Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 79–115 | Cite as

Born in the USA: a comparison of modals and nominal quantifiers in child language

  • Vincenzo Moscati
  • Jacopo Romoli
  • Tommaso Federico Demarie
  • Stephen Crain
Open Access
Article

Abstract

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 (Lidz and Musolino, Lang Acquis 13(2):73–102, 2006; Musolino, Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge, 1998; Musolino and Lidz, Lang Acquis 11(4):277–291, 2003, among many others). Recently, Gualmini et al. (Nat Lang Semant 16:205–237, 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 nominal quantifiers and negation. The present paper extends this investigation to sentences with modal expressions. The results of our 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 the Unique Scope Assignment (USA) stage.

Keywords

Language acquisition Negation Scope ambiguities Quantifiers Modals Ambiguity resolution 

References

  1. Allison P. (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research 28: 186–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen H. (2008) Analysing linguistic data.A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen R., Davidson D., Bates D. (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr D., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68: 255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bascelli E., Barbieri S. (2002) Italian children’s understanding of epistemic and deontic modal verbs dovere (must) and potere (may). Journal of Child Language 29: 87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D., M. Maechler, and B. Bolker. 2011. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42. http://cran.R-project.org/package=lme4.
  7. Beaver D., Clark B.Z. (2009) Sense and sensitivity. How focus determines meaning. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Beghelli F., Stowell T. (1997) Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In: Szabolcsi A. ed. Ways of scope taking. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 71–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berwick R.C. (1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Breslow N., Clayton D. (1993) Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Society 88: 9–25Google Scholar
  11. Breusch T., Pagan A. (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 47: 1287–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrnes J.P., Duff M.A. (1989) Young children’s comprehension of modal expressions. Cognitive Development 4: 369–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardinaletti A., Shlonsky U. (2004) Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35(4): 519–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crain S., Ni W., Conway L. (1994) Learning, parsing, and modularity. In: Clifton J.C., Frazier L., Rayner K. ed. Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 433–467Google Scholar
  15. Crain S., Thornton R. (1998) Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox D. (1999) Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 157–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Grice P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Davidson D., Harman G. ed. The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 64–75Google Scholar
  19. Gualmini A. (2004a) Some knowledge children don’t lack. Linguistics 42: 957–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gualmini A. (2004b) The ups and downs of child language. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Gualmini A., Hulsey S., Hacquard V., Fox D. (2008) The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics 16: 205–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gualmini, A., and V. Moscati. 2009. The early steps of modal and negation interactions: Evidence from child Italian. In Romance Language and linguistic theory. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2007, 131–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  23. Gualmini A., Schwarz B. (2009) Solving the learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics. Journal of Semantics 26: 185–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53Google Scholar
  25. Hirst W., Weil J. (1982) Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modals. Journal of Child Language 9: 659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaeger T.F. (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from Anovas (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 434–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krämer, I. 2000. Interpreting indefinites. PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  28. Lidz J., Musolino J. (2006) On the quantificational status of indefinites: The view from child language. Language Acquisition 13(2): 73–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. May R. (1985) Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayr, C., and B. Spector. 2013. Not too strong! Generalizing scope economy. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, 305–321.Google Scholar
  31. Merchant J. (2001) The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Mood C. (2010) Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review 26(1): 67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moscati, V. 2008. Strength and weakness in children’s interpretation of modals. In Proceedings of the 9th Tokyo conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 103–119. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  34. Moscati V. (2011) Discourse under control in ambiguous sentences. In: Meibauer J., Steinback M. (eds) Experimental pragmatics and semantics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moscati V. (2013) Why children prefers impossible worlds. Lingue e Linguaggio XI I(2): 223–248Google Scholar
  36. Moscati V., Crain S. (2014) When negation and epistemic modality combine: the role of information strength in child language. Language and learning development 10: 345–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moscati, V., and A. Gualmini. 2008. More facts that Isomorphism cannot explain. In Proceedings of SALT 17, 202–209. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Musolino, J. 1998. Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge. PhD thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  39. Musolino J., Crain S., Thornton R. (2000) Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 38: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Musolino J., Lidz J. (2003) The scope of isomorphism: Turning adults into children. Language Acquisition 11(4): 277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Musolino J., Lidz J. (2006) Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44: 817–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Noveck I. (2001) When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition 78(8): 165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Noveck I., Ho S.A., Sera M. (1996) Children’s understanding of epistemic modals. Journal of Child Language 23(3): 621–643Google Scholar
  44. Portner P. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Rizzi L. (1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Foris Publications, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roberts C. (2004) Context in dynamic interpretation. In: Horn L.R., Ward G. ed. Handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 197–220Google Scholar
  47. von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  48. Williams R. (2009) Using heterogeneous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research 37: 531–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Moscati
    • 1
  • Jacopo Romoli
    • 2
  • Tommaso Federico Demarie
    • 3
  • Stephen Crain
    • 4
  1. 1.Università degli studi di Siena, Complesso San NiccolòSienaItaly
  2. 2.School of CommunicationUlster UniversityNewtownabbeyUK
  3. 3.Singapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.Department of Linguistics, Australian Hearing HubMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations