Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-zjgpb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-25T19:35:48.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the boundary between syntax and pragmatics: relevance and the binding of pronouns[*]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Susan H. Foster-Cohen
Susan H. Foster-Cohen*
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of English, Box 6032, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the interface between syntax and pragmatics, focusing on the binding of pronouns and the pragmatics of the paradigms used to test this aspect of syntactic knowledge. Reinhart's (1986) version of Binding Theory (which accords a specific role to pragmatics in processes of pronoun resolution) and Sperber & Wilson's (1986) Theory of Relevance are used to examine the syntax and pragmatics of pronoun interpretation. A set of predictions based on Relevance Theory are evaluated against published results of tests of Binding Theory. The paper concludes that Relevance Theory provides a means of understanding constraints on testing syntactic knowledge and argues that pragmatic factors must be systematically controlled in any evaluation of syntactic knowledge.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 237 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

[*]

I have profited greatly from discussions with Matthew Rispoli, Nina Hyams, Sharon Sabsay and Sharon Klein during the evolution of several of the ideas that appear in this paper. Particular thanks go to Matthew Rispoli for detailed comments on earlier drafts.

References

REFERENCES

Chien, Y.-C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1, 225–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & McKee, C. (1985). Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. Proceedings of New England Linguistic Society 16, 94–110.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. & Rosen, S. (1990). Knowledge and obedience: the developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187–222.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, J. & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69–101.Google Scholar
Gunnar, M. R. & Maratsos, M. (eds) (1992). Modularity and constraints in language and cognition. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1991). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. Unpublished manuscript, MIT: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. & Sigurjonsdottir, S. (1990). The development of ‘long-distance anaphora’: a cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition 1, 57–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, D. (1988). Grammatical and cognitive interactions in the study of children's knowledge on binding theory and reference relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Vol. II. Linguistic theory: extensions and implications. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B. (ed.) (1987). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora (Vols 1 & 2). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S. & Hsu, J. R. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition 1, 121–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2, 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Croom Helm: London.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1986). Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1987). Parameter setting and the development of pronouns and reflexives. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1987). Precis of relevance: communication and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 697–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar