The impact of embedded pronouns on children's relative clause comprehension in Italian

Transcription

1 The impact of embedded pronouns on children's relative clause comprehension in Italian Yair Haendler & Flavia Adani University of Potsdam Going Romance 2014 Centro de Linguística da Universidade da Lisboa Centro de Linguística da Universidade Nova da Lisboa Thursday, December 4 th 2014

2 Friedmann, Belletti & Rizzi (2009): A Relativized Minimality account to RC comprehension Relativized Minimality (Rizzi, 1990; 2004) X Y Z X Z Y

3 Friedmann, Belletti & Rizzi (2009): A Relativized Minimality account to RC comprehension Subject relative clause Show me the lion that is wetting the chicken X Y Z Object relative clause Show me the lion that the chicken is wetting X Z Y

4 Friedmann, Belletti & Rizzi (2009): A Relativized Minimality account to RC comprehension Object relative clause Show me the lion that the chicken is wetting [D NP] [D NP] <D NP> X Z Y The OR head (X) and the intervening embedded subject (Z) are both lexically restricted i.e., they are full DPs intervention effect the structure is hard.

5 Friedmann, Belletti & Rizzi (2009): A Relativized Minimality account to RC comprehension OR with 2 full DPs Show me the lion that the chicken is wetting [D NP] [D NP] <D NP> OR with embedded pronoun Tare li et ha-arie she- martivim oto (Hebrew) Show me ACC the-lion that- pro are wetting him [D NP] [pro] <D NP> 'Show me the lion that someone is wetting' Head is a full DP, pro is not child comprehension is OK.

6 Friedmann, Belletti & Rizzi (2009): A Relativized Minimality account to RC comprehension Object relatives Prediction for ORs with a lexically restricted DP head and a pronominal embedded subject: (A)... NP relative-pronoun NP verb... hard (B)... NP relative-pronoun Pronoun verb... easy Support from previous studies: Friedmann et al., 2009; Arnon, 2010; Brandt et al., 2009; Kidd et al., 2007; Gordon et al., 2001; Warren & Gibson, 2002; 2005.

7 Friedmann, Belletti & Rizzi (2009): A Relativized Minimality account to RC comprehension Subject relatives Prediction for SRs with a lexically restricted DP head and a pronominal embedded object: (A)... NP relative-pronoun verb NP... easy (B)... NP relative-pronoun verb Pronoun... easy However, Arnon (2010) found: SR with embedded 1 st -person pronoun > SRs with 2 full DPs (B > A)

8 The present study Motivation - Previous studies with children have tested the effect of only one pronoun type on OR comprehension/production. - Theoretical work on different referential properties of 1 st - and 3 rd - person pronouns supported by studies on adult sentence processing. (Recanati, 1993; Erteschik-Shir, 1997; Ariel, 2001; Carminati, 2005; Warren & Gibson, 2002) We manipulated several referring expressions in the embedded clause.

9 The present study Motivation - Clarification is required regarding cases of pronoun facilitation. - Only Arnon (2010) compared ORs and SRs: embedded pronoun facilitated both. We tested the effects of the embedded referring expressions both in SRs and in ORs.

10 Predictions According to the RM account 1) Are ORs with an embedded pronominal subjects always easier than ORs with two full DPs? YES pronouns lack lexical restriction 2) Do different pronoun types in the embedded subject position of the OR have the same facilitation effect? YES pronouns lack lexical restriction 3) Does the facilitation effect, caused by the embedded pronoun, occur only in ORs, or also in SRs? Effect should occur only in ORs

11 Child Participants - N = 72 - Age range 4;1-5;11 (M = 5;3). - Italian-speaking; growing up monolingually; no history of language/cognitive disorders. - Recruited in kindergartens in the area of Florence. - The experiment was piloted with a group of adults.

12 Visual stimuli Rincorrere ('chase') Acchiappare ('catch') Lavare ('wash') Verbs and nouns appear in children's early language (Primo Vocabolario del Bambino, Caselli & Casadio, 1995; CHILDES, MacWhinney, 2000)

13 The task - Visual setup based on Adani (2011); animated videos - Color naming task (Arnon, 2010) SR: Di che colore è il topo che sta acchiappando le scimmie? Of what color is the mouse that is catching the monkeys? OR: Di che colore è il topo che le scimmie stanno acchiappando? Of what color is the mouse that the monkeys are catching?

14 Conditions Factors: - Gap (SR / OR) - Referring Expression (2DP / 1pro / 3pro) - 6 conditions in total

15 Conditions 2DP Subject RC Di che colore è il topo che sta acchiappando le scimmie? Of what color is the mouse that is catching the monkeys Object RC Di che colore è il topo che le scimmie stanno acchiappando? Of what color is the mouse that the monkeys are catching? 1pro Di che colore è il topo che ci sta acchiappando? Of what color is the mouse that us is catching 3pro Di che colore è il topo che le sta acchiappando? Of what color is the mouse that them is catching? Di che colore è il topo che noi stiamo acchiappando? Of what color is the mouse that we are catching? Di che colore è il topo che loro stanno acchiappando? Of what color is the mouse that they are catching?

16 Conditions - Number mismatch across conditions: to avoid SR/OR ambiguity RCs with Number match Il topo che sta acchiappando la scimmia The mouse that is catching the monkey SR embedded post-verbal object OR embedded post-verbal subject

17 Conditions - Experimental Conditions 6 items per condition. - Fillers 6 items: What color is the mouse with the book? - In total: 42 items; approximate duration of minutes.

18 Experiment Structure - Introduction story: * Explanation of the task. * Warm-up trials. * Establish referents for the 1 st -person pronoun: - The dog's voice was used in the entire experiment. - The story teller anticipated the appearance, of her alone or together with her sister, in some trials.

19 Experiment Structure - Preamble video preceding each trial: * Presentation of the figures, one by one, before the sentence. * Felicitous 3 rd -person pronoun usage. - Examples: Qui c'è un topo, ed eccone un altro. E qui ci sono delle scimmie. Here is a mouse, and here is another one. And here are monkeys. Qui c'è un topo, ed eccone un altro. E qui ci siamo noi con loro. Here is a mouse, and here is another one. And here we are with them.

20 Results Accuracy Children (N=72) Subject RC Object RC 2DP.90 (.02).88 (.02) 3pro.90 (.02).90 (.02) 1pro.99 (.01).97 (.01)

21 Results Accuracy Subject RC Object RC 2DP.90 (.02).88 (.02) 3pro.90 (.02).90 (.02) 1pro.99 (.01).97 (.01) Logit Mixed Model (Jaeger, 2008): - Main effect Referring Expression: 1pro > 2DP (p<.001) - No difference between 2DP and 3pro (p=.68) - Marginal main effect Gap: SR > OR (p=.06)

22 Children (N=68) Results Eye-tracking

23 Results Eye-tracking Linear Mixed Model with Empirical Logit (Barr, 2008) Main effect Gap OR > SR (t=13.71) Main effect Ref. - 1pro > 2DP (t=-21.58) - 3pro > 2DP (t=2.65) No interaction Gap X Ref. (t's< 2 )

24 Results Eye-tracking Additional model for pronoun comparison (Bonferroni-adjusted p-values) Main effect Gap OR > SR (t=13.71) Main effect Ref. - 1pro > 2DP (t=21.58) - 1pro > 3pro (t=-19.16) No interaction Gap X Ref. (t's< 2 )

25 Predictions According to the RM account 1) ORs with an embedded pronominal subjects are always easier for children than ORs with two full DPs. OK 2) Different pronoun types in the embedded subject position of the OR have the same facilitation effect. No 1pro is facilitating more than 3pro 3) The facilitation effect, caused by the embedded pronoun, occurs only in ORs. No pronouns facilitate also SRs

26 Results to be discussed (1-3) 1) ORs with embedded pronouns are easier than ORs with two full DPs independently of pronoun type. 2) 1pro facilitates OR comprehension more than 3pro. 3) Pronoun facilitation occurs both in ORs and in SRs.

27 Unexpected results (4-5) 1) ORs with embedded pronouns are easier than ORs with two full DPs independently of pronoun type. 2) 1pro facilitates OR comprehension more than 3pro. 3) Pronoun facilitation occurs both in ORs and in SRs ) On-line: overall more target looks in ORs than in SRs; classic SR-OR asymmetry is absent. 5) Off-line: high accuracy rate on all conditions (including OR+2DP); classic SR-OR asymmetry is observed.

28 General Discussion 1) ORs with embedded pronouns are easier than ORs with two full DPs independently of pronoun type - Consistent with the predictions of the RM account. - All pronouns lack 'lexical restriction' hence, they all reduce the processing difficulty caused by intervention effect in the OR.

29 General Discussion 2) 1pro facilitates OR comprehension more than 3pro. - Inconsistent with the predictions of the RM account. - Consistent with previous studies on adult sentence processing that find 1pro / 3pro asymmetry. (Carminati, 2005; Warren & Gibson, 2002) - Consistent with accounts of different referential properties of 1pro and 3pro. (Recanati, 1993; Erteschik-Shir, 1997; Ariel, 2001)

30 General Discussion 3) Pronoun facilitation occurs both in ORs and in SRs. - Inconsistent with the predictions of the RM account. - Consistent with Arnon's (2010) findings in Hebrew.

31 General Discussion Pattern found in the eye-tracking data: Subject RCs: 1pro > 3pro > 2DP Object RCs: 1pro > 3pro > 2DP ('>' = 'more target looks') First the cases of SR+2DP and OR+2DP will be discussed; then the cases of the pronouns.

32 General Discussion SR+2DP il topo che sta acchiappando the mouse that is catching

33 General Discussion SR or OR with a post-verbal subject il topo che sta acchiappando la scimmia the mouse that is catching the monkey

34 General Discussion SR+2DP il topo che sta acchiappando le scimmie. the mouse that is catching the monkeys. - Disambiguation occurs only at the post-verbal DP. - Late processing of the sentence delayed target looks.

35 General Discussion OR+2DP il topo che le scimmie stanno acchiappando. [the mouse] that [the monkeys] are catching [ ]. [D NP] [D NP] <D NP> - RM account: complexity determined by two full DPs. - Support by numerous previous findings.

36 General Discussion 1pro > 3pro both in SRs and in ORs 1) 1pro and 3pro have different referential properties these determine different pronoun effects.

37 General Discussion Direct access to discourse referent I /speaker/ Speaker Interlocutor (F-Structure Theory, Erteschik-Shir 1997; Accessibility Theory, Ariel, 2001; Recanati, 1993)

38 General Discussion Indirect access to discourse referent CONTEXT Extra step: pronoun resolution the girl i she i /the girl/ Speaker Interlocutor (F-Structure Theory, Erteschik-Shir 1997; Accessibility Theory, Ariel, 2001; Recanati, 1993)

39 General Discussion 1pro > 3pro both in SRs and in ORs 1) 1pro and 3pro have different referential properties these determine different pronoun effects. 2) Referential properties play a role independently of intervention locality effects.

40 General Discussion 4) Overall more target looks in ORs than in SRs - The OR advantage is only in the eye-tracking data. - Hence, the reason is likely related only to eye movements.

41 General Discussion 4) Overall more target looks in ORs than in SRs - One possible reason might be provided by Centering Theory (Grosz et al., 1995): children might predict the upcoming OR. - Pattern found in other eye-tracking studies with RCs. (cf. Adani & Fritzsche, 2014) - Crucially, the OR advantage does not depend on the critical linguistic input: after che, eye-gaze is guided by the unfolding sentence, as evident by varying effects of the manipulated referring expressions.

42 General Discussion 4) Overall more target looks in ORs than in SRs - Centering Theory (Grosz et al., 1995) Last-mentioned animals (monkeys) are brought into center of attention Topic = Subject (Correct in ORs) Last-mentioned animals (monkeys) are assumed to be the Discourse Topic Having identified the agent, gaze is guided towards the patient.

43 General Discussion 5) High accuracy rate on all conditions (including OR+2DP) Several converging factors might be at play:

44 General Discussion 5) High accuracy rate on all conditions (including OR+2DP) - Scenes are pragmatically appropriate for usage of restrictive RCs. (Hamburger & Crain, 1982; Corrêa, 1995) - Scenes contain only the necessary referents: no superfluous complexity. (Adani, 2011; Adani & Fritzsche, 2014) - Number mismatch between RC head and embedded DP present on all conditions might have enhanced overall performance. (Rizzi, 2013; Adani et al., 2010)

45 Conclusions 1) Intervention locality plays a role in children's performance on ORs (in line with Friedmann et al., 2009). OR processing improves when embedded subject is any kind of pronoun However, an account of child performance on RCs should also consider: 2) Referential properties play a role as well. Facilitation of 1pro is greater than that of 3pro 3) Referential properties play a role independently of intervention locality. Pronoun facilitation occurs both in SRs and in ORs

46 Thank you!

47 We would like to thank: - Adriana Belletti, Luigi Rizzi and the staff and students at the CISCL, University of Siena, for generous and helpful support, and for fruitful discussion. - Scuola statale Mameli (Firenze, Novoli) & Direzione Didattica Statale di Borgo San Lorenzo their administration and teachers. - All the children who participated, and their parents. - Claudia Manetti, Lena Dal Pozzo, Elena Callegari, Cecilia Haendler, Tom Fritzsche, Reinhold Kliegl, the research colloquium for typical and atypical language acquisition at the University of Potsdam, PhD students and student assistants of the ALADDIN research group.