1. Week 5. The Trouble With Principle B GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

2. Binding Theory Binding Theory Constraints on assignment of reference. Binding Theory Constraints on assignment of reference. Reflexives (himself, herself, themselves, …) Reflexives (himself, herself, themselves, …) Pronouns (he, she, they, him, her, …) Pronouns (he, she, they, him, her, …) Names (inherent reference) Names (inherent reference)

3. Binding Theory Principle A A reflexive (herself) must be bound within its governing category. Principle A A reflexive (herself) must be bound within its governing category. A binds B iff A binds B iff A and B are coindexed, A and B are coindexed, A c-commands B. A c-commands B. Governing category ≈ IP or DP. Governing category ≈ IP or DP. Mary saw herself in the mirror. Mary saw herself in the mirror. Mary said John saw herself in the window. Mary said John saw herself in the window. John stole [Mary’s pictures of herself]. John stole [Mary’s pictures of herself]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of herself]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of herself].

4. Binding Theory Principle B A pronoun (her) must be free (=not bound) within its governing category. Principle B A pronoun (her) must be free (=not bound) within its governing category. Mary saw her in the mirror. Mary saw her in the mirror. Mary said John saw her in the window. Mary said John saw her in the window. John stole [Mary’s pictures of her]. John stole [Mary’s pictures of her]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of her]. Mary stole [John’s pictures of her]. Governing category ≈ IP or DP. Governing category ≈ IP or DP.

5. Binding Theory Principle C A name/r-expression (Mary) must be free (altogether). Principle C A name/r-expression (Mary) must be free (altogether). She saw Mary in the mirror. She saw Mary in the mirror. She said John saw Mary in the window. She said John saw Mary in the window. Mary stole [his pictures of John]. Mary stole [his pictures of John]. He stole [her pictures of John]. He stole [her pictures of John]. He said that Mary believes Sue stole my pictures of John. He said that Mary believes Sue stole my pictures of John.

6. Constraints Every bear is washing her face. Every bear is washing her face. Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face. Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face. Bunch of bears cleaning their own faces. Bunch of bears cleaning their own faces. Every bear is washing her. Every bear is washing her. Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face. Bunch of bears washing Goldilocks’ face. Based on what evidence would kids conclude that the second context is not described by the second sentence? Based on what evidence would kids conclude that the second context is not described by the second sentence?

7. Ordering For adults, Binding Theory is more than just about order. It’s abstract, about structure. For adults, Binding Theory is more than just about order. It’s abstract, about structure. He said that Mickey won. He said that Mickey won. Mickey said that he won. Mickey said that he won. Before he went to school, Mickey ate a sandwich. Before he went to school, Mickey ate a sandwich. No c-command, no problem. No c-command, no problem.

8. Binding Theory The principles of Binding Theory seem to be universal, represented in all languages. The principles of Binding Theory seem to be universal, represented in all languages. They prohibit certain interpretations (that is, are unlearnable from positive evidence) They prohibit certain interpretations (that is, are unlearnable from positive evidence) The principles of Binding Theory are part of Universal Grammar, not learned. The principles of Binding Theory are part of Universal Grammar, not learned.

9. Binding Theory Yet… Experiments seem have shown that sentences ruled out by Binding Theory seem to be accepted by kids. Yet… Experiments seem have shown that sentences ruled out by Binding Theory seem to be accepted by kids. Do kids take a while to learn Binding Theory (even supposing it is learnable)? Do kids take a while to learn Binding Theory (even supposing it is learnable)? When do they know it? When do they know it?

10. C. Chomsky (1969) Tested Principle C with kids and proposed that kids go through three stages: Tested Principle C with kids and proposed that kids go through three stages: Stage 1. Stage 1. Coreference is unconstrained. Coreference is unconstrained. Stage 2. Stage 2. Linear order strategy for pronominalization (linear order; antecedent must precede pronoun) Linear order strategy for pronominalization (linear order; antecedent must precede pronoun) Stage 3. Stage 3. Principle C is obeyed. Principle C is obeyed.

11. C. Chomsky (1969) “He found out that Mickey won the race.” “He found out that Mickey won the race.” “Who found out?” “Who found out?” Kid points to someone, maybe Mickey. Kid points to someone, maybe Mickey. “After he found out, Mickey left.” “After he found out, Mickey left.” “Pluto thinks he knows everything.” “Pluto thinks he knows everything.” Stage 2: Some kids never picked Mickey. Stage 2: Some kids never picked Mickey. Is backward pronominalization disallowed in these kids’ grammars? Is backward pronominalization disallowed in these kids’ grammars?

12. Linear order strategy Do kids go through a stage where they have a strategy for pronouns instead of Binding Theory? Do kids go through a stage where they have a strategy for pronouns instead of Binding Theory? Lust (1981): When asked to repeat, kids repeated forward pronominalizations much more accurately than redundant (name…name) sequences or backwards pronominalizations. Lust (1981): When asked to repeat, kids repeated forward pronominalizations much more accurately than redundant (name…name) sequences or backwards pronominalizations.

13. Linear order strategy But this doesn’t tell us that there aren’t grammatical principles governing their use of pronouns and/or reflexives. But this doesn’t tell us that there aren’t grammatical principles governing their use of pronouns and/or reflexives. If it tells us anything, it only tells us that, of the grammatical options, forward pronominalization is preferred. If it tells us anything, it only tells us that, of the grammatical options, forward pronominalization is preferred.

14. “Preference parameter”? Lust in fact elevates this to the status of a parameter: head-final languages prefer backwards pronominalization, head-initial languages prefer forwards pronominalization. Lust in fact elevates this to the status of a parameter: head-final languages prefer backwards pronominalization, head-initial languages prefer forwards pronominalization. Lust claimed there was a difference in preference between English and Japanese; O’Grady failed to replicate the difference between English and Korean. Lust claimed there was a difference in preference between English and Japanese; O’Grady failed to replicate the difference between English and Korean. This is not a good parameter anyway. Languages do not differ in what they allow, just in how much they like a type of sentence. This is not a good parameter anyway. Languages do not differ in what they allow, just in how much they like a type of sentence.

15. Truth Value Judgment One way we can get a judgment (and not a preference) is with the truth value judgment task. Another advantage to the TVJ task is that it is not very cognitively taxing. One way we can get a judgment (and not a preference) is with the truth value judgment task. Another advantage to the TVJ task is that it is not very cognitively taxing. Something like: Something like: Show the kid a little story. Show the kid a little story. A puppet says “I know what happened… X”. A puppet says “I know what happened… X”. At which point the kid either feeds the puppet a cookie or rag, depending on whether the puppet told the truth. At which point the kid either feeds the puppet a cookie or rag, depending on whether the puppet told the truth.

16. Crain & McKee (1985) Crain & McKee (1985) tried again with Principle C, this time with a TVJ task, and found nothing particularly non-adult about kids’ use of Principle C. Not 100-0, but definitely systematic. Crain & McKee (1985) tried again with Principle C, this time with a TVJ task, and found nothing particularly non-adult about kids’ use of Principle C. Not 100-0, but definitely systematic. When he i was playing guitar, Pinocchio i was dancing. (73% yes; mean age 4;2) When he i was playing guitar, Pinocchio i was dancing. (73% yes; mean age 4;2) When he i was playing guitar, Pinocchio j was dancing. (81% yes) When he i was playing guitar, Pinocchio j was dancing. (81% yes) *He i washes Goofy i. (88% no) *He i washes Goofy i. (88% no)

17. Principle C Results about Principle C have been rather all over the map, but probably the appropriate synthesis of what’s out there is: Results about Principle C have been rather all over the map, but probably the appropriate synthesis of what’s out there is: Kids know and obey the constraints of Principle C on their interpretations (from 3 or so). Kids know and obey the constraints of Principle C on their interpretations (from 3 or so). Application of this knowledge in an experimental setting is highly dependent on the demands of the task and the context. Application of this knowledge in an experimental setting is highly dependent on the demands of the task and the context.

18. Onset of Binding Theory? If Binding Theory is part of UG, not learned, we’d expect that kids start out already knowing it. (or maybe it matures, but let’s hold off on that possibility until we need it) If Binding Theory is part of UG, not learned, we’d expect that kids start out already knowing it. (or maybe it matures, but let’s hold off on that possibility until we need it) Caveat: Of course, the kids need to know what is a pronoun and what is a reflexive before they can use Binding Theory. Caveat: Of course, the kids need to know what is a pronoun and what is a reflexive before they can use Binding Theory. However: We expect to find that the first available evidence should show that kids know Binding Theory. However: We expect to find that the first available evidence should show that kids know Binding Theory.

19. Onset of Binding Theory But it doesn’t seem to turn out as we’d expect… But it doesn’t seem to turn out as we’d expect… Several experiments seem to show that while kids show early evidence of knowing Principle A/C, they (appear to) consistently fail to observe Principle B—even up to (and beyond) 6 years old. Several experiments seem to show that while kids show early evidence of knowing Principle A/C, they (appear to) consistently fail to observe Principle B—even up to (and beyond) 6 years old.

20. Chien & Wexler (1990) Explored the question of whether kids know Principles A and B from the outset or not. Explored the question of whether kids know Principles A and B from the outset or not. First three experiments show: First three experiments show: Kids correctly require local antecedents for reflexives (Principle A) early on Kids correctly require local antecedents for reflexives (Principle A) early on Kids are significantly delayed in requiring non- local antecedents for pronouns (Principle B). Kids are significantly delayed in requiring non- local antecedents for pronouns (Principle B).

21. C&W90: Experiment I Tests Principle A (reflexives require a local antecedent) by providing sentences with two possible antecedents (one local, one not). “Simon says” act-out task. (156 kids, mean 4;6) Tests Principle A (reflexives require a local antecedent) by providing sentences with two possible antecedents (one local, one not). “Simon says” act-out task. (156 kids, mean 4;6) Kitty says that Sarah should point to herself. Kitty says that Sarah should point to herself. Kitty says that Sarah should point to her. Kitty says that Sarah should point to her. Kitty says that Adam should point to her. Kitty says that Adam should point to her.

22. C&W90: Experiment II Checking the effects of finiteness (claimed in the literature to matter) and gender control on reflexives. (142 kids; mean 4;5) Checking the effects of finiteness (claimed in the literature to matter) and gender control on reflexives. (142 kids; mean 4;5) Kitty wants Sarah to point to herself. Kitty wants Sarah to point to herself. Kitty wants Sarah to point to her. Kitty wants Sarah to point to her. Kitty wants Adam to point to her Kitty wants Adam to point to her Snoopy wants Sarah to point to herself. Snoopy wants Sarah to point to herself.

23. C&W90: Experiment III Increased the number of conditions to test for pragmatic strategies and to replicate the results with a different task. (174 kids; mean 4;5) Increased the number of conditions to test for pragmatic strategies and to replicate the results with a different task. (174 kids; mean 4;5) (Previous task was “Simon [Snoopy/Kitty] says…”, this task was “Party game” which involved giving objects to people/puppets sitting at a table. This might, if anything, introduce a self-bias, because it’s fun to get toys. Kitty says that Sarah should give herself a car.). (Previous task was “Simon [Snoopy/Kitty] says…”, this task was “Party game” which involved giving objects to people/puppets sitting at a table. This might, if anything, introduce a self-bias, because it’s fun to get toys. Kitty says that Sarah should give herself a car.).

24. C&W90: Experiments I-II Kids from 2.5 to 6 showed a steady increase (from about 13% correct to about 90%) in requiring herself to take a local antecedent. Kids from 2.5 to 6 showed a steady increase (from about 13% correct to about 90%) in requiring herself to take a local antecedent. G1=2;6-3;0 G1=2;6-3;0 G2=3;0-3;6 G2=3;0-3;6 … G8=6;0-6;6 G8=6;0-6;6

25. C&W90: Experiments I-II For some reason, kids seemed to perform better with nonfinite verbs (want); C&W have no particular explanation. For some reason, kids seemed to perform better with nonfinite verbs (want); C&W have no particular explanation.

26. C&W90: Appendix I reflexives

27. C&W90: Experiments I-II Kids showed no significant development in requiring her to take a non-local antecedent (about 75% across the board). Most of the errors treated her as taking a local antecedent. Kids showed no significant development in requiring her to take a non-local antecedent (about 75% across the board). Most of the errors treated her as taking a local antecedent. Kitty says that Sarah should point to her. Kitty says that Sarah should point to her.

28. C&W90: Appendix I pronouns

29. C&W90: Experiments I-II Gender cues for non-local pronoun brought kids’ performance up to near- perfect. Had little effect on reflexives. Gender cues for non-local pronoun brought kids’ performance up to near- perfect. Had little effect on reflexives.

30. C&W90: Experiment III results Previous results replicated for new task. Previous results replicated for new task. Young kids did better (operated at chance) for Principle A (meaning that they don’t have a systematic non-local coreference principle they are following—cf. Experiment I result showing them at 13% correct). Who knows what it was, but it wasn’t grammar. Young kids did better (operated at chance) for Principle A (meaning that they don’t have a systematic non-local coreference principle they are following—cf. Experiment I result showing them at 13% correct). Who knows what it was, but it wasn’t grammar.

31. C&W90: Possibilities so far… Kids have to learn Principle B it takes a while. Kids have to learn Principle B it takes a while. But how on positive evidence alone? But how on positive evidence alone? Her is harder to learn than herself. Her is harder to learn than herself. But kids use pronouns first (I saw him sentences indicate that they’re pronouns). But kids use pronouns first (I saw him sentences indicate that they’re pronouns). Principle B matures (constraints enforcing coreference before those prohibiting coreference?) Principle B matures (constraints enforcing coreference before those prohibiting coreference?) *UG-constrained maturation *UG-constrained maturation “Principle B errors” aren’t Principle B problems. “Principle B errors” aren’t Principle B problems.

32. Chien & Wexler (1990) Kids do know the difference between pronouns and reflexives (they aren’t treating them all as reflexives). Kids do know the difference between pronouns and reflexives (they aren’t treating them all as reflexives). E.g., I saw him, *I saw himself. Kids say sentences like I saw him often enough, but they do seem to know that reflexives need a local antecedent. E.g., I saw him, *I saw himself. Kids say sentences like I saw him often enough, but they do seem to know that reflexives need a local antecedent.

33. So what’s wrong with Principle B? Chien & Wexler (1990): Nothing is wrong with Principle B. Kids know and respect Principle B all along. Chien & Wexler (1990): Nothing is wrong with Principle B. Kids know and respect Principle B all along. Consider what adults can do: Consider what adults can do: That must be John—or at least he looks an awful lot like him. That must be John—or at least he looks an awful lot like him. So do adults violate Principle B? So do adults violate Principle B?

34. Coindexation Principle B says that coindexation between a pronoun and an antecedent is prohibited if the antecedent is too close. Principle B says that coindexation between a pronoun and an antecedent is prohibited if the antecedent is too close. Assuming adults obey this, that previous sentence must have been: Assuming adults obey this, that previous sentence must have been: That must be John—or at least he i looks an awful lot like him j. That must be John—or at least he i looks an awful lot like him j. …where i and j are accidentally coreferent. …where i and j are accidentally coreferent.

35. Coindexation If two noun phrases share the same index, they necessarily share the same referent. Coindexation implies coreference. If two noun phrases share the same index, they necessarily share the same referent. Coindexation implies coreference. If two noun phrases do not share the same index, does this mean they can’t share the same referent? Does contraindexation imply non-coreference? If two noun phrases do not share the same index, does this mean they can’t share the same referent? Does contraindexation imply non-coreference?

36. Coindexation The idea behind the Chien & Wexler account of the Principle B “delay” is that adults know the pragmatic Principle P, but kids are unable to use it right away. The idea behind the Chien & Wexler account of the Principle B “delay” is that adults know the pragmatic Principle P, but kids are unable to use it right away. Principle P Contraindexed NPs are non-coreferential unless the context explicitly forces coreference. Principle P Contraindexed NPs are non-coreferential unless the context explicitly forces coreference.

37. Coindexation So, when a kid agrees that… So, when a kid agrees that… Mama Bear is pointing to her. Mama Bear is pointing to her. …meaning ‘Mama Bear is pointing to herself’, what the kid really agreed to was …meaning ‘Mama Bear is pointing to herself’, what the kid really agreed to was Mama Bear i is pointing to her j. Mama Bear i is pointing to her j. …ok by Principle B, but violating Principle P (by allowing i and j both to refer to Mama Bear). …ok by Principle B, but violating Principle P (by allowing i and j both to refer to Mama Bear).

38. How could we ever tell? But how can we tell if it’s Principle P that kids don’t obey and not Principle B, given that they both seem to allow Mama bear is pointing to her ‘…herself’? But how can we tell if it’s Principle P that kids don’t obey and not Principle B, given that they both seem to allow Mama bear is pointing to her ‘…herself’? Answer: Principle B also governs the use of bound pronouns, which Principle P has nothing to say about. Answer: Principle B also governs the use of bound pronouns, which Principle P has nothing to say about.

39. Bound pronouns A bound pronoun is like his in: A bound pronoun is like his in: Every boy i is looking for his i keys. Every boy i is looking for his i keys. …and these are subject to Principle B, but they do not have a fixed referent, so accidental coreference is not an option here. …and these are subject to Principle B, but they do not have a fixed referent, so accidental coreference is not an option here. *Every boy i admires him i. *Every boy i admires him i.

40. Prediction So, if found that kids accept So, if found that kids accept Mama bear points to her(her = Mama Bear) Mama bear points to her(her = Mama Bear) …but refused to accept …but refused to accept Every bear i points to her i.(her = each bear in turn) Every bear i points to her i.(her = each bear in turn) …then kids know Principle B (and what they lack is probably Principle P). …then kids know Principle B (and what they lack is probably Principle P).

41. Chien & Wexler (1990) First three experiments established that Principle B appears to be delayed with respect to Principle A. First three experiments established that Principle B appears to be delayed with respect to Principle A. Fourth experiment establishes that kids obey Principle B when coindexation would be forced by a bound variable interpretation. Fourth experiment establishes that kids obey Principle B when coindexation would be forced by a bound variable interpretation.

42. C&W90: Experiment IV Principle B (but not Principle P) applies also to bound pronouns—if the kids know Principle B and not Principle P, we expect to see kids getting bound pronouns right (unlike referring pronouns, as previous three experiments showed). Principle B (but not Principle P) applies also to bound pronouns—if the kids know Principle B and not Principle P, we expect to see kids getting bound pronouns right (unlike referring pronouns, as previous three experiments showed).

43. C&W90: Experiment IV items Name-reflexive Name-reflexive Is Mama Bear touching herself? Is Mama Bear touching herself? Name-pronoun Name-pronoun Is Mama Bear touching her? Is Mama Bear touching her?

44. C&W90: Experiment IV items Quantifier-reflexive Quantifier-reflexive Is every bear touching herself? Is every bear touching herself? Quantifier-pronoun Quantifier-pronoun Is every bear touching her? Is every bear touching her?

45. C&W90: Experiment IV controls Name-name Name-name Is Mama Bear pointing to Goldilocks? Is Mama Bear pointing to Goldilocks? Every-name Every-name Is every bear pointing to Goldilocks? Is every bear pointing to Goldilocks? All-name All-name Are all of the bears pointing to Goldilocks? Are all of the bears pointing to Goldilocks?

46. C&W90: Experiment IV control results Kids under 5 did poorly on the mismatch (“no”) condition for every and all; they did less poorly on the mismatch condition for names. Kids under 5 did poorly on the mismatch (“no”) condition for every and all; they did less poorly on the mismatch condition for names. Kids under 5 haven’t quite mastered quantifiers. (So we can’t test Principle B with them) (with this task) Kids under 5 haven’t quite mastered quantifiers. (So we can’t test Principle B with them) (with this task) G1=<4(48); G2=4-5(45); G3=5-6(44);G4=6-7(40) G1=<4(48); G2=4-5(45); G3=5-6(44);G4=6-7(40)

47. C&W90: Experiment IV reflexive results Kids over 5 did near-perfect with respect to Principle A (name-reflexive and quantifier- reflexive match/mismatch). Kids over 5 did near-perfect with respect to Principle A (name-reflexive and quantifier- reflexive match/mismatch).

48. C&W90: Experiment IV name-pronoun Kids did badly on the name-pronoun mismatch cases, steadily rising from about 70% wrong to about 25% wrong between 4 and 7. Kids did badly on the name-pronoun mismatch cases, steadily rising from about 70% wrong to about 25% wrong between 4 and 7.

49. C&W90: Experiment IV quantifier-pronoun Under 5, kids were operating around chance (they don’t understand how quantifiers work yet) Under 5, kids were operating around chance (they don’t understand how quantifiers work yet) Over 5, they were at 80% correct and above—in particular, better than on the name-pronoun condition; they seem to know Principle B. Over 5, they were at 80% correct and above—in particular, better than on the name-pronoun condition; they seem to know Principle B. (G3 went from 50% to 80%) (G3 went from 50% to 80%)

50. C&W90: Appendix I E4: name-pron & quant-pron

51. Chien & Wexler (1990) overall results By the time kids understand quantifiers like every and all, pronouns, and reflexives, they apply Principle B. By the time kids understand quantifiers like every and all, pronouns, and reflexives, they apply Principle B. Where accidental coreference is possible (despite violating Principle P), kids will allow it about half of the time. Where accidental coreference is possible (despite violating Principle P), kids will allow it about half of the time.

52. Thornton & Wexler (1999) What pragmatic knowledge do children lack? Broadly speaking, children appear to have difficulty evaluating other speakers’ intentions… As speakers, children fail to distinguish between their knowledge and that of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns without first ensuring that a referent has been introduced into the conversational context… As listeners, children appear to assign interpretations to other speakers’ utterances that require special contextual support to be felicitous for adults… (pp. 14-15) What pragmatic knowledge do children lack? Broadly speaking, children appear to have difficulty evaluating other speakers’ intentions… As speakers, children fail to distinguish between their knowledge and that of listeners… [c]hildren use pronouns without first ensuring that a referent has been introduced into the conversational context… As listeners, children appear to assign interpretations to other speakers’ utterances that require special contextual support to be felicitous for adults… (pp. 14-15)

53. Thornton & Wexler (1999) Replicated Chien & Wexler (1990) and also tested VP ellipsis cases—another case where a pronoun can be bound (and so Principle B can be unambiguously tested). Replicated Chien & Wexler (1990) and also tested VP ellipsis cases—another case where a pronoun can be bound (and so Principle B can be unambiguously tested). Papa Bear wiped his face and Brother Bear did [wiped his face] too. Papa Bear wiped his face and Brother Bear did [wiped his face] too. His = Papa Bear’s (strict—coreference) His = Papa Bear’s (strict—coreference) His = Brother Bear’s (sloppy—bound) His = Brother Bear’s (sloppy—bound)

54. Parallelism VP ellipsis is subject to a parallelism constraint (parallelism between the overt and elided material). There are actually two parts to parallelism: VP ellipsis is subject to a parallelism constraint (parallelism between the overt and elided material). There are actually two parts to parallelism: NPs in the elided and antecedent VP must NPs in the elided and antecedent VP must Both be bound variables or both be referential pronouns (structural parallelism) Both be bound variables or both be referential pronouns (structural parallelism) If the pronouns are referential, they must have the same referent (referential parallelism). If the pronouns are referential, they must have the same referent (referential parallelism).

55. Parallelism PB wiped his face and BB did [wiped his face] too. PB wiped his face and BB did [wiped his face] too. his in the first clause is bound by PB. His in second must also be bound by the subject, there BB. his in the first clause is bound by PB. His in second must also be bound by the subject, there BB. His in first clause is referential. It refers to GB. His in second clause must be referential, and must also refer to GB. His in first clause is referential. It refers to GB. His in second clause must be referential, and must also refer to GB. Kids are expected to obey structural parallelism; grammar (not pragmatics) Kids are expected to obey structural parallelism; grammar (not pragmatics)

56. Four possible interpretations

57. Truth value judgment task Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the toys. Experimenter 1 tells a story, moves the toys. Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has to report what’s just happened. Experimenter 2 plays a puppet, who has to report what’s just happened. The kid decides, based on whether the puppet told the truth about what happened, to either give the puppet a cookie or make it do pushups. If the puppet gets it wrong, the puppet asks the kid “What really happened?” The kid decides, based on whether the puppet told the truth about what happened, to either give the puppet a cookie or make it do pushups. If the puppet gets it wrong, the puppet asks the kid “What really happened?” 19 kids, 4;0 to 5;1 19 kids, 4;0 to 5;1

58. Replicating the basic result Bert and 3 reindeer have a snowball fight and get all covered in snow. They go inside, Bert asks the reindeer to brush the snow off of him. 2 reindeer refuse, and commence brushing themselves off; the third helped a little, but mainly concentrates on brushing the snow off himself. Bert and 3 reindeer have a snowball fight and get all covered in snow. They go inside, Bert asks the reindeer to brush the snow off of him. 2 reindeer refuse, and commence brushing themselves off; the third helped a little, but mainly concentrates on brushing the snow off himself. Every reindeer brushed him. (No: 92%) √G2 Every reindeer brushed him. (No: 92%) √G2 WRH? “Only one of them helped him” WRH? “Only one of them helped him” Every reindeer brushed himself. (Yes: 88%) √G2 Every reindeer brushed himself. (Yes: 88%) √G2 WRH? Other stuff too. WRH? Other stuff too. Bert brushed him. (No: 42%) (group 1: No) Bert brushed him. (No: 42%) (group 1: No) Brushed hisself? Him? Wiped him? Bert?? Brushed hisself? Him? Wiped him? Bert??

59. Testing VP ellipsis The caveman kissed the dinosaur and Fozzie Bear did too. (Correct: 100%) The caveman kissed the dinosaur and Fozzie Bear did too. (Correct: 100%) IH brushed someone else’s hair, trolls brushed their own hair. IH brushed someone else’s hair, trolls brushed their own hair. The Incredible Hulk brushed his hair and every Troll did too. (Yes[*SP]: 3%) √G2 The Incredible Hulk brushed his hair and every Troll did too. (Yes[*SP]: 3%) √G2 WRH? Only the IH did. (First conjunct consistently controls structural parallelism). WRH? Only the IH did. (First conjunct consistently controls structural parallelism).

60. Testing VP ellipsis Lizard man and the ugly guy for some reason opt to lift up some other characters. Lizard man lifts the Smurf, ugly guy lifts Mickey. Lizard man and the ugly guy for some reason opt to lift up some other characters. Lizard man lifts the Smurf, ugly guy lifts Mickey. The lizard man lifted him and the ugly guy did too. (No: 79%) The lizard man lifted him and the ugly guy did too. (No: 79%) 21% overriding referential parallelism? Pragmatic? W&T say “probably”. 21% overriding referential parallelism? Pragmatic? W&T say “probably”. Same kids as allow MB points to her[=MB]? Well, a subset. Pattern was: every kid who allowed ref. parallelism violations alowed MBpth, but not vice- versa. Same kids as allow MB points to her[=MB]? Well, a subset. Pattern was: every kid who allowed ref. parallelism violations alowed MBpth, but not vice- versa.

61. Testing Principle B Everyone is covered with glitter, Batman and 2 turtles refuse to help Smurf out because they are cleaning themselves. One turtle briefly helps Smurf, but then returns to cleaning himself. Everyone is covered with glitter, Batman and 2 turtles refuse to help Smurf out because they are cleaning themselves. One turtle briefly helps Smurf, but then returns to cleaning himself. Batman cleaned him and every turtle did too. (No: 86%) Batman cleaned him and every turtle did too. (No: 86%) Batman cleaned himself and every turtle did too. (Yes: 95%) Batman cleaned himself and every turtle did too. (Yes: 95%) Kids can accept a sloppy reading when √Pr.B. Kids can accept a sloppy reading when √Pr.B.

62. Testing Principle C He dusted the skeleton. (No: 92%) He dusted the skeleton. (No: 92%) The kiwi bird cleaned Flash Gordon and he did too. (No: 54%—adults 83%!) The kiwi bird cleaned Flash Gordon and he did too. (No: 54%—adults 83%!) What’s going on? Stress (even implicit due to the ellipsis)? ? What’s going on? Stress (even implicit due to the ellipsis)? ?

63. Thornton & Wexler (1999) Conclusions: Kids seem to know and obey Principle B, Principle C, and structural parallelism. Conclusions: Kids seem to know and obey Principle B, Principle C, and structural parallelism. Kids seem to have more trouble with referential parallelism and the contexts for constructions of “guises”. Kids seem to have more trouble with referential parallelism and the contexts for constructions of “guises”.

64.                       