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

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.

References

  1. Allison P. (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research 28: 186–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baayen H. (2008) Analysing linguistic data.A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google 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: 390–412

    Article  Google 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: 255–278

    Article  Google 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: 87–107

    Article  Google 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, Oxford

    Google 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, 71–107

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Berwick R.C. (1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Breslow N., Clayton D. (1993) Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Society 88: 9–25

    Google Scholar 

  11. Breusch T., Pagan A. (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 47: 1287–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Byrnes J.P., Duff M.A. (1989) Young children’s comprehension of modal expressions. Cognitive Development 4: 369–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cardinaletti A., Shlonsky U. (2004) Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35(4): 519–557

    Article  Google 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, 433–467

    Google 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, MA

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fox D. (1999) Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 157–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grice P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Davidson D., Harman G. ed. The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 64–75

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gualmini A. (2004a) Some knowledge children don’t lack. Linguistics 42: 957–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gualmini A. (2004b) The ups and downs of child language. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gualmini A., Hulsey S., Hacquard V., Fox D. (2008) The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics 16: 205–237

    Article  Google 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.

  23. Gualmini A., Schwarz B. (2009) Solving the learnability problems in the acquisition of semantics. Journal of Semantics 26: 185–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hirst W., Weil J. (1982) Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modals. Journal of Child Language 9: 659–666

    Article  Google 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: 434–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krämer, I. 2000. Interpreting indefinites. PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.

  28. Lidz J., Musolino J. (2006) On the quantificational status of indefinites: The view from child language. Language Acquisition 13(2): 73–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. May R. (1985) Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mayr, C., and B. Spector. 2013. Not too strong! Generalizing scope economy. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, 305–321.

  31. Merchant J. (2001) The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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): 67–82

    Article  Google 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.

  34. Moscati V. (2011) Discourse under control in ambiguous sentences. In: Meibauer J., Steinback M. (eds) Experimental pragmatics and semantics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 63–78

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Moscati V. (2013) Why children prefers impossible worlds. Lingue e Linguaggio XI I(2): 223–248

    Google 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: 345–380

    Article  Google 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.

  38. Musolino, J. 1998. Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge. PhD thesis, University of Maryland.

  39. Musolino J., Crain S., Thornton R. (2000) Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 38: 1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Musolino J., Lidz J. (2003) The scope of isomorphism: Turning adults into children. Language Acquisition 11(4): 277–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Musolino J., Lidz J. (2006) Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44: 817–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Noveck I. (2001) When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition 78(8): 165–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Noveck I., Ho S.A., Sera M. (1996) Children’s understanding of epistemic modals. Journal of Child Language 23(3): 621–643

    Google Scholar 

  44. Portner P. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rizzi L. (1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Roberts C. (2004) Context in dynamic interpretation. In: Horn L.R., Ward G. ed. Handbook of pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 197–220

    Google Scholar 

  47. von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  48. Williams R. (2009) Using heterogeneous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research 37: 531–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacopo Romoli.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This 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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Language acquisition
  • Negation
  • Scope ambiguities
  • Quantifiers
  • Modals
  • Ambiguity resolution