Competence, performance, and the locality of quantifier raising: Evidence from 4-year-old children (original) (raw)
Related papers
(2006) Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults
Language Acquisition, 13(3), 2006
Errors involving universal quantification are common in contexts depicting sets of individuals in partial, one-to-one correspondence. In this article, we explore whether quantifier-spreading errors are more common with distributive quantifiers each and every than with all. In Experiments 1 and 2, 96 children (5-to 9-year-olds) viewed pairs of pictures and selected one corresponding to a sentence containing a universal quantifier (e.g., Every alligator is in a bathtub). Both pictures showed extra objects (e.g., alligators or bathtubs) not in correspondence, with correct sentence interpretation requiring their attention. Children younger than 9 years made numerous errors, with poorer performance in distributive contexts than collective ones. In Experiment 3, 21 native, English-speaking adults, given a similar task with the distributive quantifier every, also made childlike errors. The persistence of quantifier-spreading errors in adults undermines accounts positing immature syntactic structures as the error source. Rather, the errors seemingly reflect inaccurate syntax to semantics mapping, with adults and children alike resorting to processing shortcuts.
Processing Evidence for Quantifier Raising: the Case of Antecedent Contained Deletion
2007
This paper argues that two combinatorial processes, resolving antecedent contained deletion and resolving the problem of quantifiers in object position, are intimately linked and then discusses the theoretical implications that this hypothesis carries. The evidence that we use to support this claim comes from a series of sentence processing studies that investigate real time effects of processing quantificational and definite DPs.
Restricting quantifier scope in Dutch: Evidence from child language comprehension and production
Studies in Meaning and Structure, 2012
In this study, we tested 4-to 6-year-old Dutch children and adults on their comprehension and production of indefinite subjects and objects in universally quantified sentences. Our comprehension results show that, whereas the adults showed a strong preference for indefinite subjects to refer to specific entities, corresponding to a wide scope interpretation for the indefinite subject, the children overwhelmingly accepted non-specific referents for indefinite subjects, corresponding to a narrow scope interpretation. In the production task, however, the children, like the adults, did not use indefinite subjects to express non-specific reference. Although this seems to indicate that children's non-adult-like performance with indefinite subjects is limited to comprehension, their pattern of production was slightly different from that of adults, too. We suggest that this may be due to a non-adult-like ranking of constraints on specificity and familiarity.
Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults
2006
Errors involving universal quantification are common in contexts depicting sets of individuals in partial, one-to-one correspondence. In this article, we explore whether quantifier-spreading errors are more common with distributive quantifiers each and every than with all. In Experiments 1 and 2, 96 children (5-to 9-year-olds) viewed pairs of pictures and selected one corresponding to a sentence containing a universal quantifier (eg, Every alligator is in a bathtub).
Born in the USA: a comparison of modals and nominal quantifiers in child language
to appear in proceedings of GALA 2013
One of the challenges confronted by language learners is to master the interpretation of sentences with multiple logical operators (e.g., nominal quantifiers, modals, negation), where different interpretations depend on different scope assignments. Five year-old children have been found to access some readings of potentially ambiguous sentences much less than adults do. Recently, Gualmini, Hulsey, Hacquard, and Fox (2008) have shown that, by careful contextual manipulation, it is possible to evoke some of the putatively unavailable interpretations from young children. The focus of this work was on sentences involving nominal quantifiers and negation. The present study extends the investigation, by comparing children’s interpretations of negative sentences with nominal quantifiers to ones with modal expressions. The results reveal that, in the case of sentences with modal expressions, the kinds of contextual manipulations introduced by Gualmini et al. do not suffice to explain children’s initial scope interpretations. In response to the recalcitrant data, we propose a new three-stage model of the acquisition of scope relations. Most importantly, at the initial stage child grammars make available only one interpretation of negative sentences with modal expressions. We call this stage Unique Scope Assignment (USA).
to appear in Natural Language Semantics
One of the challenges confronted by language learners is to master the interpretation of sentences with multiple logical operators (e.g., nominal quantifiers, modals, negation), where different interpretations depend on differ- ent scope assignments. Five year-old children have been found to access some readings of potentially ambiguous sentences much less than adults do (Mu- solino 1998, Lidz and Musolino 2006, Musolino and Lidz 2003 among many others). Recently, Gualmini, Hulsey, Hacquard and Fox (2008) have shown that, by careful contextual manipulation, it is possible to evoke some of the putatively unavailable interpretations from young children. Their proposal is quite general, but the focus of their work was on sentences involving nomi- nal quantifiers and negation. The present paper extends these investigation to sentences with modal expressions. The results of two experimental studies reveal that, in potentially ambiguous sentences with modal expressions, the kinds of contextual manipulations introduced by Gualmini and colleagues do not suffice to explain children’s initial scope interpretations. In response to the recalcitrant data, we propose a new three-stage model of the acquisition of scope relations. Most importantly, at the initial stage, child grammars make available only one interpretation of negative sentences with modal expressions. We call this stage Unique Scope Assignment (USA).
Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses
Cognition, 1982
*We wish to thank S. Crain, E. Engdahl, S. J. Keyser, J. Randall, L. Solan, T. Roepcr, S. Lapointe, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. We particularly thank one reviewer for extremely helpful and detailed commentary. We are grateful to the staff and children of the following schools, who allowed us to interrupt their schedules to carry out intcrvicws: