Acquiring Knowledge of Universal Quantification

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 41)

Abstract

This chapter concerns the first language acquisition (L1A) of universal quantifiers, i.e. grammatical morphemes like English each, every, all. One of its goals is to examine what the L1A of universal quantification consists in by analyzing the components of this knowledge and considering in each case whether or not its acquisition would present a logical problem for the learner in the absence of innate knowledge. Here attention is focused on two key questions: (i) How does the child acquire knowledge of the logical operation that underlies the core meaning of universal quantifiers, and (ii) How does the child comes to know the linguistic constraints on this operation that shape the actual semantic value and syntactic properties of specific universal quantifiers? Consideration of these issues, together with a brief review of certain key empirical observations, leads to the general conclusion that much of the knowledge of universal quantification must be innately specified and would appear to be fully acquired at a very early age. The second objective of this chapter is to examine critically a much-studied child comprehension error which appears to challenge any innateness hypothesis regarding the L1A of universal quantifiers. The error in question (here called “exhaustive pairing”) is typically found in the comprehension performance of 4- and 5 year-olds, a relatively late age. After reviewing the empirical properties of the error and some accounts of it in the literature, a new account is presented. Some predictions of this proposal are then tested in three truth-value judgment experiments with Dutch children.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Universal Quantifier Sentence Type Test Sentence Universal Grammar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aoun, J., and Y.A. Li. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baauw, S., and F. Cuetos. 2004. The interpretation of pronouns in Spanish language acquisition and breakdown. Language Acquisition 11(4): 219–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise, J., and R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bobaljik, J.D. 1998. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. Glot International 3–6: 3–10.Google Scholar
  5. Bohannon, J.N., and L. Stanowicz. 1988. The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors. Developmental Psychology 24: 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booij, G. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borer, H., and K. Wexler. 1987. The maturation of syntax. In Parameter setting and language acquisition, ed. T. Roeper and E. Williams, 123–172. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  8. Boster, C.T., and S. Crain. 1993. On children’s understanding of every and or. Paper presented at Early Cognition and the Transition to Language, conference at the center for Cognitive Science, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  9. Brinkmann, U., K.F. Drozd, and I. Krämer. 1996. Physical individuation as a prerequisite for children’s symmetrical readings. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes, and A. Zubowski, 99–110. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, J.P., and M. Braine. 1996. What do children know about the universal quantifiers ‘all’ and ‘each’? Cognition 60: 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, J.P., and I. Sekerina. 2005/2006. Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults. Language Acquisition 13: 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, R., and C. Hanlon. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. J.R. Hayes, 11–53. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Bucci, W. 1978. The interpretation of universal affirmative propositions: A developmental study. Cognition 6: 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chien, Y.-C., and K. Wexler. 1989. Children’s knowledge of relative scope in Chinese. Paper presented at the 1989 Child Language Research Forum, Stanford.Google Scholar
  15. Chien, Y.-C., and K. Wexler. 1990. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1: 225–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. A. Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, H.H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coleman, E.B. 1964. Generalizing to a language population. Psychological Reports 14: 219–226.Google Scholar
  20. Crain, S. 1991. Language acquisition in the absence of experience. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crain, S., R. Thornton, C. Boster, L. Conway, D. Lillo-Martin, and E. Woodams. 1996. Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition 5: 83–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Culicover, P.W. 1999. Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dalrymple, M., M. Kanazawa, S. Mchombo, and S. Peters. 1995. What do reciprocals mean? In Proceedings of SALT IV, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, Cornell, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  24. de Swart, H.E. 1991. Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifier approach. Doctoral diss., University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. Demetras, M.J., K.N. Post, and C.E. Snow. 1986. Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language 13: 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Doetjes, J. 1997. Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in french, Dutch and English. Doctoral diss., Leiden University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Donaldson, M., and P. Lloyd. 1974. Sentences and situations: Children’s judgments of match and mismatch. In Current problems in psycholinguistics, ed. F. Bresson, 73–86. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
  28. Donaldson, M.A., and J. McGarrigle. 1974. Some clues to the nature of semantic development. Journal of Child Language 1: 185–194.Google Scholar
  29. Dowty, D., and B. Brodie. 1984. The semantics of ‘floated’ quantifiers in a transformationless grammar. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on FormalLinguistics 4, Stanford.Google Scholar
  30. Drozd, K.F. 1996a. On the sources of children’s misinterpretations of quantified sentences. In Amsterdam series on child language development, vol. 6, ed. W. Philip and F. Wijnen, 173–210. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Drozd, K.F. 1996b. Quantifier interpretation errors as errors of distributive scope. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 177–188. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  32. Drozd, K.F. 2001. Children’s weak interpretations of universally quantified sentences. In Conceptual development and language acquisition, ed. M. Bowerman and S.C. Levinson, 340–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Drozd, K.F. 2004. Investigations in universal grammar. Journal of Child Language 32: 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Drozd, K.F., and E. van Loosbroek. 1999. Weak quantification, plausible dissent, and the development of children’s pragmatic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 184–195. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  35. Drozd, K.F., and E. van Loosbroek. 2006. The effect of context on children’s interpretations of universally quantified sentences. In Semantics meets acquisition, ed. V. Van Geenhoven. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Elman, J.L., E.A. Bates, M.H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Fodor, J.A. 1983. Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Freeman, H.H. 1985. Reasonable errors in basic reasoning. Educational Psychology 5: 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Freeman, H.H., and K. Schreiner. 1988. Complementary error patterns in collective and individuating judgements: Their semantic basis in 6-year-olds. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 6: 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Freeman, H.H., and M. Sepahzad. 1987. Competence of young children who fail to make correct deduction. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 5: 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Freeman, N.H., C.G. Sinha, and J.A. Stedmon. 1982. All the cars? which cars? from word meaning to discourse analysis. In Children thinking through language, ed. M. Beveridge, 52–74. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  42. Geurts, B. 2000. Review of Crain and Thornton 1998. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Geurts, B. 2003. Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition 11: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gordon, P. 1998. The truth-value judgement task. In Methods for assessing children syntax, ed. D. McDaniel et al., 211–232. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Grimshaw, J., and S. Rosen. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 187–222.Google Scholar
  46. Hamann, C.O., and W. Philip. 1997. The French ‘delay of principle B’ effect. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Cascadilla.Google Scholar
  47. Hanlon, C. 1981. The emergence of set-relational quantifiers in early childhood. In Child language: An international perspective, ed. P.S. Dale and D. Ingram. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  48. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst.Google Scholar
  49. Hestvik, A., and W. Philip. 1999/2000. Binding and coreference in Norwegian child language. Language Acquisition 8: 171–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Higginbotham, J. 1995. Mass and count quantifiers. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. E. Bach et al., 383–419. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  51. Hirsh-Pasek, K., R. Treiman, and M. Schneiderman. 1984. Brown & Hanlon revisited: Mothers’ sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language 11: 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hoji, H. 1985 Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral diss., University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  53. Huang, J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  54. Inhelder, B., and J. Piaget. 1958. The early growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Inhelder, B., and J. Piaget. 1964. The early growth of logic in the child. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Jelinek, E. 1995. Quantification in straits Salish. In Quantification in natural languages, ed. E. Bach et al., 487–540. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  57. Kadmon, N., and F. Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kang, H.-K. 2001. Quantifier spreading: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Lingua 111: 591–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Keenan, E., and J. Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kobuchi-Philip, M. 2003. Distributivity and the Japanese floating numeral quantifier. PhD diss., CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
  61. Kobuchi-Philip, M. 2007. Individual-denoting classifiers. Natural Language Semantics 15: 95–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kratzer, A. 1989. Stage-level and individual-level predicates, In Papers on Quantification, NSF grant BNS 8(1999) report, UMass at Amherst, Amherst.Google Scholar
  63. Krifka, M. 1990. Four thousand ships passed through the lock. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 487–520.Google Scholar
  64. Kurtzman, H.S., and M.C. MacDonald. 1993. Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48: 243–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Labov, W. 1984. Intensity. In Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, ed. D. Schriffin. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Landmon, F. 2000. Events and plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lewis, D. 1979. Score keeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marcus, G.F. 1993. Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46: 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McKee, C. 1992. A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language 2: 21–54.Google Scholar
  70. Mehler, J., and P. Carey. 1967. Role of surface and base structure in the perception of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Morgan, J.L., and L.L. Travis. 1989. Limits on negative evidence in language input. Journal of Child Language 16: 531–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Philip, W. 1995. Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification. Doctoral diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  73. Philip, W. 1996. The event quantificational account and a denial of an implausible infelicity in children’s comprehension of universal quantification. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 564–575. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  74. Philip, W. 2002. Dutch teenagers’ SLA of English any. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2002, ed. H. Broekhuis and P. Fikkert, 129–138. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  75. Philip, W. 2004a. Clarity of purpose in L1 acquisition research: A response to Ken Drozd’s ‘learnability and linguistic performance. Journal of Child Language 42(2): 496–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Philip, W. 2004b. Two theories of exhaustive pairing. Ms., UiL-OTS, Utrecht University, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  77. Philip, W. 2004c. Pragmatic control of specificity and scope: Evidence from Dutch L1A. In ed. Maier, E., C. Bary, and J. Huitink, 271–280. Papers presented at the 9th Sinn und Bedeutung. Nijmegen Centre of Semantics, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  78. Philip, W., and E. Lynch. 2000. Felicity, relevance, and acquisition of the grammar of every and only. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  79. Philip, W. and S. Aurelio. 1991. Quantifier spreading: Pilot study of preschoolers’ Every. In Maxfield and Plunkett.Google Scholar
  80. Philip, W., and S. Avrutin. 1998. Quantification in agrammatic aphasia. In The interpretive tract: MIT working papers in linguistics 25, ed. U. Sauerland and O. Percus, 63–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  81. Philip, W., and P. Coopmans. 1996. The double Dutch delay of principle B. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual BU Conference on Language Development, ed. A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes, and A. Zukowski, 576–587. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  82. Philip, W., and M. Takahashi. 1991. Quantifier spreading in the acquisition of Every. In Maxfield and Plunkett, 283–301.Google Scholar
  83. Pinker, S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  84. Saddy, J.D. 1990. Investigations into grammatical knowledge. Doctoral diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  85. Safir, K., and T. Stowell. 1987. Binominal each. Proceedings of NELS 18: 426–450.Google Scholar
  86. Sarnecka, B.W., and S. Carey. 2008. How counting represents number: What children must learn and when they learn it. Cognition 108: 662–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schwarzschild, R. 1989. Adverbs of quantification as generalized quantifiers. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, vol. 19, 390–404. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  88. Slobin, D.I. 1991. Can crain constrain the constraints? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 633–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Smith, C.L. 1979. Children’s understanding of natural language hierarchies. Journal of Experimental Psychology 27: 437–458.Google Scholar
  90. Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corrollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
  91. Szabolcsi, A. 1997. Ways of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  92. Takahashi, M. 1991. Children’s interpretation of sentences containing Every. In Papers in the Acquisition of WH, ed. T.L. Maxfield and B. Plunkett, 303–323. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  93. Tesar, B., and P. Smolensky. 1998. Learnability in optimality theory. Linguistics Inquiry 29: 229–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  95. van Benthem, J. 1986. Essays in logical semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  96. vanden Wyngaerd, G. 1992. Een reviewer zal elk abstract nalezen. Tabu 22–1: 65–74.Google Scholar
  97. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  98. von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Doctoral diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst.Google Scholar
  99. Westerstähl, D. 1989. Quantifiers in formal and natural languages. In Handbook of philosophic logic, vol. IV, ed. D. Gabby and F. Guenther, 1–131. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LinguisticsUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations