Cover not available
Part of
Complement Clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and acquisition
Edited by Ana Lúcia Santos and Anabela Gonçalves
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 17] 2018
► pp. 361–392

How Portuguese children interpret subject pronouns in complement clauses

Effects of mood selection and position of antecedent

| NOVA University of Lisbon
This study aimed to verify if Portuguese children show an interpretative asymmetry between null and overt subject pronouns in indicative and subjunctive complement clauses. In the indicative, children overaccepted the dispreferred coreferential reading with overt pronouns (argued to be licensed post-syntactically); children performed more adult-like with null pronouns (considered to be licensed in syntax) when there was only one intrasentential antecedent (the matrix subject). However, when a matrix object antecedent was added between the preferred matrix subject antecedent and the null embedded subject pronoun, they often accepted the dispreferred reading of disjoint reference. In subjunctive clauses, children incorrectly assigned coreferential readings to both pronouns. We assume that subjunctive obviation is partly dependent on lexical-semantic knowledge, taking time to be acquired.
Keywords: interpretation, null subject pronouns, overt subject pronouns, indicative, subjunctive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interpreting subject pronouns in finite complement clauses in EP
  • 3.Cross-linguistic research in the acquisition of pronominal subjects in complement clauses: Some interpretative patterns
  • 4.Hypotheses and predictions
  • 5.Experiment
    • 5.1Methodology
    • 5.2Participants
    • 5.3Test A1
      • 5.4Test A2
      • 5.5Test B
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1The status of subject pronouns in the indicative
    • 6.2Position of the matrix indirect object antecedent preceding the null subject pronoun
    • 6.3Lexical-semantic properties of the matrix verbs selecting the subjunctive
    • 6.4Specificities of the subjunctive obviation
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.17.12sil
References (22)
References
Agostinho, C. (2014). The acquisition of control in European Portuguese complement clauses (Unpublished MA dissertation). Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa.
Ambar, M., & Vasconcelos, M. (2012). Conjuntivo em Português: Revisitando a análise de Isabel Hub Faria. In A. Costa & I. Duarte (Eds.), Nada na linguagem lhe é estranho. Homenagem a Isabel Hub Faria (pp. 533–551). Porto: Edições Afrontamento.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., & Wexler, K. (1999/2000). Children’s knowledge of subjunctive clauses: Obviation, binding and reference. Language Acquisition, 8(1), 69–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, P. (2009). Two kinds of subject pro . Studia Linguistica, 63, 2‑58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brito, A. M. (1991). Ligação, co-referência e o princípio evitar o pronome. Actas do Encontro de Homenagem a Óscar Lopes, 101‑121. Lisboa: APL.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (pp. 145‑233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Lectures on government and binding. The Pisa lectures (2nd revised ed.). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Costa, J., & Ambulate, J. (2010). The acquisition of embedded subject pronouns in European Portuguese. In M. Iverson, I. Ivanov, T. Judy, J. Rothman, R. Slabakova, & M. Tryzna (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 Mind/Context Divide Workshop (pp. 1‑12). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Grolla, E. (2006). The acquisition of A- and A’-bound pronouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (pp. 227‑250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335–391.Google Scholar
(1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 589–632.Google Scholar
Lobo, M. (2013). Dependências referenciais. In E. B. P. Raposo, M. F. B. Nascimento, M. A. C. Mota, L. Segura, & A. Mendes (Eds.), Gramática do português (Vol. 2, pp. 2177–2227). Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
Meireles, J., & Raposo, E. (1983). Subjunctives and disjoint reference in Portuguese: Some implications for the Binding Theory. Paper presented at the 1er Colloqui Internacional de Lingüistica Teòrica i Llengues Romàniques, Sitges.
Montalbetti, M. (1986). How pro is it? In O. Jaeggli & C. Silva-Corvalán (Eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 137‑152). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Padilla, J. A. (1990). On the definition of binding domains in Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. (1985). Some asymmetries in the binding theory in Romance. The Linguistic Review, 5, 75‑110.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2004). The processing cost of reference-set computation: Acquisition of stress shift and focus. Language Acquisition, 12, 109‑155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, C. (2015). Interpretation of clitic, strong and null pronouns in the acquisition of European Portuguese (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F., & Baldo, M. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460‑477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar