Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2014: 1.175
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.513
Rank 34 out of 171 in category Linguistics in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2014: 0.478
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2014: 1.198
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2014: 0.824

ERIH category 2011: INT1

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Pronoun co-referencing errors: Challenges for generativist and usage-based accounts

Danielle Matthews1 / Elena Lieven1 / Anna Theakston1 / Michael Tomasello1

1University of Manchester

Correspondence address: Danielle Matthews, Max Planck Child Study Centre, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, M13 9PL. UK. E-mail: 〈

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics. Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 599–626, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: 10.1515/COGL.2009.026, August 2009

Publication History

Received:
2007-12-11
Revised:
2008-07-14
Published Online:
2009-08-14

Abstract

This study tests accounts of co-reference errors whereby children allow “Mama Bear” and “her” to co-refer in sentences like “Mama Bear is washing her” (Chien and Wexler, Language Acquisition 1: 225–295, 1990). 63 children aged 4;6, 5;6 and 6;6 participated in a truth-value judgment task augmented with a sentence production component. There were three major finding: 1) contrary to predictions of most generativist accounts, children accepted co-reference even in cases of bound anaphora e.g., “Every girl is washing her” 2) contrary to Thornton and Wexler (Principle B, VP Ellipsis and Interpretation in Child Grammar, The MIT Press, 1999), errors did not appear to occur because children understood referring expressions to be denoting the same person in different guises 3) contrary to usage-based accounts, errors were less likely in sentences that contained lower as opposed to higher frequency verbs. Error rates also differed significantly according to pronoun type (“him”, “her”, “them”). These challenging results are discussed in terms of possible processing explanations.

Keywords:: language acquisition; anaphora; binding; pronouns; truth-value judgment task; frequency; quantifiers

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Elena Lieven and Silke Brandt
Infancia y Aprendizaje, 2011, Volume 34, Number 3, Page 281
[2]
Evan Kidd
Topics in Language Disorders, 2013, Volume 33, Number 3, Page 208
[3]
Juhani Järvikivi, Pirita Pyykkönen-Klauck, Sarah Schimke, Saveria Colonna, and Barbara Hemforth
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2014, Volume 29, Number 7, Page 877
[4]
Tiffany Morisseau, Catherine Davies, and Danielle Matthews
Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, Volume 59, Page 26
[5]
Petra Hendriks, Charlotte Koster, and John C.J. Hoeks
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2014, Volume 29, Number 4, Page 391
[6]
Whitney Boyle, Annukka K. Lindell, and Evan Kidd
Language Learning, 2013, Page no
[7]
Petra Hendriks and Charlotte Koster
Lingua, 2010, Volume 120, Number 8, Page 1887
[8]
CHRISTINA BERGMANN, MARKUS PAULUS, and PAULA FIKKERT
Journal of Child Language, 2012, Volume 39, Number 04, Page 777
[9]
Kaili Clackson, Claudia Felser, and Harald Clahsen
Journal of Memory and Language, 2011, Volume 65, Number 2, Page 128
[10]
JACOLIEN VAN RIJ, HEDDERIK VAN RIJN, and PETRA HENDRIKS
Journal of Child Language, 2010, Volume 37, Number 03, Page 731

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.