Principle B and Phonologically
Reduced Pronouns in Child English
Jeremy Hartman
Yasutada Sudo
Ken Wexler
Outline
• Background: Delay of Principle B
– Referential vs. Quantificational antecedents
– Full vs. Clitic Pronouns
• New study and results
• Discussion and implications
Principle B
• Principle B: Pronouns cannot be bound (= coindexed with and c-commanded) by a local
antecedent.
• Responsible for ruling out sentences like:
(1) Billi is washing himi.
• Do kids have knowledge of this principle?
Background: Delay of Principle B
• Many studies have found that young children
allow a co-referent interpretation:
(1)
Billi is washing himi.
• Adults: reject
• Kids (~ 3;0 – 6;0): often accept!
Example: Chien & Wexler (1990)
Example: Chien & Wexler (1990)
• Adults: ~0% acceptance
• Children 5;0-6;0: 51% acceptance
Other studies reporting
Principle B Delay:
• English: Wexler & Chien 1985, Solan 1987,
Grimshaw & Rosen 1990, McKee 1992,
Matsuoka 1997
• Dutch: Deutsch, Koster, & Koster 1986, Philip
& Coopmans 1996.
• Icelandic: Sigurjónsdóttir & Hyams 1992
• Russian: Avrutin & Wexler 1992
• Brazilian Portuguese: Grolla 2005
So far…

Basic Delay of Principle B Effect
☐ Quantificational antecedents
☐ Clitic pronoun effect
☐ New study and results
☐ Discussion and implications
Referential vs. Quantificational
Antecedents
“John washed him”
vs. “Every boy washed him”
Two Routes to Co-reference
• Reinhart (1983): co-reference could in
principle be produced in 2 different ways:
• Variable-binding under co-indexation:
(a) Johnj washed himj.
• ‘Accidental co-reference’:
(b) Johnj washed himk.
[k
John]
Two Routes to Co-reference
Variable-binding:
(a) Johnj washed himj.
Accidental co-reference:
(b) Johnj washed himk.
[ill-formed for children and adults]
[disallowed by adults]
[allowed by children!]
• Chien and Wexler: in the adult grammar, accidental coreference is ruled out by an independent principle:
• “Principle P”: No co-reference without co-indexation!
No “accidental co-reference” with
quantificational antecedents
Referential antecedent:
Johnj washed himk.
Accidental co-reference possible, if “him” refers
to John.
Quantificational antecedent:
Every boy washed himk.
Accidental co-reference impossible, since “him”
cannot refer to “every boy”.
Predictions
• Children should allow non-adultlike anaphoric
interpretation whenever accidental co-reference
is available.
• With quantificational antecedents, accidental coreference is unavailable.
• Crucial prediction: children should reject the
anaphoric interpretation when the antecedent is
quantificational.
Example: Chien & Wexler (1990)
Example: Chien & Wexler (1990)
Adults: ~0% acceptance
Children 5-6: 51% acceptance
Adults: ~0% acceptance
Children 5-6: 16% acceptance
So far…

Basic Delay of Principle B Effect
 Quantificational antecedents
☐ Clitic Pronoun effect
☐ Conroy et al.’s (2009) challenge
☐ New study, results, and discussion
Clitic Pronoun Effect
Clitic pronoun effect
• With clitic pronouns children correctly reject
co-reference.
E.g., Italian (Io) l’amo (“I like him”)
• Baauw, Escobar, & Philip (1997): Spanish, 10%
acceptance.
• Hamann, Kowalski & Philip (1997): French,
22% (3-4 y.o.); 0% acceptance (5 y.o.)
• McKee (1992): Italian 15% acceptance.
Accounting for the clitic effect
• Why should children give adult-like responses
with clitic pronouns?
• Recall: kids give adult-like responses when
accidental co-reference is unavailable (e.g.,
with quantificational antecedents.)
• We want to show that accidental co-reference
is unavailable for clitic pronouns…
Accounting for the clitic effect
• Avrutin & Wexler (1992): Accidental coreference is unavailable with clitic pronouns,
because clitics are “referentially dependent”
-- they can’t be deictic.
• E.g., Italian:
# (Io) l’amo. (I like him)
[pointing to a person]
Clitic pronouns in English?
• English has ‘m, a reduced form of him and
them, that also displays referential
dependence.
a) ✓ Johnj knows that I like ‘mj
b) Who do you like? # I like ‘m.
[pointing to a person]
• In fact, ‘m has often been suggested as a clitic
pronoun (Nevis et al. 1994, Spencer 1991)
Accounting for the clitic effect
• Children know this property of clitic pronouns:
they must be co-indexed with a discourse
antecedent.
– Children know to use clitics in referentially
dependent contexts (Schaeffer 2000)
• Accidental co-reference is impossible for clitic
pronouns, since they are referentially dependent.
• The only route to the anaphoric interpretation
would be via co-indexation with the antecedent
–ruled out by Principle B.
Summary
• Children appear to violate Principle B
whenever accidental co-reference is available.
• 2 cases where accidental co-reference is
unavailable:
– Quantificational antecedents
– Clitic pronouns
• Kids give adult-like responses (i.e., reject coreference) in both of these cases!
So far…

Basic Delay of Principle B Effect
 Quantificational antecedents
 Clitic Pronoun effect
☐ New study, results, and discussion
The Current Study
Motivations for our study
• Can the clitic pronoun effect be demonstrated
in English, using the reduced pronoun ‘m?
• Our experimental design took into account a
recent methodological critique (Conroy et al.
2009) of previous studies.
• Conroy et al.’s claim: with a more
sophisticated story, the DPBE disappears.
Conroy et al.: Results
• 16 subjects, 4;0 – 5;6
• Children accepted the anaphoric interpretation in
11% (7/64) of referential trials and in 14% (9/64)
of quantificational trials.
• No Delay of Principle B effect!
(and no Quantificational Asymmetry)
Conroy et al.’s Conclusion:
• Delay of Principle B effect was a
methodological artifact of previous studies.
• With improved stories:
– Kids give adultlike performance not only with
quantificational antecedents….
– But also with referential antecedents as well.
Experimental Design
•
•
•
•
2 conditions: full pronoun, reduced pronoun.
Truth-value judgment task
Experimenters act out story.
Puppet (Cookie Monster) makes a statement
about the story: “I think…”
• Child’s task is to reward or correct Cookie
Monster based on accuracy of his statement.
Experimental Design
• Experimental materials: 4 stories, (near)
replicas of Conroy et al.’s scripts
• Each subject sees each story twice:
– once paired with a ‘full-pronoun’ test sentence
(e.g., “I think… Cow washed him”)
– once paired with a ‘reduced-pronoun’ test
sentence (e.g., “I think… Cow washed‘m”)
Sample item (reduced condition)
Experimental Design
• Target items interspersed with an equal
number of filler items.
• Filler items used names in place of pronouns
(e.g., “I think… Cow washed Horse”)
• Filler items assigned dynamically, to balance
the sequences of True and False sentences.
Experimental Design
• Children tested over two ~20-min sessions
consisting of 8 stories each (4 target, 4 filler).
• In a given session, a subject heard either all
full-pronoun or all reduced-pronoun items.
• Full and reduced conditions for each subject
are tested at least 1 week apart.
• Subjects randomly assigned to hear either the
full-pronoun condition or the reducedpronoun condition in their first session.
Results
• Data from 18 subjects analyzed
• Ages 3;10 – 5;10, mean: ~4;11
• Subjects not included in analysis if they got
more than 2 filler items wrong
– (Conroy et al.’s criterion)
Results
100%
80.6%
%Correct
80%
60%
52.8%
40%
20%
0%
FULL
REDUCED
The difference is statistically significant
(Wilcoxson signed rank test: W=387.5, Z=3.65 p<0.001).
Discussion
• 47.2% acceptance of anaphoric interpretation
for full pronouns.
Cf. Chien and Wexler 1990 (51%), Thornton &
Wexler 1999 (58%); McDaniel & Maxfield 1992
(41%), Boster 1991 (38%)
• 19.4% acceptance of anaphoric interpretation
for reduced pronouns.
Cf. Romance clitic figures of ~8-15%; Conroy et al’s
figure of 11%.)
Discussion
• Novel results important in two ways:
– Demonstration that the clitic pronoun effect
extends to English reduced pronouns.
– DPBE is a real effect, once we control for full
vs. reduced pronouns.
• Question: could reduced pronouns have
contributed to Conroy et al.’s (2009) adultlike
results?
Reduced Pronouns in Conroy et al.
• We reviewed sample videos of Conroy et al.,
found that most items clearly use the reduced
form of the pronoun him: (‘m).
• Given that children give more adult-like
responses with clitic pronouns in other
languages…
• … it’s possible that Conroy et al.’s result was
caused in part by the reduced pronouns.
Comparison of present and past
results
Sophisticated
story?
Reduced
pronouns?
% acceptance of
anaphoric interpr.
Conroy et al. (2009)
YES
YES
11%
Chien & Wexler (1990)
NO
NO
51%
Current study (full condition)
YES
NO
47.2%
• Verdict: Conroy et al.’s adult-like responses (i.e., low
acceptance of anaphoric interpretation) might have been
caused in large part by their use of reduced pronouns.
Summary
• Clitic pronoun effect demonstrated for English
reduced pronouns.
• In full condition, kids exhibited DPBE even
when using Conroy et al.’s methodology.
Thanks
– Irene Heim, Martin Hackl, Masha Polinsky
– Heather Acuff, Emily Chen, Eugenia Luo,
Stephanie Gall, Shaun Hallee
Support from ellipsis
Two possible representations for the antecedent VP:
Johnk λx.x loves hisx mother…
[variable binding]
Johnk λx.x loves hisk mother…
[accidental co-reference]
Two different interpretations for the elided VP:
…and Bill does <λx.x love hisx mother>, too.
[‘strict’]
…and Bill does <λx.x love hisk mother>, too.
[‘sloppy’]
Conroy et al.: Results
• 2nd experiment confirmed kids allow bound
interpretation when Pr. B is not an issue
(“Grumpy/Every dwarf painted his costume”)
• Kids accept bound interpretation in 80%
(51/64) of referential trials and 73% (47/64) of
quantificational trials.
Conroy et al.: Results
• 3rd experiment used a version of Thornton &
Wexler’s (1999) old story, and replicated T&W’s
result.
– Kids accept anaphoric interpretation in 56% (36/64) of
referential trials, but in only 16% (10/64) of
quantificational trials.
• Note: Conroy et al. require kids to justify
responses. If explanation of “no” answer does
not “refer to the falsification event” they score as
“yes”
Conroy et al.’s Experiment 3
• Remaining question: Conroy et al.’s Expt. 3
– Why were they able to replicate the Thornton &
Wexler result just by changing the stories?
• We don’t have recordings for Expt 3. We
don’t know whether they used full or reduced
pronouns, or a mix.
• Many adultlike (“no”) responses were scored
as “yes” because kids failed to “refer to the
falsification event” in their explanation.
Conroy et al’s Main Expt (1):
Lead-ins contain deictic referent
• Referential item: OK, this was a story about
painting. Hiking Smurf didn’t have any paint,
and Grumpy almost didn’t go to the party. Let
me see . . . I think . . . Grumpy painted him.
• Quantificational item: OK, this was a story
about painting. Hiking Smurf didn’t have any
paint, and all the dwarves looked great. Let
me see . . . I think . . . Every dwarf painted
him.
Conroy et al.’s Experiment 3:
Lead-ins don’t contain deictic referent
• Puppet’s referential lead-in + item:
– This was a story about dwarves and Hiking Smurf.
Hiking Smurf painted him.
• Puppet’s quantificational lead-in + item:
– This was a story about dwarves and Hiking Smurf.
Every dwarf painted him.
Another example:
Thornton & Wexler (1999)
Bert and three reindeer friends have a snowball fight, and they all get
covered in snow. When they go inside, Bert is shivering, so he asks the
reindeer to brush the snow off him. Two of the reindeer (separately)
refuse, saying they have too much snow to deal with, and they brush
themselves. The third reindeer helps Bert a little bit, but then brushes
the snow off of himself. Bert thanks the helpful reindeer for starting to
brush him. He says he’s sorry he can’t reciprocate by helping brush the
helpful reindeer; he needs to finish brushing all the snow off of himself
because he’s still very cold.
(Thornton and Wexler 1999:142)
R1
R2
R3
B
Thornton & Wexler (1999): Results
R1
R2
R3
• Referential condition
“I think Bert brushed him.”
-Kids accept in 58% of trials
• Quantificational condition
“I think every reindeer brushed him.”
-Kids accept in 8% of trials
B
Competing explanations of the
clitic pronoun effect
• McKee (1992): Clitic pronoun effect is due to
the structural position of clitic pronouns (e.g.,
I like him vs. Italian Io l’amo)
• Avrutin & Wexler (1992): The effect is due to
the referential dependence of clitic pronouns
• Our results support the second explanation,
since English full and reduced pronouns are in
the same structural position.
Conroy et al.’s challenge
Conroy et al. (2009)
• Delay of Principle B effect, and
Quantificational Asymmetry, are experimental
artifacts of previous studies.
• Thornton & Wexler’s stories favored a nonadult-like response in the Referential
Condition, but not in the Quantificational
Condition.
• With improved stories, effect disappears.
Recall Thornton & Wexler’s story:
R1
R2
R3
B
Bert and three reindeer friends have a snowball fight, and they all get
covered in snow. When they go inside, Bert is shivering, so he asks the
reindeer to brush the snow off him. Two of the reindeer (separately)
refuse, saying they have too much snow to deal with, and they brush
themselves. The third reindeer helps Bert a little bit, but then brushes
the snow off of himself. Bert thanks the helpful reindeer for starting to
brush him. He says he’s sorry he can’t reciprocate by helping brush the
helpful reindeer; he needs to finish brushing all the snow off of himself
because he’s still very cold.
(Thornton and Wexler 1999:142)
Conroy et al.’s (2009) Critique
• In the referential condition (“Bert brushed him”),
the story did not make the deictic interpretation
plausible enough.
• For kids to give an adultlike response to “Bert
brushed him”, they need to interpret “him” as
“the third reindeer”.
• Conroy et al.: kids may be taking Bert as the
referent, because he’s the most salient.
– Bert has a “clear individual identity” vs.
– “3 relatively undifferentiated reindeer”
Conroy et al.’s (2009) Critique (Cont.)
• Maybe kids are simply taking the pronoun to
refer to the most salient character in the story.
• In the referential condition, this produces the
anaphoric (non-adult) interpretation.
• In the quantificational condition, it produces
the adult interpretation.
Salience in Thornton & Wexler (1999)
• Referential item:
Bert brushed himBert.
Produces non-adultlike (anaphoric) interpretation
• Quantificational item:
Every reindeer brushed himBert.
Produces adultlike (deictic) interpretation
Conroy et al. (2009): new stories
• More sophisticated stories to ensure that the
deictic interpretation is plausible in the
referential condition.
• Each character has a clear individual identity
• Each question posed by the
referential/quantificational items was under
active consideration in the story.
Conroy et al. sample item:
Conroy et al. sample story
•
•
Characters: Hiking Smurf, Tennis Smurf, Papa Smurf [collectively Smurfs] Grumpy,
Dopey, Happy [collectively dwarves]
Papa Smurf announces that Snow White is going to have a party, and that she is
going to have a painting contest. Papa Smurf declares that he is going to be the
judge. Each of the dwarves shows and discusses the color of paint that he is going
to use to get painted, as does Tennis Smurf. However, Hiking Smurf does not have
any paint, and he wonders whether one of the other characters will be willing to
share. He first approaches Happy, who says that he would be glad to help out if
any paint remains after he is painted. Fortunately, when Happy is finished, some
paint remains, and so he paints Hiking Smurf. Hiking Smurf, however, is not yet
satisfied, so he approaches Dopey with a similar request, which is similarly
successful. Then Grumpy, who is in such a bad mood that he doesn’t even want to
go to the party, declares that he doesn’t need to get painted. The other dwarves
really want him to go, and Grumpy agrees to get painted, using all of his paint in
the process. After Grumpy is painted, Hiking Smurf approaches him and asks for
some paint. Grumpy politely apologizes that he would like to help but cannot,
because he has used up all of his paint. Hiking Smurf realizes that his best
remaining chance is to ask Tennis Smurf for some extra paint, and Tennis Smurf
obliges when he is asked. Finally, everybody is ready for Snow White’s party.
Conroy et al. Items
• Referential item: OK, this was a story about
painting. Hiking Smurf didn’t have any paint,
and Grumpy almost didn’t go to the party. Let
me see . . . I think . . . Grumpy painted him.
• Quantificational item: OK, this was a story
about painting. Hiking Smurf didn’t have any
paint, and all the dwarves looked great. Let
me see . . . I think . . . Every dwarf painted
him.