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.
Allison P. (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research 28: 186–208
Baayen H. (2008) Analysing linguistic data.A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Baayen R., Davidson D., Bates D. (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412
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: 255–278
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: 87–107
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.
Beaver D., Clark B.Z. (2009) Sense and sensitivity. How focus determines meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Beghelli F., Stowell T. (1997) Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In: Szabolcsi A. ed. Ways of scope taking. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 71–107
Berwick R.C. (1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Breslow N., Clayton D. (1993) Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Society 88: 9–25
Breusch T., Pagan A. (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 47: 1287–1294
Byrnes J.P., Duff M.A. (1989) Young children’s comprehension of modal expressions. Cognitive Development 4: 369–387
Cardinaletti A., Shlonsky U. (2004) Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35(4): 519–557
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, 433–467
Crain S., Thornton R. (1998) Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Fox D. (1999) Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 157–196
Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Grice P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Davidson D., Harman G. ed. The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 64–75
Gualmini A. (2004a) Some knowledge children don’t lack. Linguistics 42: 957–982
Gualmini A. (2004b) The ups and downs of child language. Routledge, New York
Gualmini A., Hulsey S., Hacquard V., Fox D. (2008) The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics 16: 205–237
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.
Gualmini A., Schwarz B. (2009) Solving the learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics. Journal of Semantics 26: 185–215
Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53
Hirst W., Weil J. (1982) Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modals. Journal of Child Language 9: 659–666
Jaeger T.F. (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from Anovas (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 434–446
Krämer, I. 2000. Interpreting indefinites. PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.
Lidz J., Musolino J. (2006) On the quantificational status of indefinites: The view from child language. Language Acquisition 13(2): 73–102
May R. (1985) Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Mayr, C., and B. Spector. 2013. Not too strong! Generalizing scope economy. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, 305–321.
Merchant J. (2001) The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
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): 67–82
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.
Moscati V. (2011) Discourse under control in ambiguous sentences. In: Meibauer J., Steinback M. (eds) Experimental pragmatics and semantics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 63–78
Moscati V. (2013) Why children prefers impossible worlds. Lingue e Linguaggio XI I(2): 223–248
Moscati V., Crain S. (2014) When negation and epistemic modality combine: the role of information strength in child language. Language and learning development 10: 345–380
Moscati, V., and A. Gualmini. 2008. More facts that Isomorphism cannot explain. In Proceedings of SALT 17, 202–209. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Musolino, J. 1998. Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge. PhD thesis, University of Maryland.
Musolino J., Crain S., Thornton R. (2000) Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 38: 1–32
Musolino J., Lidz J. (2003) The scope of isomorphism: Turning adults into children. Language Acquisition 11(4): 277–291
Musolino J., Lidz J. (2006) Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44: 817–852
Noveck I. (2001) When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition 78(8): 165–188
Noveck I., Ho S.A., Sera M. (1996) Children’s understanding of epistemic modals. Journal of Child Language 23(3): 621–643
Portner P. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rizzi L. (1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht
Roberts C. (2004) Context in dynamic interpretation. In: Horn L.R., Ward G. ed. Handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 197–220
von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Williams R. (2009) Using heterogeneous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research 37: 531–559
About this article
Cite this article
Moscati, V., Romoli, J., Demarie, T.F. et al. Born in the USA: a comparison of modals and nominal quantifiers in child language. Nat Lang Semantics 24, 79–115 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9120-1
- Language acquisition
- Scope ambiguities
- Ambiguity resolution