Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T22:52:33.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Binding Theory module: Evidence from first language acquisition for Principle C

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Barbara Lust ,
Julie Eisele  and
Reiko Mazuka
Barbara Lust*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Julie Eisele
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Reiko Mazuka
Affiliation:
Duke University
*
Barbara Lust, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers a critical review of a series of experimental studies of first-language acquisition of anaphora. These studies provide converging evidence that children acquiring English respect Principle C of the Binding Theory—specifically, a form of Principle C in which an r-expression is pronoun free. Principle C is respected continuously across overt syntax development (from 3 to 7 years). Although knowledge of Principle C interacts significantly with both directionality and pragmatic context, it is independent of these. Initial results on acquisition of anaphora in Japanese are also reported, suggesting that, subject to further research, early knowledge of Principle C may prove to be universal.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Language , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 333 - 358
Copyright
© 1992 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This paper was supported in part by NSF #BNS-8318983, 820638, and 7825115, as well as by a NYS College of Human Ecology grant. We thank Alice Davison, James Gair, Joan Maling, and several anonymous reviewers for critical comments.

References

Carden, Guy. 1986. Blocked forward coreference. In Lust, (ed.), 319–58.Google Scholar
Chien, Yu-Chin. 1988. Issues in methodology: A test of binding theory in first language acquisition. Ithaca, NY: Paper represented at Cornell University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Carol. 1969. The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1988. Language in a psychological setting. Japan: Sophia.Google Scholar
Clifford, Teresa. 1984. Acquisition of pronouns in the first language acquisition of English: A study of natural speech. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Crain, Steven, and McKee, Cecile. 1986. Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. North Eastern Linguistic Society 16. 91–110.Google Scholar
Eisele, Julie. 1988. Meaning and form in children's judgments about language. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Eisele, Julie, and Lust, Barbara. 1989. Language competence and language performance: The truth about ‘directionality effects.‘ Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Annual Meeting, Kansas City.Google Scholar
Eisele, Julie, Lust, Barbara. 1990. Knowledge about pronouns: A developmental study using a ‘truth value judgment task’. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, ms.Google Scholar
Eisele, Julie, Gray, Deborah, Lust, Barbara; and Chien, Yu-Chin. 1987. What children know about what they say. York, England: Paper presented at the British Psychological Society, Developmental Psychology Section Annual Conference.Google Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn. 1987. On telegraphic speech. New York, NY: Columbia University dissertation.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Rosen, Sara. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 187–222.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1984. Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite NP-anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 712–15.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 679–708.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, Katherine, Nelson, Deborah Kemler, Jusczyk, Peter, Wright, William, Druss, B.; and Kennedy, L. 1987. Clauses are perceptual units for young infants. Cognition 26. 269–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, Peter. 1991. Undoing Hockett's wringer: Discovering the sound patterns of the native language. Stanford, CA: Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 30. 1–16.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Diane. 1988. Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children's knowledge of binding theory and reference relations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University dissertation.Google Scholar
Koster, Charlotte. 1988. An across-experimental analysis of children's anaphora errors. Formal parameters of generative grammar, Yearbook IV, ed. by deHaan, G. and Zonneveld, William, 53–58. Dordrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2. 1–22.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. On the necessity of binding conditions. In Essays on anaphora: Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, 149–167. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, William. 1974. Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics, vol. 3. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara. 1986a. Introduction. In Lust, (ed.), 3–106.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara (ed.) 1986b. Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, vol. 1: Defining the constraints. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, Barbara. 1993. Universal Grammar and the initial state: A cross-linguistic study of their relation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, and Clifford, Teresa. 1986. The 3–D study: Effects of depth, distance and directionality on children's acquisition of anaphora. In Lust, (ed.), 203–44.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, and Martohardjono, Gita. 1987. On relations between binding theory and first language acquisition. Paper presented at the Boston University Child Language Conference.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, and Mazuka, Reiko. 1989. Cross-linguistic studies of directionality in first language acquisition: The Japanese data (response to O'Grady et al. 1986). Journal of Child Language 16. 665–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Chien, Yu-Chin; and Flynn, Suzanne. 1987. What children know: Comparison of experimental methods for the study of first language acquisition. Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, vol. 2: Applying the constraints, ed. by Lust, Barbara, 271–356. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Eisele, Julie; and Goss, Nancy. 1990. The development of pronouns and null arguments in child language: Evidence from production and comprehension data. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, ms.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Eisele, Julie; and Lee, Kwee-Ock. 1989. The nature of universals in first language acquisition: Linguistic principles or general cognitive strategies? Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Annual Meeting, Kansas City.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Loveland, Kate; and Kornet, Renee. 1980. The development of anaphora in first language: Syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Linguistic Analysis 6. 359–91.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Mazuka, Reiko, Martohardjono, Gita; and Yoon, Jeong-me. 1989. On parameter-setting in first language acquisition: The case of the Binding Theory. Utrecht: Paper presented at GLOW.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Mazuka, Reiko, Wakayama, Tatsuko; and Oshima, Shin. 1986. When is an anaphor not an anaphor? Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting. New York City.Google Scholar
Mazuka, Reiko. 1991. How can a grammatical parameter be set before the first word? Stanford, CA: Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 30. 72–79.Google Scholar
McCray, Andrew. 1980. The semantics of backward anaphora. North Eastern Linguistic Society 10. 329–44.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Mineharu. 1987. Comprehension of empty pronominals by Japanese children. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
O'Grady, William, Suzuki-Wei, Y.; and Cho, S. W. 1986. Directionality preferences in the interpretation of anaphora: Data from Korean and Japanese. Journal of Child Language 13. 409–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padilla-Rivera, José. 1985. On the definition of binding domains in Spanish: The roles of the binding theory module and the lexicon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Padilla-Rivera, José. 1990. On the definition of binding domains in Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1986. Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In Lust, (ed.), 123–50.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1986. How children acquire bound variables. In Lust, (ed.), 191–202.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the definition of c-command and government, North Eastern Linguistic Society 14. 402–17.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Backwards anaphora and discourse structure: Some considerations. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota, and Kleeck, Amy Van. 1986. Linguistic complexity and performance. Journal of Child Language 13. 380–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solan, Lawrence. 1983. Pronominal reference: Child language and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth, and Chien, Yu-Chin. 1985. The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. Stanford, CA: Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 24. 138–79.Google Scholar