevant morphosyntactic forms (determiners, pronouns) and the pragmatic discourse conditions under which these forms can be used. Example (1) & 2: Child must learn that different forms can refer to the same referent A cat ? indicates that the referent is new in discourse (and new to the listener) It in second part ? referent is already given in discourse and active in memory That: Object of reference is present in the environment, attract attention by pointing ? use demonstrative pronoun is grammatical. The cat: identify the referent

3. Introduction 3 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 No videorecordings available Extra-linguistic information Reactions of interlocutors are used to evaluate whether a referent is present / absent in the physical context. Coding to the advantage of the child No videorecordings available Extra-linguistic information Reactions of interlocutors are used to evaluate whether a referent is present / absent in the physical context. Coding to the advantage of the child

5. Research Questions 5 Main Questions How do children use morphosyntactic forms with respect to different pragmatic factors when they are in the process of acquiring these forms? What is the influence of the language the children hear around them on the acquisition of the morphosyntax-pragmatics interface of reference? The main questions that I want to focus on are�.. 1) How do children use morphosyntactic forms with respect to different pragmatic factors when they are in the process of acquiring the forms? 2) What is the influence of the language the children hear around them on the acquisition of the morphosyntax-pragmatics interface of reference? I will try to answer these questions with respect to four oppositions from the outline of the pragmatics of references I have just shown you�..The main questions that I want to focus on are�.. 1) How do children use morphosyntactic forms with respect to different pragmatic factors when they are in the process of acquiring the forms? 2) What is the influence of the language the children hear around them on the acquisition of the morphosyntax-pragmatics interface of reference? I will try to answer these questions with respect to four oppositions from the outline of the pragmatics of references I have just shown you�..

6. 6 Pragmatics of Reference First of all, morphosyntactically I will focus on the use of indefinite vs definite determiners and nouns vs. pronouns. On the pragmatic side, I will investigate if children are sensitive to: 1) The previous discourse in the use of these forms With respect to indefinite vs definite nouns this will be investigated for discourse-given vs discourse-new referents With respect to nouns vs pronouns this will be investigated for referent maintenance vs referent shift I also investigate if children are sensitive to: 2) The perspective of the listener in their use of indefinite vs. definite determiners and nouns vs. pronouns. This is part of ToM and that�s why it is abbreviated as ToM here: - For indefinite vs definite this is investigated for MK vs NMK-introductions For nouns vs pronouns I will look at the use of these forms in deicitic vs non-deictic introductions. We get a nice dichotomy here: for both factors (discourse and ToM) we will investigate if children differentiate their use of indefinite vs definite nouns and nouns vs pronouns�First of all, morphosyntactically I will focus on the use of indefinite vs definite determiners and nouns vs. pronouns. On the pragmatic side, I will investigate if children are sensitive to: 1) The previous discourse in the use of these forms With respect to indefinite vs definite nouns this will be investigated for discourse-given vs discourse-new referents With respect to nouns vs pronouns this will be investigated for referent maintenance vs referent shift I also investigate if children are sensitive to: 2) The perspective of the listener in their use of indefinite vs. definite determiners and nouns vs. pronouns. This is part of ToM and that�s why it is abbreviated as ToM here: - For indefinite vs definite this is investigated for MK vs NMK-introductions For nouns vs pronouns I will look at the use of these forms in deicitic vs non-deictic introductions. We get a nice dichotomy here: for both factors (discourse and ToM) we will investigate if children differentiate their use of indefinite vs definite nouns and nouns vs pronouns�

7. Research Questions 7 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 Question 2 relates to the influence of the input. Language acquisition theories that attribute relevance to the input, such as Tomasello�s theory, assume that the speed of language development is influenced by cues in the input. Factors that are relavant here are: Frequency: The more frequent in input, the more easily learned Consistency: the more consistent in input, the more easily learned influences (speed of) development. The input has been proven of influence in the acquisition of lexicon and syntax�.. It has not yet been investigated for the morphosyntax-pragmatics interface, so that is what I will do here I will try to answer this question the whole presentation. Question 2 relates to the influence of the input. Language acquisition theories that attribute relevance to the input, such as Tomasello�s theory, assume that the speed of language development is influenced by cues in the input. Factors that are relavant here are: Frequency: The more frequent in input, the more easily learned Consistency: the more consistent in input, the more easily learned influences (speed of) development. The input has been proven of influence in the acquisition of lexicon and syntax�.. It has not yet been investigated for the morphosyntax-pragmatics interface, so that is what I will do here I will try to answer this question the whole presentation.

8. Method 8 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 I used spontaneous speech of three children from the CHILDES-database between the ages of 2;0-3;3. References to persons and objects were analysed every three months. Longitudinal data will give the opportunity to track if there is development in the sensitivity to the pragmatic factors in the children�s use of morphosyntactic forms MLU within normal range, children combined. MLU: compared to MLU of larger group of children of same age: all within normal range I also analysed a smaller amount of input data from caretakers interacting with the child to examine the evidence children get on how to combine forms with functions Average 250 references per child per age point Input : Utterances: 5400, 2746 references I used spontaneous speech of three children from the CHILDES-database between the ages of 2;0-3;3. References to persons and objects were analysed every three months. Longitudinal data will give the opportunity to track if there is development in the sensitivity to the pragmatic factors in the children�s use of morphosyntactic forms MLU within normal range, children combined. MLU: compared to MLU of larger group of children of same age: all within normal range I also analysed a smaller amount of input data from caretakers interacting with the child to examine the evidence children get on how to combine forms with functions Average 250 references per child per age point Input : Utterances: 5400, 2746 references

9. Results 9 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. Children have to take account of the perspective of the listener here. This is part of ToM. A full ToM is acquired after 4;0. This explains findings from previous literature that children experience difficulties with the use of determiners for MK/NMK. However, they perform better in spontaneous speech than in narrativesChildren have to take account of the perspective of the listener here. This is part of ToM. A full ToM is acquired after 4;0. This explains findings from previous literature that children experience difficulties with the use of determiners for MK/NMK. However, they perform better in spontaneous speech than in narratives

10. Results 10 ToM: indefinite vs. definite (2) Data pooled per three age-points due to low numbers of NMK references (3% in child data) N-other ? grammatical and ungrammatical bare nouns, genitive, possessive, numeral. Only to make up the numbers here. Focus is definite/demonstrative vs indefinite First, what type of nominal form do the parents and children use to introduce something that is mutually known between them? the adults prefer to use definites and also some indefinites. The children use similar amounts of indefinites as the adults. Fewer definites, but that is because they still use a lot of bare nouns. The next question is, do children and adults use the nominal forms differently for NMK? That is do they distinguish between the two conditions? At 2;0-2;6, the children don�t, but at 2;9-3;3 they do. They use more indefinites in NMK. This is significant. The parents, hardly use NMK-references when talking to their children! Thus, to conclude�. MK Input: 55% definite, 13% indefinite, 31% other Children: 25%-35% definite, 15% indefinite, 50%-60% other forms NMK: Children: 2;0-2;6, 20% indefinite. 2;9-3;3, 32% indefinite Difference in form function use between MK and NMK significant at 2;9-3;3 (p<.001). More indefinites in NMK Input: no cue Within category of NMK: no significant difference between form-function distribution at 2;0-2;6 and 2;9-3;3 (p=.415). Data pooled per three age-points due to low numbers of NMK references (3% in child data) N-other ? grammatical and ungrammatical bare nouns, genitive, possessive, numeral. Only to make up the numbers here. Focus is definite/demonstrative vs indefinite First, what type of nominal form do the parents and children use to introduce something that is mutually known between them? the adults prefer to use definites and also some indefinites. The children use similar amounts of indefinites as the adults. Fewer definites, but that is because they still use a lot of bare nouns. The next question is, do children and adults use the nominal forms differently for NMK? That is do they distinguish between the two conditions? At 2;0-2;6, the children don�t, but at 2;9-3;3 they do. They use more indefinites in NMK. This is significant. The parents, hardly use NMK-references when talking to their children! Thus, to conclude�. MK Input: 55% definite, 13% indefinite, 31% other Children: 25%-35% definite, 15% indefinite, 50%-60% other forms NMK: Children: 2;0-2;6, 20% indefinite. 2;9-3;3, 32% indefinite Difference in form function use between MK and NMK significant at 2;9-3;3 (p<.001). More indefinites in NMK Input: no cue Within category of NMK: no significant difference between form-function distribution at 2;0-2;6 and 2;9-3;3 (p=.415).

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. From Peter 2;9 (English)From Peter 2;9 (English)

12. Results 12 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. Deixis vs. no deixis ? taking account of the perspective of other�s, ToM Between twelve and eighteen-month-old children are also able to distinguish between whether an adults sees or does not see an object. That is, in an experiment by Brooks & Meltzoff (2002), children more followed the adults gaze if the adult turned and had open versus closed eyes. In language, Matthews has found that in an experimental situation, 2-yr olds, but not 3 and 4 yr olds have difficulties to take the listener�s perspective into account in choosing a noun vs. a pronoun when the listener can�t see (but the child can�..) Deixis vs. no deixis ? taking account of the perspective of other�s, ToM Between twelve and eighteen-month-old children are also able to distinguish between whether an adults sees or does not see an object. That is, in an experiment by Brooks & Meltzoff (2002), children more followed the adults gaze if the adult turned and had open versus closed eyes. In language, Matthews has found that in an experimental situation, 2-yr olds, but not 3 and 4 yr olds have difficulties to take the listener�s perspective into account in choosing a noun vs. a pronoun when the listener can�t see (but the child can�..)

13. 13 ToM: noun vs. pronoun (2) First, what type of form, that is a noun or a pronouns do the parents and children use to introduce something that is perceptually available? As you can see, the adults prefer a nominal form for introductions, as do the children, but the kids use more pronouns than the adults The question is, do they use these forms differently if there is no deixis possible? In these situations a pronoun would be unclear! Both the parents and children hardly use pronouns. There are significant differences between the use of forms in +dexis and � deixis for all age-groups. Moreover, the differences between adults and children are not-significant in the no-deixis situation. Thus to conclude� Deixis: Adults: 24% pronouns, Children: 40% pronouns (no development) No deixis Adults: 4% pronouns, Children 10% (21/123) � 7% (15/215) Difference deixis-no deixis: Adults: X2, p<0.001. C=.43 Due to more pronouns in exp, more indefinite and proper names in end Children: 2;0-2;6 X2, p<.001, C= 0.46. Due to more pronouns in EXP, more proper names in end Children: 2;0-2;6 X2, p<.001, C= 0.46. Due to more pronouns in exp, more indefinite and proper names in end Difference input-child Deixis: yes (X2, p<.001, C=0.22), children more pronouns fewer Ndefdem No deixis: no (p=.057), ndefdem and Nother major contributors, not pronouns First, what type of form, that is a noun or a pronouns do the parents and children use to introduce something that is perceptually available? As you can see, the adults prefer a nominal form for introductions, as do the children, but the kids use more pronouns than the adults The question is, do they use these forms differently if there is no deixis possible? In these situations a pronoun would be unclear! Both the parents and children hardly use pronouns. There are significant differences between the use of forms in +dexis and � deixis for all age-groups. Moreover, the differences between adults and children are not-significant in the no-deixis situation. Thus to conclude� Deixis: Adults: 24% pronouns, Children: 40% pronouns (no development) No deixis Adults: 4% pronouns, Children 10% (21/123) � 7% (15/215) Difference deixis-no deixis: Adults: X2, p<0.001. C=.43 Due to more pronouns in exp, more indefinite and proper names in end Children: 2;0-2;6 X2, p<.001, C= 0.46. Due to more pronouns in EXP, more proper names in end Children: 2;0-2;6 X2, p<.001, C= 0.46. Due to more pronouns in exp, more indefinite and proper names in end Difference input-child Deixis: yes (X2, p<.001, C=0.22), children more pronouns fewer Ndefdem No deixis: no (p=.057), ndefdem and Nother major contributors, not pronouns

14. Results 14 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. Different degrees of givenness investigated New vs given. If something is given and indefinite cannot be used In referent maintenance, which is more �given� than shift, a pronoun is expected Cognitive basis: distinction between what�s new/given to the child itself and other�s present around 12-18 mos. (Tomasello & Haberl (2003) found that when an adult excitedly asked the child to hand her one of three objects, twelve and eighteen-month-old infants were more likely to hand an object that was new to the experimenter than one with which they had played with together before.) Language: Serratrice et al have found that in Italian & English subjects and objects are more often dropped when the referent has been mentioned before. De Cat (2004) found that definites hardly occur in focus position and that indefinites hardly occur in (dislocated) topic position while. (restrictions) Different degrees of givenness investigated New vs given. If something is given and indefinite cannot be used In referent maintenance, which is more �given� than shift, a pronoun is expected Cognitive basis: distinction between what�s new/given to the child itself and other�s present around 12-18 mos. (Tomasello & Haberl (2003) found that when an adult excitedly asked the child to hand her one of three objects, twelve and eighteen-month-old infants were more likely to hand an object that was new to the experimenter than one with which they had played with together before.) Language: Serratrice et al have found that in Italian & English subjects and objects are more often dropped when the referent has been mentioned before. De Cat (2004) found that definites hardly occur in focus position and that indefinites hardly occur in (dislocated) topic position while. (restrictions)

15. Results 15 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. From Input to Nina 2;3 (English) Use of definite (no indefinite) in case of discourse-given-shift. Use of pronoun (no noun) in case of discourse-given-maintenance.From Input to Nina 2;3 (English) Use of definite (no indefinite) in case of discourse-given-shift. Use of pronoun (no noun) in case of discourse-given-maintenance.

16. Results 16 Discourse: indefinite or other noun The first graph shows the nominal forms used for referents that are discourse-new. As you can see Both adults and children use indefinites but also many other nominal forms. There are no differences between adults and children in the use of indefinites for discourse-new. Do these groups use indefinites differently if the referent is already given in discourse, which would be incorrect? Yes they do, for all age-groups, indefinites are hardly used for discourse-given. The differences between the use of indefinites for new vs. given referents are significant. Furthermore, the children are at an adult level of restricting their use of indefinites for discourse-new at 2;9. Adults: Significantly more indefinites in discourse-new, hardly in discourse given (4%) X2, P<.001 Children: Significantly more indefinites in discourse-new at both age-points X2, P<.01 a 2;0-2;6 and p<.001 at 2;0-3;3 Adult vs children: No significant difference in use of indefinites for discourse-new at 2;0-2;6 (p=.65) nor at 2;9-3;3 (p=.49) No significant difference in use of indefinites for discourse-given at 2;9-3;3 (p=.56). There is at 2;0-2;6 (p=.006) ? fillers The first graph shows the nominal forms used for referents that are discourse-new. As you can see Both adults and children use indefinites but also many other nominal forms. There are no differences between adults and children in the use of indefinites for discourse-new. Do these groups use indefinites differently if the referent is already given in discourse, which would be incorrect? Yes they do, for all age-groups, indefinites are hardly used for discourse-given. The differences between the use of indefinites for new vs. given referents are significant. Furthermore, the children are at an adult level of restricting their use of indefinites for discourse-new at 2;9. Adults: Significantly more indefinites in discourse-new, hardly in discourse given (4%) X2, P<.001 Children: Significantly more indefinites in discourse-new at both age-points X2, P<.01 a 2;0-2;6 and p<.001 at 2;0-3;3 Adult vs children: No significant difference in use of indefinites for discourse-new at 2;0-2;6 (p=.65) nor at 2;9-3;3 (p=.49) No significant difference in use of indefinites for discourse-given at 2;9-3;3 (p=.56). There is at 2;0-2;6 (p=.006) ? fillers

17. Results 17 Discourse: noun or pronoun This graph shows the use of pronouns vs. nouns in referent maintenance. All ages are given separately here, since clear development of age�. Although the children have pronouns in their reportoire at 2;0, at first they do not always use them where one would do in the adult language, that is, for maintenance. At 2;0 2;3 and 2;6 in 40%-60% of the cases nouns are used for maintenance Pragmatic discourse function of pronouns in givenness is thus acquired gradually NB: % of pronouns similar in the input at 2;3 and 3;3! X2=4.28, p=..23. The parents do not adjust their use of pronouns vs. Nouns in maintenance to the linguistic level of the children. This graph shows the use of pronouns vs. nouns in referent maintenance. All ages are given separately here, since clear development of age�. Although the children have pronouns in their reportoire at 2;0, at first they do not always use them where one would do in the adult language, that is, for maintenance. At 2;0 2;3 and 2;6 in 40%-60% of the cases nouns are used for maintenance Pragmatic discourse function of pronouns in givenness is thus acquired gradually NB: % of pronouns similar in the input at 2;3 and 3;3! X2=4.28, p=..23. The parents do not adjust their use of pronouns vs. Nouns in maintenance to the linguistic level of the children.

18. Discussion 18 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) Discourse-given: no indefinites used in input and pragmatic function is frequent (85%) Discourse-new-no deixis: no pronouns used in input, however, function not so frequent (3%) Maintenance: preference for pronoun in input, but noun also used (20%) NMK: hardly used in input, no cueDiscourse-given: no indefinites used in input and pragmatic function is frequent (85%) Discourse-new-no deixis: no pronouns used in input, however, function not so frequent (3%) Maintenance: preference for pronoun in input, but noun also used (20%) NMK: hardly used in input, no cue

19. Discussion 19 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 The factors that have to do with ToM: Developing for determiners, but�. Present for pronouns? Or strong connection with only deictic use of pronouns? V-a-v results Matthews, who found that children do use pronouns if they can seen themselves, but the interlocutor can�t�.. New/given: reverse pattern Present for determiners and�. Developping for pronouns? The factors that have to do with ToM: Developing for determiners, but�. Present for pronouns? Or strong connection with only deictic use of pronouns? V-a-v results Matthews, who found that children do use pronouns if they can seen themselves, but the interlocutor can�t�.. New/given: reverse pattern Present for determiners and�. Developping for pronouns?

20. Discussion 20 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) Cues: Correct prediction for nominal/determiner forms. The cue not to use an indefinite for given referents is strong since the parents hardly ever use this form as such and the pragmatic function of discourse-given is frequent. The children have acquired this by 2;0. On the other hand, NMK is infrequent, the children acquire this much later For pronominal forms, the children seem to have acquired the restrictions on pronoun use for deictic situations only very early, even though this function is infrequent. More errors expected for deixis, given the low occurance rate (3%)?. ? Other factors may play a role here?? Connection of pronouns with deixis only used if the child can point to something herself??? The frequent but not so consistent cue of using pronouns for maintenance is in accordance with the developmental pattern found. Cues: Correct prediction for nominal/determiner forms. The cue not to use an indefinite for given referents is strong since the parents hardly ever use this form as such and the pragmatic function of discourse-given is frequent. The children have acquired this by 2;0. On the other hand, NMK is infrequent, the children acquire this much later For pronominal forms, the children seem to have acquired the restrictions on pronoun use for deictic situations only very early, even though this function is infrequent. More errors expected for deixis, given the low occurance rate (3%)?. ? Other factors may play a role here?? Connection of pronouns with deixis only used if the child can point to something herself??? The frequent but not so consistent cue of using pronouns for maintenance is in accordance with the developmental pattern found.

21. Discussion 21 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 . Nouns: form-function combination on the basis of: Discourse pragmatics (specificity � given vs new)! Not on the basis of ToM (high error rate) Pronouns: form-function combinations on the basis of: Visibility to the child (deixis) Between 2;0 and 3;3, discourse pragmatics is acquired for the application of pronouns Not on the basis of ToM (because errors do occur) ? different developmental paths for pronouns and determiners. ? Different aspects acquired at different rates (discourse pragmatics before ToM-pragmatics) Pragmatics already influences frequency of production in two year olds. Theories of LA should take this into account!! Also important in LA-research. Frequency of form can be influenced by discourse situation!Nouns: form-function combination on the basis of: Discourse pragmatics (specificity � given vs new)! Not on the basis of ToM (high error rate) Pronouns: form-function combinations on the basis of: Visibility to the child (deixis) Between 2;0 and 3;3, discourse pragmatics is acquired for the application of pronouns Not on the basis of ToM (because errors do occur) ? different developmental paths for pronouns and determiners. ? Different aspects acquired at different rates (discourse pragmatics before ToM-pragmatics) Pragmatics already influences frequency of production in two year olds. Theories of LA should take this into account!! Also important in LA-research. Frequency of form can be influenced by discourse situation!

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. Discussion 25 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. Discussion 26 Acquisition of determiners The French children use determiners and fillers significantly more frequently than the Dutch children at all ages investigated (?2, p<.001, C>.29<.55) and more frequently than the English children at all ages, except 2;0 (?2, p<.001, C>.12<.39). The English children use determiners significantly more frequently than the Dutch children at almost all ages except 2;9 (p<.001, C>.10<.42). Differences related to frequency of bare nouns in input + preferred metrical pattern and morphosyntaxtic properties of language?? The French children use determiners and fillers significantly more frequently than the Dutch children at all ages investigated (?2, p<.001, C>.29<.55) and more frequently than the English children at all ages, except 2;0 (?2, p<.001, C>.12<.39). The English children use determiners significantly more frequently than the Dutch children at almost all ages except 2;9 (p<.001, C>.10<.42). Differences related to frequency of bare nouns in input + preferred metrical pattern and morphosyntaxtic properties of language??

27. Discussion 27 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�.. Nouns: form-function combination on the basis of: Discourse pragmatics (specificity � given vs new)! Not on the basis of ToM (high error rate) Pronouns: form-function combinations on the basis of: Visibility to the child (deixis) Between 2;0 and 3;3, discourse pragmatics is acquired for the application of pronouns Not on the basis of ToM (because errors do occur) ? different developmental paths for pronouns and determiners. ? Different aspects acquired at different rates (discourse pragmatics before ToM-pragmatics) Pragmatics already influences frequency of production in two year olds. Theories of LA should take this into account!! Also important in LA-research. Frequency of form can be influenced by discourse situation!Nouns: form-function combination on the basis of: Discourse pragmatics (specificity � given vs new)! Not on the basis of ToM (high error rate) Pronouns: form-function combinations on the basis of: Visibility to the child (deixis) Between 2;0 and 3;3, discourse pragmatics is acquired for the application of pronouns Not on the basis of ToM (because errors do occur) ? different developmental paths for pronouns and determiners. ? Different aspects acquired at different rates (discourse pragmatics before ToM-pragmatics) Pragmatics already influences frequency of production in two year olds. Theories of LA should take this into account!! Also important in LA-research. Frequency of form can be influenced by discourse situation!