Advertisement

Presuppositions Are Challenging Not Only for Pre-Schoolers, but Also for School-Aged Children

Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition book series (PSPLC)

Abstract

In this chapter the authors present an experimental study conducted with Italian children from Grade 1 to Grade 5 of elementary school (age 6–10) in which they assess children’s performance with sentences containing the focus operators also and only. Beyond the rich acquisition literature on presupposition, the authors aimed at contributing by taking into account children’s performance in the two layers of meaning associated with these focus operators, that is, the prejacent and the alternatives evoked. Also, they aimed at testing the interaction of these operators with negation, in order to evaluate children’s performance with respect to the operations required on the alternatives, that is, from contrasting cases of exclusion in which the alternatives are negated, to cases of addition in which the alternatives are identified as lively options. The authors found a clear developmental trend in children’s performance and also interesting differences between the aspects involved in the computation of presupposed meaning, such as the status of the prejacent (which is claimed to differ in the two particles tested) and the processing of the alternatives evoked (which might be more costly in the case of addition than exclusion).

Keywords

Presuppositions Focus particles Only Also Language acquisition Italian 

References

  1. Berger, F., and B. Höhle. 2012. Restrictions on Addition: Children’s Interpretation of the Focus Particles auch ‘also’and nur ‘Only’ in German. Journal of Child Language 39 (2): 383–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergsma, W. 2002. Children’s Interpretations of Dutch Sentences with the Focus Particle Alleen (‘Only’). In The Process of Language Acquisition: Proceedings of the 1999 GALA Conference, ed. I. Lasser, 263–280. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2006. (Un)stressed ook in Dutch. In Semantics in Acquisition, ed. V. van Geenhoven, 329–348. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chemla, E., and R. Singh. 2014. Remarks on the Experimental Turn in the Study of Scalar Implicature, Part I and II. Language and Linguistics Compass 8 (9): 373–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa, J., and K. Szendrői. 2006. Acquisition of Focus Marking in European Portuguese. The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, 319–330. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crain, S., W. Ni, and L. Conway. 1994. Learning, Parsing and Modularity. In Perspectives on Sentence Processing, ed. C. Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner, 443–467. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Crain, S., W. Philip, K. Drozd, T. Roeper, and K. Matsuoka. 1992. Only in Child Language. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  8. Gualmini, A., S. Maciukaite, and S. Crain. 2003. Children’s Insensitivity to Contrastive Stress in Sentences with Only. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (1): 8.Google Scholar
  9. Höhle, B., F. Berger, A. Müller, M. Schmitz, and J. Weissenborn. 2009. Focus Particles in Children’s Language: Production and Comprehension of auch ‘also’ in German Learners from 1 year to 4 years of age. Language Acquisition 16 (1): 36–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horn, L. 1969. A Presuppositional Analysis of Only and Even. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 5: 98–107.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1979. Only, Even, and Conventional Implicature. LSA Paper, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  12. Hüttner, T., H. Drenhaus, R. van de Vijver, and J. Weissenborn. 2004. The Acquisition of the German Focus Particle auch ‘Too’: Comprehension Does Not Always Precede Production. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  13. Karttunen, L., and S. Peters. 1979. Conventional Implicature. In Syntax & Semantics Volume 11: Presupposition, ed. C.-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York, San Francisco, and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Katsos, N., and D.V. Bishop. 2011. Pragmatic Tolerance: Implications for the Acquisition of Informativeness and Implicature. Cognition 120 (1): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krifka, M. 1993. Focus and Presupposition in Dynamic Interpretation. Journal of Semantics 10 (4): 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matsuoka, K. 2004. Addressing the Syntax/Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: The Acquisition of the Japanese Additive Particle mo. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston Conference in Language Development, ed. A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, and C.E. Smith. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  17. Matsuoka, K., N. Miyoshi, H. Hoshi, M. Ueda, I. Yabu, and M. Hirata. 2006. The Acquisition of Japanese Focus Particles: Dake ‘only’ and mo ‘also’. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston Conference in Language Development, ed. D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, and C. Zaller. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  18. McCawley, J.D. 1981. Everything That Linguists Have Always Wanted to Know About Logic… but were Ashamed to ask. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Müller, A., B. Höhle, M. Schmitz, and J. Weissenborn. 2009. Information Structural Constraints on Children’s Early Language Production: The Acquisition of the Focus Particle auch (‘also’) in German-Learning 12- to 36-month-olds. First Language 29 (4): 373–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller, A., P. Schulz, and B. Höhle. 2011. Pragmatic Children: How German Children Interpret Sentences with and without the Focus Particle Only. In Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics, ed. J. Meibauer and M. Steinbach, 79–100. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Panzeri, F., and F. Foppolo. 2016. Not only task matters, position also. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38: 229–237.Google Scholar
  22. Paterson, K.B., S.P. Liversedge, C. Rowland, and R. Filik. 2003. Children’s Comprehension of Sentences with Focus Particles. Cognition 89: 263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Umass Amherst, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Schwarz, F. 2015. Introduction: Presuppositions in Context—Theoretical Issues and Experimental Perspectives. In Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, ed. F. Schwarz, 1–37. Springer International: Publishing. DOI  10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6.Google Scholar
  25. Szendrői, K. 2004. Acquisition Evidence for an Interface Theory of Focus. LOT Occasional Series 3: 457–468.Google Scholar
  26. Zhou, P., and S. Crain. 2010. Focus Identification in Child Mandarin. Journal of Child Language 37: 965–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Francesca Panzeri and Francesca FoppoloUniversità degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations