Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Asymmetries between Language Production and Comprehension pp 153–179Cite as

Symmetry and Asymmetry Across Languages

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 832 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 42))

Abstract

Production/comprehension asymmetries are not universal, but rather depend on the language. Languages such as English and Dutch show an asymmetry with object pronouns in transitive sentences, whereas there does not seem to be such an asymmetry in Romance languages. Two reasons are presented for the occurrence of cross-linguistic variation with asymmetries. First, different languages have different constraint rankings. This may explain potential cross-linguistic variation with the word order asymmetry. Second, languages differ in whether and how they syntactically mark relevant aspects of the discourse, such as discourse topicality. The more information is marked syntactically, the less ambiguous the sentence is and the less urgent the need for the listener to consider the speaker’s perspective. This could explain the observed cross-linguistic variation with the Delay of Principle B Effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avrutin, Sergey, and Kenneth Wexler. 1992. Development of principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition 2: 259–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baauw, Sergio. 1999. The role of the clitic-full pronoun distinction in the acquisition of pronominal coreference. In Proceedings of BUCLD 23, ed. Annabel Greenhill, Heather Littlefield, and Cheryl Tano, 32–43. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baauw, Sergio, and Fernando Cuetos. 2003. The interpretation of pronouns in Spanish language acquisition and breakdown: Evidence for the “Principle B Delay” as a non-unitary phenomenon. Language Acquisition 11: 219–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baauw, Sergio, María A. Escobar, and William Philip. 1997. A delay of principle B-effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing. Proceedings of GALA ’97, ed. Antonella Sorace, Caroline Heycock, and Richard Shillcock, 16–21. Edinburgh: HCRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouma, Gerlof. 2008. Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object fronting. Dissertation, University of Groningen. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, Luigi. 1998. Anaphora and soft constraints. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 93–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro, Gisi. 2012. Early word order and animacy. Dissertation, University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Angel, Elena Lieven, and Michael Tomasello. 2009. Children’s understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 267–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, Robin S., and Jon F. Miller. 1975. Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 18:346–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chien, Yu-Chin, and Kenneth Wexler. 1990. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 13: 225–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, Anastasia, Eri Takahashi, Jeffrey Lidz, and Colin Phillips. 2009. Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 446–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. LOT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Villiers, Jill G., Jacqueline Cahillane, and Emily Altreuter. 2006. What can production reveal about Principle B? In The proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America, University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4, ed. Kamil Ud Deen, Jun Nomura, Barbara Schulz, and Bonnie D. Schwartz, 89–100. Honolulu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfitto, Denis. 2002. On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 41–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Calixto Agüero-Bautista. 2008. The Delay of Principle B Effect (DPBE) and its absence on some languages. Language and Speech 51: 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, Monika. 2003. Parametrized beginnings of sentences in English and German. Across Languages and Cultures 4: 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, Linda, and Anna Gavarró. 2002. The acquisition of Catalan clitics and its implications for complex verb structure. In The process of language acquisition: Proceedings of the 1999 GALA conference, ed. Ingeborg Lasser, 99–114. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Silke. 2004. Optimal binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 481–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 187–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane, and Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 1998. Optimal subjects and subject universals. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 193–219. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Tanya Reinhart. 1993. The innateness of binding and of coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grolla, Elaine. 2006. The acquisition of A- and A’-bound pronouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In The acquisition of syntax in Romance Languages, ed. Vincent Torrens and Linda Escobar, 227–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grolla, Elaine. 2005. Pronouns as elsewhere elements: Implications for language acquisition. Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, Cornelia. 2011. Binding and coreference: Views from child language. In Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition, Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 41, ed. Jill de Villiers and Tom Roeper, 247–290. Dordrecht/New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, Cornelia, Odette Kowalski, and William Philip. 1997. The French ‘Delay of Principle B’ Effect. In Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University conference on language development, ed. Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes, and Annabel Greenhill, 205–219. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, Petra, and Jennifer Spenader. 2005/6. When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition 13: 319–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestvik, Arild, and William Philip. 1999/2000. Binding and coreference in Norwegian child language. Language Acquisition 8: 171–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakubowicz, Celia. 1984. On markedness and binding principles. In Proceedings of NELS 14, ed. Charles Jones and Peter Sells, 154–182. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In More than words, Studia Grammatica 53, ed. Ingrid Kaufmann and Barbara Stiebels, 179–226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, Charlotte. 1993. Errors in anaphora acquisition. Dissertation, Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, Danielle, Elena Lieven, Anna Theakston, and Michael Tomasello. 2009. Pronoun co-referencing errors: Challenges for generativist and usage-based accounts. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 599–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, Cecile. 1992. A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2: 21–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, William, and Peter Coopmans. 1996a. The double Dutch Delay of Principle B Effect. In Proceedings of the 20th Boston University conference on language development, ed. Andy Stringfellow, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes, and Andrea Zukowski, 576–587. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philip, William, and Peter Coopmans. 1996b. The role of lexical feature acquisition in the development of pronominal anaphora. In Connecting children’s language and linguistic theory, Amsterdam Series in Child Language Development 5, ed. William Philip and Frank Wijnen, 73–106. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooryck, Johan, and Guido vanden Wyngaerd. 2011. Dissolving binding theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruigendijk, Esther. 2008. Pronoun interpretation in German Kindergarten children. In Proceedings of GALA 2007, ed. Anna Gavarró Algueró and M.João Freitas. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruigendijk, Esther, Naama Friedmann, Rama Novogrodsky, and Noga Balaban. 2010. Symmetry in comprehension and production of pronouns: A comparison of German and Hebrew. Lingua 120: 1991–2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurjónsdóttir, Sigríður, and Nina Hyams. 1992. Reflexivization and logophoricity: Evidence from the acquisition of Icelandic. Language Acquisition 2: 359–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spenader, Jennifer, Erik-Jan Smits, and Petra Hendriks. 2009. Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem. Journal of Child Language 36: 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, Rosalind, and Kenneth Wexler. 1999. Principle B, VP ellipsis and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rij, Jacolien, Hedderik van Rijn, and Petra Hendriks. 2010. Cognitive architectures and language acquisition: A case study in pronoun comprehension. Journal of Child Language 37: 731–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 2002. (A)symmetries in the acquisition of Principle B in typically-developing and Specific Language-Impaired (SLI) children. In The process of language acquisition. Proceedings of the 1999 GALA conference, ed. Lasser Ingeborg, 81–98. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasić, Nada. 2006. Pronoun comprehension in agrammatic aphasia: The structure and use of linguistic knowledge. Dissertation, Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Colin. 2001. Bidirectional optimization and the theory of anaphora. In Optimality theoretic syntax, ed. Jane Grimshaw, Géraldine Legendre, and Sten Vikner, 465–507. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Language and Cognition Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Petra Hendriks

Authors
  1. Petra Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hendriks, P. (2014). Symmetry and Asymmetry Across Languages. In: Asymmetries between Language Production and Comprehension. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 42. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6901-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation