Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • ANNA MYRA NOTLEY (a1), PENG ZHOU (a1) and STEPHEN CRAIN (a1)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

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

References

Hide All
Aoun, J., & Li, A. Y.-H. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 141172.
Brooks, P. J., & Brain, M. D. S. (1996). What do all children know about the universal quantifiers all and each? Cognition, 60, 235268.
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.
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. 157168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Conroy, A., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2009). The fleeting isomorphism effect. Language Acquisition, 16, 106117.
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. 7195). Tokyo: Hituzi.
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. 443467). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
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.
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. 251264). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
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. 137162). Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.
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. 245256). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 4158). New York: Academic Press.
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.
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. 5863). Tubingen, Germany: Eberhard Karls.
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. 121135). Tokyo: Hituzi.
Gualmini, A. (2008). The rise and fall of isomorphism. Lingua, 118, 11581176.
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. 243254). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Gualmini, A., & Crain, S. (2005). The structure of children's linguistic knowledge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 463474.
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.
Gualmini, A., Hulsey, S., Hacquard, V., & Fox, D. (2008). The question–answer requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 205237.
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.
Gualmini, A., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Solving learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics. Journal of Semantics, 26, 185215.
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, 667696.
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.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1953). Transmission of information concerning concepts through positive and negative instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 175182.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
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. 7190). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Kramer, I. (2000). Interpreting indefinites: An experimental study of children's language comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
Lasnik, H., & Crain, S. (1985). On the acquisition of pronominal reference. Lingua, 65, 135154.
Lee, T. H.-T. (1986). Studies on quantification in Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children's command of quantification. Cognition, 84, 113154.
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2005/2006). On the quantificational status of indefinites: The view from child language. Language Acquisition, 13, 73102.
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. 495506). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
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.
Musolino, J., Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics, 38, 132.
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2006). Why children aren't universally successful with quantification. Linguistics, 44, 817852.
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, 482522.
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165188.
Szabolcsi, A. (2001). The syntax of scope. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 607633). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Zhou, P., & Crain, S. (2009). Scope assignment in child language: Evidence from the acquisition of Chinese. Lingua, 119, 973988.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed