Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:19:07.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's understanding of pronouns that differ in scope of reference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2019

Hakima MEGHERBI ,
Alix SEIGNEURIC ,
Jane OAKHILL  and
Steve BUENO
Hakima MEGHERBI*
Affiliation:
EA4403 (UTRPP-LLSHS), MEDIALECT (Structure Fédérative de recherche), Université Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris Cité, France
Alix SEIGNEURIC
Affiliation:
EA4403 (UTRPP-LLSHS), MEDIALECT (Structure Fédérative de recherche), Université Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris Cité, France
Jane OAKHILL
Affiliation:
EA4403 (UTRPP-LLSHS), MEDIALECT (Structure Fédérative de recherche), Université Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris Cité, France School of Psychology, University of Sussex, UK
Steve BUENO
Affiliation:
EA4403 (UTRPP-LLSHS), MEDIALECT (Structure Fédérative de recherche), Université Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris Cité, France
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: megherbi@univ-paris13.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some pronouns can refer to entities that vary widely in scope. In some cases, the referent might be a noun phrase, and in other cases it might be a whole proposition. In the cases of pronouns with a noun phrase antecedent, an already existing referent is reactivated from the preceding context. In the case of pronouns with a propositional antecedent, the referent must be reformulated. The interpretation and use of such pronouns was investigated in 150 eight-year-old children in a reading comprehension task. Experiment 1 used a referent specification task and Experiment 2 used a completion task. It was more difficult for children to process a pronoun when its antecedent was a proposition compared to a noun phrase. These results are in line with the linguistic approaches (e.g., Gundel et al., 2005) according to which processing of pronouns with a propositional antecedent is more complex and requires greater cognitive effort.

Keywords

referenceanaphorreading comprehensionFrench languagenoun phrase antecedentpropositional antecedent
Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 1012 - 1024
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

References

Almor, A. (2000). Constraints and mechanisms in theories of anaphor processing. In Pickering, M., Clifton, C., & Crocker, M. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 341–54). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asher, N. (2000). Events, facts, propositions and evolutive anaphora. In Higginbotham, J., Pianesi, F., & Varzi, A. C. (Eds.), Speaking of events (pp. 123–50). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givon, T. & Malle, B. F. (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Consten, M., Knees, M., & Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2007). The function of complex anaphors in text. In Schwarz-Frisel, M., Consten, M., & Knees, M. (Eds.), Anaphors in text (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2015). The cognitive underpinning of referential abilities. In Serratrice, L. & Allen, S. (Eds.), Acquisition of reference (pp. 263–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elbro, C., Oakhill, J., Megherbi, H., & Seigneuric, A. (2017). Aspects of anaphor resolution as markers of reading comprehension: the role of antecedent variability. Reading and Writing, 30(4), 813–27.Google Scholar
Garnham, A. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325–70.Google Scholar
Grévisse, M. (1993). Le bon usage, Grammaire, langue française (13ème ed., revised by Goosse, André). Paris-Louvain-la-Neuve: DeBoeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K, Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2005). Pronouns without NP antecedents: How do we know when a pronoun is referential? In Branco, A., McEnery, T., & Mitkov, R. (Eds.), Anaphora processing: linguistic, cognitive and computational modelling (pp. 351–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, J., Pyykkönen-Klauck, P., Schimke, S., Colonna, S., & Hemforth, B. (2014). Information structure cues for 4-year-olds and adults: tracking eye movements to visually presented anaphoric referents. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 877–92.Google Scholar
MEN (Ministère de l’éducation nationale) (2017). Les programmes de l’école élémentaire. Retrieved from <http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid24307/les-programmes-de-l-ecole-elementaire.html>..>Google Scholar
Seigneuric, A., Megherbi, H., Bueno, S., Lebahar, J., & Bianco, M. (2016). Children's comprehension skill and the understanding of nominal metaphors. Journal of Experimental Child Language, 150, 346–63.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives in sentence processing (pp. 155–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van den Broek, P., Risden, K, Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A ‘Landscape’ view of reading: fluctuating pattern of activation and a construction of a stable memory representation. In Britton, B. K. & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.), Models of understanding texts (pp. 165–88). New York and Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar