Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T04:54:34.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's interpretation of conjunction in the scope of negation in English and Mandarin: New evidence for the semantic subset maxim

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

ANNA MYRA NOTLEY ,
PENG ZHOU  and
STEPHEN CRAIN
ANNA MYRA NOTLEY*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
PENG ZHOU
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
STEPHEN CRAIN
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Anna Myra Notley, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Disorders, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia. E-mail: anna.notley@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We tested 3- to 5-year-old English- and Mandarin-speaking children on their interpretation of sentences like The elephant didn't eat both the carrot and the capsicum. These sentences are scopally ambiguous. Adult English speakers favor a weak interpretation of such sentences, with negation taking scope over conjunction (i.e., the elephant probably ate one of the vegetables, but not both). In contrast, adult Mandarin speakers favor a strong interpretation of the corresponding Mandarin sentences, with conjunction taking scope over negation (i.e., the elephant ate neither vegetable). The semantic subset maxim (Notley, Zhou, Jensen, & Crain, 2012) predicts that children acquiring all human languages should initially prefer the strong (subset) reading of such sentences. In contrast, the question–answer requirement model (Gualmini, Hulsey, Hacquard, & Fox, 2008; Hulsey, Hacquard, Fox, & Gualmini, 2004) predicts that children should initially prefer the scope reading that constitutes a good true answer to a question under discussion in the context. We designed a task in which the weak reading of our sentences corresponded to a good true answer to the question under discussion. We found that children across languages nonetheless preferred to assign a strong interpretation to our test sentences, providing empirical support for the semantic subset maxim.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , July 2016 , pp. 867 - 900
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, J., & Li, A. Y.-H. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 141–172.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., & Brain, M. D. S. (1996). What do all children know about the universal quantifiers all and each? Cognition, 60, 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Braine, M. D. S., Jia, G., & da Graca Dias, M. (2001). Early representations of all, each, and their counterparts in Mandarin Chinese and Portuguese. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (3rd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Do, A. H.-J., Domínguez, L., & Johansen, A. (Eds.), BUCLD 25 Proceedings (pp. 157–168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Conroy, A., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2009). The fleeting isomorphism effect. Language Acquisition, 16, 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., Gardner, A., Gualmini, A., & Rabbin, B. (2002). Children's command of negation. In Otsu, Y. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp. 71–95). Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Ni, W., & Conway, L. (1994). Learning, parsing, and modularity. In Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 443–467). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Fan, L. (2010). Mandarin children's acquisition of the scope relation between negation and universal quantification. Paper presented at the Workshop on Acquisition of Scope and Phrase Structure: Comparative Perspectives, Chinese University of Hong Kong, December 22–23.Google Scholar
Goro, T., & Akiba, S. (2004a). The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodriguez, A. J., & Schmeiser, B. (Eds.), WCCFL 23 Proceedings (pp. 251–264). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goro, T., & Akiba, S. (2004b). Japanese disjunction and the acquisition of positive polarity. In Otsu, Y. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp. 137–162). Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Goro, T., Minai, U., & Crain, S. (2006). Bringing out the logic in child language. In Bateman, L. & Ussery, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 245–256). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. (2005). The ups and downs of child language: Experimental studies on children's knowledge of entailment relationships and polarity phenomena. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. (2007a). Negation and polarity: The view from child language. In Zeijlstra, H. & Soehn, J.-P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Negation and Polarity (pp. 58–63). Tubingen, Germany: Eberhard Karls.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. (2007b). Scope resolution in child language: A test for the QAR. In Otsu, Y. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp. 121–135). Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. (2008). The rise and fall of isomorphism. Lingua, 118, 1158–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gualmini, A., & Crain, S. (2002). Why no child or adult must learn de Morgan's laws. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., & Do, A. H.-J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 243–254). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., & Crain, S. (2005). The structure of children's linguistic knowledge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L., Chierchia, G., & Guasti, M. T. (2001). At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. Paper presented at the 11th Semantics and Linguistics Theory Conference, Cornell University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gualmini, A., Hulsey, S., Hacquard, V., & Fox, D. (2008). The question–answer requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 205–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulamini, A., Maciukaite, S., & Crain, S. (2002). Children's insensitivity to contrastive stress in sentences with ONLY. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Conference, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Solving learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics. Journal of Semantics, 26, 185–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 667–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbert, A., Crain, S., Shankweiler, D., & Woodams, E. (1995). Children's interpretive use of emphatic stress. Poster presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1953). Transmission of information concerning concepts through positive and negative instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 175–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hulsey, S., Hacquard, V., Fox, D., & Gualmini, A. (2004). The question–answer requirement and scope assignment. In Csirmaz, A., Gualmini, A., & Nevins, A. (Eds.), Plato's problem: Problems in language acquisition (pp. 71–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kramer, I. (2000). Interpreting indefinites: An experimental study of children's language comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Crain, S. (1985). On the acquisition of pronominal reference. Lingua, 65, 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. H.-T. (1986). Studies on quantification in Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children's command of quantification. Cognition, 84, 113–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2005/2006). On the quantificational status of indefinites: The view from child language. Language Acquisition, 13, 73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J. (1999). What every child doesn't know. In Greenhill, A., Littlefield, H., & Tano, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 495–506). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Musolino, J. (2011). Studying language acquisition through the prism of isomorphism. In de Villiers, J. & Roeper, T. (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
Musolino, J., Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics, 38, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2006). Why children aren't universally successful with quantification. Linguistics, 44, 817–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Notley, A., Zhou, P., Jensen, B., & Crain, S. (2012). Children's interpretation of disjunction in the scope of “before”: A comparison of English and Mandarin. Journal of Child Language, 39, 482–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szabolcsi, A. (2001). The syntax of scope. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 607–633). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, P., & Crain, S. (2009). Scope assignment in child language: Evidence from the acquisition of Chinese. Lingua, 119, 973–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar