Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 1219–1241 | Cite as

Differences in Scope Assignments for Child and Adult Speakers of Mandarin

  • Na Gao
  • Rosalind Thornton
  • Peng Zhou
  • Stephen Crain
Article

Abstract

The present study used a Truth Value Judgment Task to investigate whether changes in sentence structure lead to corresponding changes in the assignment of scope relations by Mandarin-speaking children and adults. In one condition, participants were presented with ordinary negative sentences containing disjunction; this condition was designed to verify the existing claim that disjunction is a positive polarity item for adult speakers of Mandarin, but not for child speakers. In a second condition, participants were presented with negative sentences where the disjunction phrase was preposed from object position; this condition was designed to examine the extent to which changes in sentence structure can result in changes in scope assignments to negated disjunctions. The results indicate that the preposed disjunction phrase undergoes reconstruction for children, whereas reconstruction is blocked for adults. This finding also suggests that Mandarin-speaking children and adults exhibit different scope preferences for negated disjunctions, regardless of where the disjunction phrase appears in the surface syntax.

Keywords

Scope assignment Disjunction Child Mandarin Reconstruction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders. We are grateful to Dr. Lyn Tieu for her proofreading support. We would also like to acknowledge the children and adults who participated in the experiments for their input and time.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This research was approved by Macquarie University Ethics Committee (REF: 5201401129).

References

  1. Baker, C. L. (1970). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 169–186.Google Scholar
  2. Berwick, R. C. (1985). Acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boster, C. T., & Crain, S. (1993). On children’s understanding of every and or. In C. Smith (Ed.), Proceedings of the early cognition and the transition to language (Vol. 8, pp. 1–23). Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  4. 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 H.-J. Anna (Ed.), BUCLD 25 Proceedings (pp. 157–168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 303–351.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding–The Pisa Lectures. USA: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, V., & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky’s universal grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publisher.Google Scholar
  9. Conroy, A., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2009). The fleeting isomorphism effect. Language Acquisition, 16(2), 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crain, S. (2008). The interpretation of disjunction in universal grammar. Language and Speech, 51(1&2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crain, S. (2012). The emergence of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crain, S., Gardener, A., Gualmini, A., & Rabbin, B. (2002). Children’s command of negation. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), The Third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 71–95). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Crain, S., Goro, T., Notley, A., & Zhou, P. (2014). A parametric account of scope in child language. In S. Stavrakaki, M. Lalioti, & P. Konstantinopoulou (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 63–71). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Crain, S., Koring, L., & Thornton, R. (2016). Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 9(004), 1–30.Google Scholar
  15. Crain, S., Ni, W., & Conway, L. (1994). Learning, parsing, and modularity. In C. J. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 443–467). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  16. Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar—A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C. T., Conway, L., Lillo-Martin, D., & Woodams, E. (1996). Quantification without qualitification. Language Acquisition, 5, 83–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Villiers, J., & Roeper, T. (1996). Questions after stories: Supplying context and removing it as a variable. In D. McDaniel, D. Cairns, & C. Mckee (Eds.), Methodology in child language research (pp. 163–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Ernst, T., & Wang, C. (1995). Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 4(3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. É Kiss, K. (1995). Discourse configurational languages introduction. In K. É Kiss (Ed.), Discourse configurational languages (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. É Kiss, K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geçkin, V., Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2016). The interpretation of logical connectives in Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 43(4), 784–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goro, T. (2004). The emergence of universal grammar in the emergence of language: The acquisition of Japanese logical connectives and positive polarity. MA Dissertation, The University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  24. Goro, T. (2007). Language-specific constraints on scope interpretation in first language acquisition. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  25. Goro, T., & Akiba, S. (2004a). The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A. J. Rodriguez, & B. Schmeiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 251–264). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goro, T., & Akiba, S. (2004b). Japanese disjunction and the acquisition of positive polarity. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 137–162). Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Guasti, M., & Chierchia, G. (1999/2000). Backward versus forward anaphora: Reconstruction in child grammar. Language Acquisition, 8(2), 129–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gualmini, A., & Crain, S. (2002). Why no child or adult must learn de Morgan’s laws. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. H.-J. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Boston University child language development conference (pp. 367–378). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gualmini, A., & Crain, S. (2005). The structure of children’s linguistic knowledge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Heycock, C. (1994). Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  33. Heycock, C., & Kroch, A. (2002). Topics, focus, and syntactic representations. In A. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 141–165). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hirst, W., & Weil, J. (1982). Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modal. Journal of Child Language Acquisition, 9(3), 659–666.Google Scholar
  35. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Huang, C.-T. J. (1993). Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(1), 103–138.Google Scholar
  37. Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y.-H. A., & Li, Y. (2008). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jing, C., Crain, S., & Hsu, C.-F. (2005). The interpretation of focus in Chinese: child vs. adult language. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 165–179). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  39. Kiguchi, H., & Thornton, R. (2016). Connectivity effects in pseudoclefts in child language. Studia Linguistica, 70(1), 34–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leddon, E. M. (2006). Reconstruction effects in child language. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, O.-S. (2010). Acquisition of Korean disjunction under negation. In A. Schütz (Ed.), Working papers in linguistics. Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa, 41(7).Google Scholar
  42. Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2002). Children’s command of quantification. Cognition, 84(2), 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molnár, V. (2006). On different kinds of contrast. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 197–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moscati, V., & Crain, S. (2014). When negation and epistemic modality combine: The role of information strength in child language. Language Learning and Development, 10, 345–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Musolino, J. (1998). Universal grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge: An experimental investigation into the acquisition of quantifier-negation interaction in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  46. Musolino, J. (2006). Structure and meaning in the acquisition of scope. In V. Geenhoven (Ed.), Semantics in acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Musolino, J. (2011). Studying language acquisition through the prism of isomorphism. In J. de Villiers & T. Roeper (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 311–349). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2003). The scope of isomorphism: Turning adults into children. Language Acquisition, 11(4), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78(2), 621–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pan, H., & Hu, J. (2000). Head noun movement, focus, and topicalization in Mandarin Chinese. Ms.: City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  51. Reeve, M. (2011). The syntactic structure of English clefts. Lingua, 121, 142–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rizzi, L. (2014). Syntactic cartography and the syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics. In A. Reboul (Ed.), Mind, values, and metaphysics-philosophical essays in honor of Kevin Mulligan (Vol. 2, pp. 517–533). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Shi, C. (2008). Derivational based analysis of constructions and the relevant theories. Chinese Teaching in the World, 2(84), 5–25. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  54. Su, E., & Crain, S. (2013). Children’s knowledge of disjunction and universal quantification in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 599–631.Google Scholar
  55. Szabolcsi, A. (2002). Hungarian disjunctions and positive polarity. In I. Kenesei & P. Siptar (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian (Vol. 8). Szeged: University of Szeged.Google Scholar
  56. Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(2), 409–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thornton, R., Kiguchi, H., & D’Onofrio, E. (2016). Cleft sentences and reconstruction in child language. In J. Scott & D. Waughtal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 391–402). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  58. Verbuk, A. (2006). The acquisition of the Russian or. In E. Brainbridge & B. Agbayani (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth western conference on linguistics (pp. 443–455). Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University.Google Scholar
  59. Xu, L., & Langendoen, D. T. (1985). Topic structures in Chinese. Language, 61(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xu, L., & Liu, D. (1998). The structure and function of topic. Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Publishing House. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  61. Yuan, Y. (1996). Topicalization and its derivations. Zhongguo Yuwen, 253(4), 241–254.Google Scholar
  62. Zhou, P., & Crain, S. (2009). Scope assignment in child language: Evidence from the acquisition of Chinese. Lingua, 119, 973–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhu, D. (1982). Yufa Jiangyi. Beijing: Commercial Press. (in Chinese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its DisordersMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Beijing Language and Culture UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Tsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations