A pragmatic approach of pronouns

acquisition
Anne Salazar Orvig
Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle
Sorbonne Paris Cit
Equipe du projet DIAREF

Work in progress
Acquisition of referential expressions in
dialogue DIAREF (ANR 09 ENF 055)
Multifaceted approach of referential expressions
Pronouns and determiners
Discursive-dialogical-pragmatic approach
Link between formal and functional features

Participants :
Hayde Marcos, Aliyah Morgenstern, Rouba Hassan,
Jocelyne Leber-Marin, Christine da Silva, Julien
Heurdier, Stphanie Cat, Marine le Men, Jacques
Pars, Cristina Corlateanu, Gwendoline Fox, Stphane
Julien

Young childrens use of referential expressions

Facteurs discursifs et pragmatiques
Pragmatic discursive factors.
Previous studies on a large spectrum of languages : Inuktitut, Korean,
Italian, English, German, Japanese French, Dutch
(Allen, 2000; Allen and Schder, 2003; Campbell et al., 2000; Clancy, 2004 ; de Cat (de

Cat, 2004 ; Guerriero et al., 2006; Gundel et al., 2007; Hugues and Allen, 2006; Matthews
et al., 2006; Rozendaal and Baker, 2008; Salazar Orvig et al., 2010a, b; Serratice, 2005;
Wittek and Tomasello, 2005)

show childrens sensitivity to

informativeness
accessibility of the referent
prior mention in discourse
shared focused attention
topicality

From the onset:

gramatical dimension is linked to the pragmatic-discursive dimension
Our aim : to further understand how these skills are associated and how
they develop

Previous results
Population : 25 children aged between 1;10 and 3
1- A longitudinal corpus at home:2 children (Daniel and Lonard)
1;10 to 2;4 (7 & 8 sessions)
different situations (play, snack, bath )

2- A cross sectional study 6 children (Alice, Ccile, Iris, Lisa,

Pauline and Thibault). Age 1;11
Standardised play

3 A cross-sectional study : 13 children (Alice, Arnaud, Chlo,

Elodie, Ilona, La, Loli, Margaux, Maxime, Olga, Pauline, Rmi
and Tho,) Age : 2;3
Home (snack and play) and for 5 children at nursey school : 17
sessions

4- A longitudinal follow up at the nursery school. 4 children

under 3 (Franois, Lucille, Matteo and Rmi) during .one
school year
group dialogues about a puppet : 59 sessions

Video or audiotaped ; fully transcribed

Population

Large individual differences within each age

group
=>
4 MLU groups

group
group
group
group

1
2
3
4

between 1.28 and 1.92 words per utterance

between 2.00 and 2.47 words per utterance
between 2,50 and 2.92 words per utterance
over 3 words per utterance

Data : referential expressions

Discourse objects : expression of referents (excluding

1st/2nd pers)
Verbalised discourse objects
Nouns (common nouns and proper names)
Pronouns : 3rd person clitic (il(s), elle(s) he, she, it, they, le(s)
la him, her, it, them )
Demonstratives : (a this, that, celui-l (this one, that
one.cest it is)
Other referential expressions (possessive, relative, indefinite
and interrogative pronouns).
Dislocations :
noun + clitic pronoun Anna elle est pa(r)tie Anna shes gone
demonstratives - cest pas bon a its not good, that

Data : referential expressions

An utterance about a referent without an explicit

verbalisation (=> considered as Discourse Object)
Fillers
(Peters

2000;Veneziano &Sinclair 2000)

atun F turn{/s}:

Unmarked Reference
Pre-syntactic
/o kole/ oh stuck

Omission :
fe
ptipobwi
fait un petit peu o b(r)uit

makes a little bit F noise

Data
Distribution of referential expressions
Total discourse objects:5472

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
MLU gr 1

MLU gr 2

MLU gr 3

MLU gr 4

OTHERS
DISLOCATIONS

C'EST
NOUNS

FILLERS

UNMARKED REFERENCE

DEMONSTRATIVES
PRONOUNS

Attentional and discursive status

DGF vs. Others
[3rd pers pro,
fillers,
unmarked reference]

2500

vs.
[nouns, disloc,
cest, demo,
other pron]

2dl1 = 455.0849 ;

2000

88 % of NEW

Pronouns, fillers
or unmarked

1500

p < .00001).
1000

500

0
O T H ERS

C 'EST

DEMO NST RA T IV ES DISLO C A T IO N

NO UNS

-
Focus on a new referent (New .)

-
First mention of a previously focused referent (FMPF)
-
Discourse Given Referent (DGF)
-
Reactivated Referent (REA)

P RO NO UNS

FILLERS &
UNMA RKED

 First uses of 3rd person pronoun

Predominant context : referential continuity
Not used to call the interlocutors attention on a referent
( not deicitic)
a puzzling result :
Older children: troubles in monitoring referential continuity
in monologue (narratives) (cf. Karmiloff-Smith, 1985; de Weck,
1991; Hickmann, 2002, among others)

How can these first uses be interpreted ?

Early comptence ? Full mastery of semantic/referential
values and their conditions of usage ?
Partial acquisition limited by the degree of socio-cognitive
development ? (Gundel et al 2007, de Cat, 2004)
Uses in a restricted context
Child friendly context (shared knowledge, focused shared
attention), low rate of mismatching between interlocutors
Mecanical alignement in dialogue without adjusting to the
interlocutors needs ? (Matthews et al. 2006)
Taking up the adults discourse colocations ? (Levy, 1989, 1999 )

An Usage based approach ?

Usage-based approaches

(Tomasello 2003, Lieven

and Tomasello 2008; Lieven et al. 2009)

Role of childrens experience of linguistic

units in interaction / input
Frequency
Socio-pragmatic
First forms
Item based patterns
Meaning in interaction
Nelson (Levy and Nelson, 1994; Nelson, 1996, 2007):
first uses : pragmatic without meaning
Forms are acquired with some
distributional properties (input)

Relevant features for referential expressions

choice
The choice of referential expression is determined
by several factors :
Type of reference (referential or not, specific or not etc)
Discourse Object position in the referential chain :
Topic vs. Rheme-comment
First mention, reactivation (both : head of a a referential
chain) or second vs successive mentions

Interlocutive context

Question-Answer relations
Self Repetitions (insistence, repair )
Other repetitions (ratifications, confirmation query)
Clarifications, confirmations

Discourse genres and activities

Examples
Non referential uses (labelling, categorizing, attributive uses
part of idioms or complex predicates)
Labelling
Daniel 2;2 MLU 2.47
D shows a toy car
DAN- sa se yn vwaty
a c'est une voiture thats a car
OBS - <showing the car and then pointing to another object> a cest
une voiture et a a sappelle comment ?
thats a car and this one what its called?
DAN - tat

F tracteur
F tractor
Attributive
Daniel 2;3, MLU 2.5
DAN- e a vwatu kurs eam
est F voiture course XX
is race car XX

Referential uses
Repetitions
Self-repetitions
Daniel 2;2 MLU 2.47
Daniel and his sister are struggling for a mail order catalog

DAN -v tatalo
! {XX} <whining>
SIS - maman je le veux pour moi
MOT - Daniel !
DAN - v tatalo ! <still whining and stamping>

veux catalogue
want catalog !{XX}
mom I want it for me
veux catalogue
want catalog !

Other-repetitions
Daniel 2;3, MLU 2.5

Daniel handles a van with an opening roof to his father

FAT - a souvre a. cest un- cest une camionnette
that it opens. its a- its a van
DAN - a ta sa uv

ah! a a ouvre
ah! that it opens

Referential chains
Head or referential chain, topic continuity

Daniel 2;0 MLU 2.02

Daniel looks at the camera
DAN - o a e ki ?a

OBS mmm?
DAN - e ki a ? o tu:n !

Daniel 2;4 - MLU 2.39

DAN - laln la
MOT - si la lune Daniel.
DAN - alsj : :l

Head of referential chain

oh ! a cest qui (quoi) a ?
oh ! who (what) is that ?
cest qui (quoi) a ? oh: F tourne
who (what) is that ? oh! F turns
Plain topic continuity

la lune l
the moon there
yes the moon, Daniel
le ciel
at the sky

MOT - quest-ce quil a le ciel ? ++ ah ?

DAN - jepaki lalyn

whats the matter with the sky+++ ah ?

elle est partie la lune
the moon, its gone
Contrasted topic continuity

Referential chains
Answer
Daniel 2;2 MLU 2.47
OBS - quest-ce que tu cherches Daniel ?
what are you looking for, Daniel ?
DAN - ja vwaty toma
la voiture (de) Thomas
Thomas car

Rheme
Daniel 2;3- MLU 2.5
OBS - tu veux quon aille la chercher dans ta chambre ?
do you want us to go look for it in your room ?
DAN - no. l e paja da ma ab

non. elle est pas l dans ma chambre
no; its not in my room

Distribution of uses in Daniels corpus

Discourse objects : 1223

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Uncertain

Non referential

Repetition

Answer

Rheme

Contrasted topic

Plain continuity

Head of referential chain

Uses of referential expressions

(non referential and repetitions excluded )

Head vs. Subsequent

position

[nouns + dislocations]
vs.
[cest, demo,
3rd pers pro,
other pron, fillers,
unmarked reference]
2dl1 = 42.40165 ;
p <.00001

300
250
200
150
100
50

[3rd

pers pro,
fillers,
unmarked reference]

vs.
[nouns, disloc,
cest, demo,
other pron]

2dl1 = 99.25406 ;

p < .00001).

0
Other
pronouns

C'est

Demonstr. Dislocations

Answer
Contrasted Topic
Head of referential chain

Nouns

Pronouns

Fillers

Rheme
Plain continuity

Unmarked
reference

 Head of referential chain vs Second position

Nouns, dislocation, demonstratives : Head
Pronouns or fillers , unmarked position : second position
(When unmarked reference as head of referential chain: the
referent is introduced with attention getters
Daniel takes a balloon
Dan o!
He walks gesticulating with the with the balloon. The loop breaks))

Second Position:
Rheme and answer vs. Topic
Pronouns, fillers and unmarked : topic position
Others : rheme or answer

Topic : plain continuity vs. Contrast

Pronouns, fillers and unmarked : plain continuity
Others : contrasted topics

Question
Homogenous distribution through age ?
Or change with age ?
=> Study on a monthly bases

Head of referential chain

Answers and Rhemes

100%

100%

80%
60%

50%

40%
20%

0%
1;09 1;10 1;11 2;00 2;02 2;03 2;04

0%
1;09 1;10 1;11 2;00 2;02 2;03 2;04

Plain continuity topics

100%

Contrasted topics

80%

100%

60%

80%

40%

60%
40%

20%

20%

0%
1;09 1;10 1;11 2;00 2;02 2;03 2;04

0%
1;09 1;10 1;11 2;00 2;02 2;03 2;04

Nouns

Demonstratives Pr.

Fillers

Dislocations

3rd person pronouns

Cest

Other pronouns

Unmarked Reference

Parallel evolution of
the expression of a discourse object

Nouns
Demonstratives
Unmarked + att call

Demonstratives
Nouns

Unmarked reference

for contrasted topics

Demonstratives

Dislocations

Others

Cest
3rd person pronouns
Fillers
for contrasted topics
Nouns
dislocations
Others

Conclusion
Pronouns do not seem to be substitute for nouns but a new
device for topic expression
Pronouns seem to be acquired in the context of specific
discursive uses
These results should be confronted to the syntactic patterns :
Some differences in the context of verbs :
More frquent use of V+ Noun (agent) and V+ Noun (patient, object)
Whereas +V => F+V and Pro+ Verb

These patterns are linked with activities and discourse genres

(for exemple picture reading :
Cest X=> non referential uses of nouns

More research is necessary

Research development : to link features involved in the
acquisition of grammatical units.
Formal features (syntactic patterns)
Discursive
Interactive

compared with adults discourse characteristics

References
Allen, Shanley E. M., 2000. A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics 38,
483 - 521.
Allen, Shanley E. M., Schder, Heike, 2003. Preferred Argument Structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data, in: Du
Bois, J.W., Kumpf, L.E., Ashby, W.J. (Eds.), Preferred Argument Structure. Gramar as architecture for function.
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 301 - 338.
Campbell, Aime L., Brooks, Patricia, Tomasello, Michael, 2000. Factors affecting young children's use of pronouns as referring
expressions. Journal of speech, language and hearing research 43, 1337-1349.
Clancy, Patricia, 2004. The discourse basis of constructions : some evidence form Korean acquisition, 32nd Stanford Child
Language Research Forum. http:csli-publications.standford.edu/CLTF/2004/05/clancy.pdf, Standford.
de Cat, Ccile, 2004. A fresh look at how young children encode new referents. International review of applied linguistics 42,
111-127.
de Weck, Genevive, 1991. La cohsion dans les textes d'enfants. Etude du dveloppement des processus anaphoriques.
Delachaux et Niestl, Neuchtel.
Guerriero, A.M.S., Oshima-Takane, Y., Kuriyama, Y., 2006. The development of referential choice in English and Japanese: a
discourse-pragmatic perspective. Journal of Child Language 33, 823-857.
Gundel, Jeanette K., Ntelitheos, Dimitris, Kowalsky, Melinda, 2007. Children's use of referring expressions: some implications
for theory of mind. ZAS Papers in Linguistics.
Hickmann, Maya, 2002. Children's discourse : person, time and space accross languages. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hugues, Mary, Allen, Shanley, 2006. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of subject omission in child English, in: Bamman, D.,
Magnitskaia, D.T., Zaller, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language
Development. Cascadilla Press., Somerville, MA, pp. 293-304.
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, 1985. Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive
processes 1, 61-85.
Levy, Elena T., 1989. Monologue as development of the text-forming function of language, in: Nelson, K. (Ed.), Narratives from
the crib. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma et Londres, pp. 123-161.
Levy, Elena T., 1999. A social-pragmatic account of the development of planned discourse. Human development, 225-246.
Levy, Elena T., Nelson, Katherine, 1994. Words in discourse : a dialectical approach to the acquisition of meaning and use.
Journal of Child Language 21, 367-389.

References (2)
.

Lieven, E., Tomasello, M., 2008. Childrens first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective.
Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 168196.
Lieven, Elena V.M., Salomo, Doroth, Tomasello, Michael, 2009. Two-year-old childrens production of
multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20, 481-507.
Matthews, Danielle, Lieven, Elena V.M., Theakston, Anna L, Tomasello, Michael, 2006. The effect of
perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied
Psycholinguistics 27, 403 - 422.
Nelson, Katherine, 1996. Language in cognitive development. The emergence of the mediated mind.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nelson, Katherine, 2007. Young minds in social worlds: Experience, meaning, and memory. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA US.
Nelson, Katherine, 2009. Wittgenstein and contemporary theories of word learning. New Ideas in
Psychology 27, 275-287.
Peters, Ann M., 2000. Filler syllabes : what is their status in emerging grammar ? Journal of Child
Language 28, 229-242.
Rozendaal, Margot, Baker, Anne, 2008. A cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of the pragmatics
of indefinite and definite reference in two-year-olds*. Journal of Child Language 35, 773807.
Salazar Orvig, Anne, Marcos, Hayde, Morgenstern, Aliyah, Hassan, Rouba, Leber-Marin, Jocelyne, Pars,
Jacques, 2010a. Dialogical beginnings of anaphora :the use of third person pronouns before the age of
3. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 1842-1865.
Salazar Orvig, Anne, Marcos, Hayde, Morgenstern, Aliyah, Hassan, Rouba, Leber-Marin, Jocelyne, Pars,
Jacques, 2010b. Dialogical factors in toddlers's use of clitic pronouns. First Language 30, 374-402.
Serratice, Ludovica, 2005. The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied
Psycholinguistics 26, 437 - 462.
Tomasello, Michael, 2003. Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Ma., Londres.
Wittek, Angelika, Tomasello, Michael, 2005. Young Children's sensitivity to listener knowledge and
perceptual context in choosing referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 26, 541 - 558.
Veneziano, Edy, Sinclair, Hermine, 2000. The changing status of 'filler syllabes' on the way to grammatical
morphemes. Journal of Child Language 27, 461-500.