The Delay of Principle B Effect (DPBE) has been discussed in various studies that show that children around age 5 seem to violate Principle B of Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981, and related works), when the antecedent of the pronoun is a name, but not when the antecedent is a quantifier. The analysis we propose can explain the DPBE in languages of the Dutch-English type, and its exemption in languages with (dis)placed pronouns (clitics). In both types of languages, the phenomenon arises when children have to compare two alternative representations for equivalence. The principle that induces the comparison is different in both cases, however. The comparision of children speaking languages with pronouns occurring within the VP is induced by Grodzinsky and Reinhart's (1993) Rule I. However, the comparison of children in languages where the pronouns occur above the VP is induced by Scope Economy. In both cases the result is similar: the children take guesses in the process of interpreting the anaphoric dependency, thereby performing at chance level.
Agüero-Bautista, C. (2001). The delay of Principle B effect and its exemption in Romance. Ms., MIT.
2.
Agüero-Bautista, C. (2005). Pronominal effects in clitic-doubling. Ms., University of Quebec at Montreal.
3.
Avrutin, S. (1994). Psycholinguistic investigations in the theory of reference. PhD dissertation, MIT.
4.
Avrutin, S., & Wexler, K. (1992). Development of Principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition, 2, 259-306.
5.
Baauw, S. (1999). The role of the clitic-full pronoun distinction in the acquisition of pronominal coreference. In A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield, & C. Tano (Eds.), BUCLD Proceedings, 23, 32-43. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
6.
Baauw, S. (2000). Grammatical features and the acquisition of reference. A comparative study of Dutch and Spanish. LOT Dissertation series 39, Utrecht University.
7.
Baauw, S., Coopmans, P., & Philip, W. (1999). The acquisition of pronominal coreference in Spanish and the clitic-pronoun distinction. UiL-OTS Yearbook, 1998-1999. Universidad de Utrecht.
8.
Baauw, S., & Cuetos, F. (2003). The interpretation of pronouns in Spanish language acquisition and language breakdown: Evidence for the "Delayed Principle B Effect" as a non-unitary phenomenon. Language Acquisition , 11(4), 219-275.
9.
Baauw, S., Escobar, M., & Philip, W. (1997). A delay of Principle B effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock, & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Proceedings of the GALA 97 Conference on Language Acquisition (pp. 16-21). University of Edinburgh.
10.
Chien, Y.C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in bindings as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225-295.
11.
Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of meaning. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.
12.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
13.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Collins, C. (1997). Local economy. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
15.
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2007). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Ms. University of Maryland, College Park.
16.
Di Sciullo, A.M. (1990). On the properties of clitics. In A. M. Di Sciullo & A. Rochette (Eds.), Binding in Romance. Essays in honour of Judith McA'Nulty (pp.209-232). Special Publication of The Canadian Linguistic Association.
17.
Di Sciullo, A.M. (2005). Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Di Sciullo, A.M. (2006). Grammar and the Shortest Path. WSEAS, 9(5), 1781-1787.
19.
Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 333-365.
20.
Fox, D. ( 2000). Scope and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Grodzinsky, J., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69-102.
22.
Hamann, C., Kowalski, O., & Philip, W. (1997). In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), The French "Delay of Principle B" effect. BUCLD 21 Proceedings (pp.205-219). Somerville, MA : Cascadilla Press.
23.
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite NPs. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
24.
Heim, I. (1993). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. SfS-Report-07-93. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. Reprinted in U. Sauerland & O. Percus (Eds.), The Interpretive Tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25 (pp.205-246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
26.
Jakubowicz, C., Müller, N., Kang, O.-K., Riemer, B., & Rigaut, C. (1996). On the acquisition of pronominal reference in French and German. In A. Stringfellow, et al. (Eds.), BUCLD 20 Proceedings (pp.374-385). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
27.
Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua , 85(1), 211 - 258.
28.
Koster, C. (1993). Errors in anaphora acquisition. PhD dissertation , Utrecht University.
29.
McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition, 2, 21-54.
30.
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 221-242). Dordrecht: Reidel.
31.
Neeleman, A., & Weerman, F. (1999). Flexible syntax: A theory of case and arguments, Vol. 47. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
32.
Padilla, J.A. (1990). On the definition of binding domains in Spanish . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
33.
Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles . In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourser representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp.115-143). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
34.
Philip, W., & Coopmans, P. (1996). The double Dutch delay of Principle B effect. BUCLD 20 Proceedings (pp. 576-587). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
35.
Postal, P. (1969). On so-called "Pronouns" in English. In D. A. Reibel & S. A. Schane (Eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar (pp. 201-224). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47-88.
38.
Rooth, M.E. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75 - 116.
39.
Sag, I. ( 1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD dissertation, MIT.
40.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Thornton, R. (1990). Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
42.
Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle G, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 79-123.
44.
Valera, A. (1989). A structural explanation of children's apparent failure to respect Conditon B. Paper presented at BUCLD 14.
45.
Varlokosta, S. (2000). Lack of clitic-pronoun distinctions in the acquisition of Principle B in Child Greek. In Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 738-748). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
46.
Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 101-139.
