Skip to main content Accessibility help

Children's comprehension of plural predicate conjunction*



Previous developmental studies of conjunction have focused on the syntax of phrasal and sentential coordination (Lust, 1977; de Villiers, Tager-Flusberg & Hakuta, 1977; Bloom, Lahey, Hood, Lifter & Fiess, 1980, among others). The present study examined the flexibility of children's interpretation of conjunction. Specifically, when two predicates that can apply simultaneously to a single individual are conjoined in the scope of a plural definite (The bears are big and white), conjunction receives a Boolean, intersective interpretation. However, when the conjoined predicates cannot apply simultaneously to an individual (The bears are big and small), conjunction receives a weaker ‘split’ interpretation (Krifka, 1990; Lasersohn, 1995; Winter, 1996). Our experiments reveal that preschool-aged children are sensitive to both intersective and split interpretations, and can use their lexical and world knowledge of the relevant predicates in order to select an appropriate reading.


Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Lyn Tieu, Department of Cognitive Science, Australian Hearing Hub, 16 University Avenue, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia. e-mail:


Hide All

For helpful feedback and discussion, we would like to thank the audience at the 2014 Rencontres d'Automne de Linguistique formelle (RALFe), as well as the linguists at the École Normale Supérieure. We would also like to thank Zheng Shen for his assistance with adult participants, the preschools in Connecticut for allowing us to carry out our study, and Yael Seggev for the original drawing in Figure 1. L. Tieu's research was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n.313610, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*, ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC, and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders (CE110001021); E. Poortman and Y. Winter's work was partially supported by a VICI grant 277-80-002 of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO); and J. Romoli's research was partially supported by the Leverhulme Trust, grant RPG-2016-100 (‘Pluralised mass nouns as a window to linguistic variation’).



Hide All
Ardery, G. (1980). On coordination in child language. Journal of Child Language 7, 305–20.
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K. & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language 7, 235–61.
Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In Garman, M. & Fletcher, P. (eds), Studies in language acquisition. (pp. 285305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays on form and interpretation. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Crain, S., Goro, T., Notley, A. & Zhou, P. (2013). A parametric account of scope in child language. In Stavrakaki, S., Lalioti, M. & Konstantinopoulou, P. (eds), Advances in language acquisition. (pp. 6371). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: a guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cromer, R. (1968). The development of temporal references during the acquisition of language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Kim, Y., Mchombo, S. & Peters, S. (1998). Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistic and Philosophy 21, 159210.
Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Mchombo, S. & Peters, S. (1994). What do reciprocals mean? In Harvey, M. & Santelmann, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference. Online: <>.
de Villiers, J., Tager-Flusberg, H. & Hakuta, K. (1977). Deciding among theories of the development of coordination in child speech. Stanford Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 13, 118–25.
Dougherty, R. C. (1968). A transformational grammar of coordinate conjoined structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dougherty, R. C. (1970). A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures, I. Language 46(4), 850–98.
Greenfield, P. M. & Dent, C. H. (1981). Pragmatic factors in children's phrasal coordination. Journal of Child Language 9, 425–43.
Grosu, A. (1979). Review of N. Chomsky, Essays on form and interpretation (New York: North-Holland). Journal of Linguistics 15, 356–64.
Hakuta, K., de Villiers, J. & Tager-Flusberg, H. (1980). Sentence coordination in Japanese and English. Journal of Child Language 9, 193207.
Harries, H. (1973). Coordination reduction. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 11, 139209.
Hoeksema, J. (1987). The semantics of non-Boolean AND. Journal of Semantics 6, 1940.
Keenan, E. L. & Faltz, L. M. (1985). Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Kerem, N., Friedmann, N. & Winter, Y. (2009). Typicality effects and the logic of reciprocity. In Cormany, E., Ito, S. & Lutz, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (pp. 257274). Online: <>.
Krifka, M. (1990). Boolean and non-Boolean ‘and’. In Kálmán, L. & Pòlos, L. (eds), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, 161–88. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Lakoff, G. & Peters, S. (1969). Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. In Reibel, D. & Schane, S. (eds), Modern Studies in English (pp. 113142). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lust, B. (1977). Conjunction reduction in child language. Journal of Child Language 4, 257–87.
Lust, B. & Mervis, C. A. (1980). Development of coordination in the natural speech of young children. Journal of Child Language 7, 279304.
Notley, A., Zhou, P. & Crain, S. (2016). Children's interpretation of conjunction in the scope of negation in English and Mandarin: new evidence for the semantic subset maxim. Applied Psycholinguistics 37(4), 867900.
Paris, S. G. (1973). Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 16, 278–91.
Partee, B. H. & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C. & von Stechow, A. (eds), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. (pp. 362383). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1987). The connective ‘and’: Do older children use it less as they learn other connectives? Journal of Child Language 14, 375–81.
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1988). The connective ‘and’ as discourse glue. First Language 8, 1928.
Poortman, E. B. (2014). Between intersective and ‘split’ interpretations of predicate conjunction: the role of typicality. In Degen, J., Franke, M. & Goodman, N. (eds), Proceedings of Formal & Experimental Pragmatics 2014. Online: <>.
Poortman, E. B. (2017). Concepts and plural predication: the effects of conceptual knowledge on the interpretation of reciprocal and conjunctive plural constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.
Reitz, S. M. (2013). Context-dependent interpretation of the conjunction und in different age-groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität.
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P. & Partee, B. H. (1973). The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Tager-Flusberg, H., de Villiers, J. & Hakuta, K. (1982). The development of sentence coordination. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development: Vol. 1: syntax and semantics (pp. 201243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Williams, E. (1978). Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9(1), 3143.
Winter, Y. (1996). A unified semantic treatment of singular NP coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4), 337–92.
Winter, Y. (2001a). Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Winter, Y. (2001b). Plural predication and the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis. Journal of Semantics 18(4), 333365.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Children's comprehension of plural predicate conjunction*



Altmetric attention score

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.