Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T02:58:19.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's Knowledge of Binding and Coreference: Evidence from Spontaneous Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Paul Bloom ,
Andrew Barss ,
Janet Nicol  and
Laura Conway
Paul Bloom*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Andrew Barss
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Janet Nicol
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Laura Conway
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut, Storrs
*
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In experiments requiring sentence comprehension, young children sometimes appear to accept coreference in sentences such as Thelma touched her. This has motivated the claim that 4- and 5-year-olds lack knowledge of the principles of binding and coreference. Another option, however, is that the requisite principles are present from the very start and children's poor performance is due to performance factors. We test this claim through a longitudinal analysis of the spontaneous speech of three children, analyzing their usage of the pronoun me and the reflexive myself. Even 2- and 3-year-olds virtually always use these forms in accord with the adult grammar—they will say John hit me and not John hit myself (obeying Principle A) and I hit myself and not I hit me (obeying Principle B). We argue that the best explanation for these results is that children understand the principles of binding and coreference at the earliest stages of language development.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 53 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by 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

References

Bloom, Paul. 1990. Syntactic distinctions in child language. Journal of Child Language 17.343–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, Paul. 1993. Grammatical continuity in language development: The case of subjectless sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 24.721–34.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 1994. Recent controversies in the study of language acquisition. Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Yu-Chin, and Wexler, Kenneth. 1990. Children's knowledge of locality conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 13.225–95.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins, and use. New York: Praeger Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1978. From gesture to word: On the natural history of deixis in language acquisition. Human growth and development: Wolfson College Lectures 1976, ed. by Bruner, Jerome S. and Garton, Alison F., 85–120. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21.187–222.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and co-reference. Linguistic Inquiry 24.69–101.Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild. 1990. LF movement of pronouns and the computation of binding domains. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University dissertation.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. Lingustic Inquiry 11.679–708.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, Celia. 1984. On markedness and binding principles. North Eastern Linguistic Society 14.154–82.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan, and Koster, Charlotte. 1986. The acquisition of bound and free anaphora. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, Stan A. 1976. ‘-ing’, ‘-s’ and ‘-ed’: A study of the acquisition of certain verbal inflections. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1987. Functional syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. A selective history of the modern binding theory. Essays on anaphora, ed. by Lasnik, Howard, 1–36. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, and Snow, Catherine. 1985. The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language 12.271–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, Catherine. 1990. The Child Language Data Exchange System: An update. Journal of Child Language 17.457–72.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita, and Wexler, Kenneth. 1987. Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18.413–44.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F., Pinker, Steven, Ullman, Michael, Hollander, Michelle, Rosen, T. John; and Xu, Fei. 1992. Overgeneralization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(4).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDaniel, Dana, Cairns, Helen Smith; and Hsu, Jennifer Ryan. 1990. Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition 1.121–39.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, and Maxfield, Thomas L. 1994. Principle B and contrastive stress. Language Acquisition, to appear.Google Scholar
McKee, Cecile. 1992. A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 21.21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, Cecile, Nicol, Janet; and McDaniel, Dana. 1993. Children's application of the binding principles during sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8.265–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petitto, Laura A. 1987. On the autonomy of language and gesture: Evidence from the acquisition of person pronouns in American Sign Language. Cognition 27.1–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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. Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, vol. I, ed. by Lust, Barbara, 123–50. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Itzack. 1994. Two approaches to the acquisition of grammar. Other children, other languages: Theoretical issues in language development, ed. by Levy, Yonata. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, to appear.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 1991. Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40.21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varela, Ana. 1989. Innateness and learning: A case-study from syntactic development. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar