Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 305–352 | Cite as

Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development

  • Raj SinghEmail author
  • Ken Wexler
  • Andrea Astle-Rahim
  • Deepthi Kamawar
  • Danny Fox


We present evidence that preschool children oftentimes understand disjunctive sentences as if they were conjunctive. The result holds for matrix disjunctions as well as disjunctions embedded under every. At the same time, there is evidence in the literature that children understand or as inclusive disjunction in downward-entailing contexts. We propose to explain this seemingly conflicting pattern of results by assuming that the child knows the inclusive disjunction semantics of or, and that the conjunctive inference is a scalar implicature. We make two assumptions about implicature computation in the child: (i) that children access only a proper subset of the adult alternatives (specifically, they do not access the lexicon when generating alternatives), and (ii) that children possess the adult capacity to strengthen sentences with implicatures. As a consequence, children are expected to sometimes not compute any implicatures at all, but in other cases they are expected to compute an implicature that is different from the adult implicature. We argue that the child’s conjunctive strengthening of disjunctive sentences realizes the latter possibility: the adult infers that the conjunction is false but the child infers that the conjunction is true. This behaviour is predicted when our assumptions about child development are coupled with the assumption that a covert exhaustive operator is responsible for strengthening in both the child and the adult. Specifically, children’s conjunctive strengthening is predicted to follow from the same mechanism used by adults to compute conjunctive free choice implicatures in response to disjunctive permission sentences (recursive exhaustification). We furthermore argue that this parallel between the child and the adult extends to disambiguation preferences. In particular, we present evidence that children prefer to strengthen disjunctions to conjunctions, in matrix and embedded positions (under every); this result mirrors previous findings that adults prefer to compute free choice, at the root and under every. We propose a disambiguation strategy that explains the preference for conjunctive strengthening – by both the child and the adult – even though there is no general preference for exhaustification. Specifically, we propose that the preference for a conjunctive strengthening follows from a pragmatic preference for a complete answer to the Question Under Discussion.


Implicature Exhaustivity Alternatives Free choice Child development Interpretation strategies Ambiguity Experiment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aloni Maria (2007) Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15(1): 65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2005. Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In Proceedings of NELS 35, ed. Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery, 75–86. Amherst. Mass.: GLSA.Google Scholar
  3. Barker Chris (2010) Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(10): 1–38Google Scholar
  4. Barner David, Asaf Bachrach (2010) Inference and exact numerical representation in early language development. Cognitive Psychology 60: 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barner David, Neon Brooks, Alan Bale (2011) Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition 118: 87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergen Leon, Daniel Grodner (2012) Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 38(5): 1450–1460Google Scholar
  7. Blutner, Reinhard, and Henk Zeevat (eds.). 2003. Optimality theory and pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, Margit. 2014. Conjunction and disjunction in a language without ‘and’. In Proceedings of SALT 24, ed. A. Chereches, 137–155. Washington, D.C.: LSA.Google Scholar
  9. Braine Martin D.S., Barbara Rumain (1981) Development of comprehension of ‘or:’ Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31: 46–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009a. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission, and presupposition projection. Manuscript, ENS, Paris.Google Scholar
  11. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009b. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–33.Google Scholar
  12. Chemla Emmanuel, Lewis Bott (2014) Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130: 380–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Raj Singh. 2014a. Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Part I. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(9): 373–386.Google Scholar
  14. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Raj Singh. 2014b. Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(9): 387–399.Google Scholar
  15. Chemla Emmanuel, Benjamin Spector (2011) Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28: 359–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chemla, Emmanuel, Chris Cummins, and Raj Singh. 2016. Training and timing local scalar enrichments under global pragmatic pressures. Journal of Semantics. Advance online access (first published online 29 May 2016). doi: 10.1093/jos/ffw006.
  17. Chierchia Gennaro (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chierchia, Gennaro, Stephen Crain, Maria Teresa Guasti, Andrea Gualmini, and Luisa Meroni. 2001. The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Proceedings of BUCLD 25, 157–168. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chierchia, Gennaro, Maria Teresa Guasti, Andrea Gualmini, Luisa Meroni, Stephen Crain, and Francesca Foppolo. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic competence in children’s and adults’ comprehension of or. In Experimental pragmatics, ed. Ira A. Noveck and Dan Sperber, 200–283. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  20. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Handbook of semantics, vol. 3, ed. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger, 2297–2331. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Clark, Eve V., and Patricia Matos Amaral. 2010. Children build on pragmatic information in language acquisition. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 445–457.Google Scholar
  22. Crain Stephen (2008) The interpretation of disjunction in Universal Grammar. Language and Speech 51: 151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crain Stephen, Drew Khlentzos (2010) The logic instinct. Mind & Language 25(1): 30–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crain, Stephen, and Cecile McKee. 1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Proceedings of NELS 15, 94–110. Amherst, MA.: GLSA.Google Scholar
  25. Crain, Stephen, and Mark Steedman. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, ed. David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold Zwicky, 320–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Crain, Stephen, and Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Crain, Stephen, and Kenneth Wexler. 1999. Methodology in the study of language acquisition: A modular approach. In Handbook of child language acquisition, ed. William C Ritchie and Tej K Bhatia, 387–425. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Crain Stephen, Rosalind Thornton, Carole Boster, Laura Conway, Diane Lillo-Martin, Elaine Woodams (1996) Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition 5(2): 83–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Crain, Stephen, Amanda Gardner, Andrea Gualmini, and Beth Rabbib. 2002. Children’s command of negation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 71–95. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  30. Crnič Luka, Emmanuel Chemla, Danny Fox (2015) Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunctions. Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 271–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Davidson Kathryn (2013) ‘And’ and ‘or’: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Drozd, Kenneth, and Erik van Loosbroek. 1998. Weak quantification, plausible dissent, and the development of children’s pragmatic competence. Proceedings of the 23rd Boston University Conference on Language Development, 184–195. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ford, Marilyn, Joan Bresnan, and Ronald M. Kaplan. 1982. A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 727–796. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 71–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Fox, Danny. 2014. Cancelling the Maxim of Quantity: Another challenge for a Gricean theory of scalar implicatures. Semantics & Pragmatics 7: 1–20.Google Scholar
  37. Fox Danny, Roni Katzir (2011) On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19: 87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fox, Danny, and Benjamin Spector. 2015. Economy and embedded exhaustification. To be published by Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  39. Franke, Michael. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(1): 1–82. doi: 10.3765/sp.4.1.
  40. Franke, Michael, Fabian Schlotterbeck, and Petra Augurzky. 2016. Embedded scalars, preferred readings and prosody: An experimental revisit. To appear in Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
  41. Frazier Lyn, Janet D. Fodor (1978) The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6: 291–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Furth Hans G., James Youniss, Bruce M. Ross (1970) Children’s utilization of logical symbols: An interpretation of conceptual behavior based on Piagetian theory. Developmental Psychology 3(1): 36–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gajewski Jon, Yael Sharvit (2012) In defense of the grammatical approach to scalar implicature. Natural Language Semantics 20(1): 31–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gazdar Gerald (1979) Pragmatics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Geurts Bart (2000) Buoyancy and strength. Journal of Semantics 17: 315–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Geurts Bart (2003) Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition 11: 197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Geurts Bart (2009) Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language 24: 51–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Geurts Bart, Nausicaa Pouscoulous (2009) Embedded implicatures?!?. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–34Google Scholar
  49. Gibson Edward (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based measure of linguistic complexity. In Image, language, brain, ed. Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, and W. O’Neil, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Gibson, Edward, and Kevin Broihier. 1998. Optimality theory and human sentence processing. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Goodman, Noah D., and Andreas Stuhlmüller. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 173–184.Google Scholar
  53. Goro, Takuya, and Sachie Akiba. 2004. The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In Proceedings of WCCFL 23, ed. G. Garding and M. Tsujimura, 101–114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  54. Goro, Takuya, Utako Minai, and Stephen Crain. 2005. Bringing out the logic in child language. In Proceedings of NELS 35, ed. Leah Bateman and Cherson Ussery, 245–256. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  56. Gualmini, Andrea, and Stephen Crain. 2002. Why no child or adult must learn De Morgan’s laws. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish, and Thea Keith-Lucas, 367–378. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  57. Gualmini, Andrea, Stephen Crain, Luisa Meroni, Gennaro Chierchia, and Maria Teresa Guasti. 2001. At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. Proceedings of SALT 11, 231–247.Google Scholar
  58. Gualmini, Andrea, Luisa Meroni, and Stephen Crain. 2003. An asymmetric universal in child language. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, ed. Matthias Weisgerber, 136–148. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  59. Gualmini Andrea, Sarah Hulsey, Valentine Hacquard, Danny Fox (2008) The question–answer requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics 16: 205–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini, and Luisa Meroni. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5): 667–696.Google Scholar
  61. Hatano Giyoo, Yasuko Suga (1977) Understanding and use of disjunction in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 24: 395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in english. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  63. Inhelder, Barbel, and Jean Piaget. 1964. The early growth of logic in the child. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Jing, Chunyuan, Stephen Crain, and Ching-Fen Hsu. 2005. The interpretation of focus in Chinese: Child versus adult language. In Proceedings of the 6th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 165–190. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  65. Johansson, Bo S., and Barbro Sjolin. 1975. Preschool children’s understanding of ‘and’ and ‘or’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 19: 233–240.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, Mark, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Sharon Goldwater. 2007. Adaptor grammars: a framework for specifying compositional nonparametric Bayesian models. In Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 19, ed. B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, and T. Hoffman, 641–648. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Jurafsky Daniel (1996) A probabilistic model of lexical access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kamp Hans (1973) Free choice permission. Aristotelian Society Proceedings 74: 57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Katsos, Napoleon, and Dorothy V.M. Bishop. 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition 120: 67–81.Google Scholar
  70. Katsos Napolean, Chris Cummins (2010) Pragmatics: From theory to experiment and back again. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 282–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Katzir Roni (2007) Structurally defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Katzir, Roni. 2013. On the role of markedness and contradiction in the use of alternatives. In Semantics, pragmatics, and the case of scalar implicatures, ed. Salvatore Pistoia Reda. Basingstoke: Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, Palgrave.Google Scholar
  73. Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  74. Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264.Google Scholar
  75. Levin, Moshe, and Daniel Margulis. 2013. Universal quantifiers as existentials undercover: Evidence from Hebrew kol. Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2013.Google Scholar
  76. Lewis David (1988) Relevant implication. Theoria 54: 161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Magri Giorgio (2009) A theory of individual level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Magri Giorgio (2011) Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(6): 1–51Google Scholar
  79. Magri, Giorgio. 2014. An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In Pragmatics, semantics, and the case of scalar implicatures, ed. Salvatore Pistoia Reda, 99–145. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  80. Merin Arthur (1992) Permission sentences stand in the way of Boolean and other lattice-theoretic semantics. Journal of Semantics 9(2): 95–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2015. Generalized free choice and missing alternatives. Journal of Semantics. Advance online access (first published online 4 November 2015), doi: 10.1093/jos/ffv010.
  82. Miller, George, and Noam Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush, and E. Galanter, 419–491. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Mosteller, Frederick, Stephen E. Fienberg, and Robert E.K. Rourke. 1983. Beginning statistics with data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  84. Neimark, Edith D., and Nan S. Slotnick. 1970. Development of the understanding of logical connectives. Journal of Educational Psychology 61(6): 451–460.Google Scholar
  85. Notley, Anna, Rosalind Thornton, and Stephen Crain. 2012a. English-speaking children’s interpretation of disjunction in the scope of ‘not every’. Biolinguistics 39: 484–522.Google Scholar
  86. Notley, Anna, Peng Zhou, Britta Jensen, and Stephen Crain. 2012b. Children’s interpretation of disjunction in the scope of ‘before’: A comparison of English and Mandarin. Journal of Child Language 39(3): 484–522.Google Scholar
  87. Noveck Ira (2001) When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Noveck Ira, Andres Posada (2003) Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85(2): 203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Noveck, Ira, and Anne Reboul. 2008. Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12: 425–431.Google Scholar
  90. O’Donnell, Timothy J., Jesse Snedeker, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Noah D. Goodman. 2011. Productivity and reuse in language. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds. L. Carson et al., 1513–1518. Austin: The Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  91. Papafragou Anna, Julien Musolino (2003) Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 80: 253–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Paris Scott (1973) Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 16: 278–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Philip, William C. H. 1995. Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  94. Podlesny, Olivia. 2015. Investigating disjunction in American Sign Language: The importance of nonmanual signals and the influence of English. Master’s thesis, Carleton University.Google Scholar
  95. Potts, Christopher, Daniel Lassiter, Roger Levy, and Michael C. Frank. 2015. Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. Journal of Semantics. Advanced Online Access (first published online 18 December 2015): doi: 10.1093/jos/ffv012.
  96. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure and discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In OSU working papers in linguistics, vol 49, ed. J.H. Yoon and Andreas Kathol, 91–136. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  98. Rooth Mats (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sauerland Uli (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schulz, Katrin. 2005. A pragmatic solution for the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese 147(2): 343–377.Google Scholar
  101. Schulz Katrin, Robert van Rooij (2006) Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Schwarz Bernhard (1999) On the syntax of either\({\ldots}\) or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 339–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Simons Mandy (2005) Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Singh, Raj. 2001. A study of Optimality Theory and the human sentence processing mechanism. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  105. Singh, Raj. 2008a. Modularity and locality in interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  106. Singh, Raj. 2008b. On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 245–260.Google Scholar
  107. Snedeker, Jesse. 2009. Children’s sentence processing. In The handbook of child language, ed. Edith L. Bavin, 331–338. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Spector, Benjamin. 2005. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Questions in dynamic semantics, ed. Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler, and Paul Dekker, 225–249. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  109. Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher order implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland, and Penka Stateva, 243–281. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  110. Spector Benjamin (2014) Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(11): 1–61Google Scholar
  111. Spector, Benjamin. 2015. Comparing exhaustivity operators. Accepted for publication in Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  112. Sternberg, Robert J. 1979. Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 28: 469–498.Google Scholar
  113. Stevenson, Suzanne, and Paul Smolensky. 2006. Optimality in sentence processing. In Toward a calculus of the mind/brain: Neural network theory, optimality, and universal grammar, ed. Paul Smolensky and Geraldine Legendre, 307–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  114. Stiller, Alex, Noah D. Goodman, and Michael C. Frank. 2011. Ad-hoc scalar implicature in adults and children. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. L. Carlson et al., 2134–2139. Austin: The Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  115. Stolcke Andreas (1995) An efficient probabilistic context-free parsing algorithm that computes prefix probabilities. Computational Linguistics 21: 165–201Google Scholar
  116. Su, Yi (Esther). 2014. The acquisition of logical connectives in child Mandarin. Language Acquisition 21(2): 119–155.Google Scholar
  117. Su, Yi (Esther), and Stephen Crain. 2013. Children’s knowledge of disjunction and universal quantification in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 14(3): 599–631.Google Scholar
  118. Su, Yi (Esther), Peng Zhou, and Stephen Crain. 2012. Downward entailment in child Mandarin. Journal of Child Language 39: 957–990.Google Scholar
  119. Suppes Patrick, Shirley Feldman (1971) Young children’s comprehension of logical connectives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 12: 304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Tieu, Lyn, Kazuko Yatsuhiro, Alexandre Cremers, Jacopo Romoli, Uli Sauerland, and Emmanuel Chemla. 2015. On the role of alternatives in the acquisition of simple and complex disjunctions in French and Japanese. Manuscript, ENS (Paris), ZAS (Berlin), and the University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  121. Tieu, Lyn, Jacopo Romoli, Peng Zhou, and Stephen Crain. 2016. Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 33(2): 269–298.Google Scholar
  122. Trinh Tue, Andreas Haida (2015) Constraining the derivation of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 249–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Trueswell, John C., Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Susan M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 285–318.Google Scholar
  124. van Rooij, Robert. 2010. Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(11): 1–28.Google Scholar
  125. van Rooij, Robert, and Katrin Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13: 491–519.Google Scholar
  126. van Rooij, Robert, and Michael Franke. 2015. Optimality-theoretic and game-theoretic approaches to implicature. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015), ed. Edward N. Zalta.
  127. Zimmerman, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raj Singh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ken Wexler
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrea Astle-Rahim
    • 4
  • Deepthi Kamawar
    • 1
    • 4
  • Danny Fox
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMITCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Brain and Cognitive SciencesMITCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations