Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:29:06.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's interpretation of disjunction in the scope of ‘before’: a comparison of English and Mandarin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2011

ANNA NOTLEY ,
PENG ZHOU ,
BRITTA JENSEN  and
STEPHEN CRAIN
ANNA NOTLEY*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Australia
PENG ZHOU
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Australia
BRITTA JENSEN
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Australia
STEPHEN CRAIN
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Australia
*
[*]Address for correspondence: Anna Notley, Macquarie University – Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science, Building C5C, North Ryde, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia. tel: +61-2-9850-4436; fax: +61-2-9850-6059; e-mail: anna.notley@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates three- to five-year-old children's interpretation of disjunction in sentences like ‘The dog reached the finish line before the turtle or the bunny’. English disjunction has a conjunctive interpretation in such sentences (‘The dog reached the finish line before the turtle and before the bunny’). This interpretation conforms with classical logic. Mandarin disjunction (‘huozhe’) can take scope over ‘before’ (‘zai … zhiqian’), so the same sentence can mean ‘The dog reached the finish line before the turtle or before the bunny (I don't know which)’. If children are guided by adult input in the acquisition of sentence meanings, English- and Mandarin-speaking children should assign different interpretations to such sentences. If children are guided by logical principles, then children acquiring either language should initially assign the conjunctive interpretation of disjunction. A truth-value judgment task was used to test this prediction and English- and Mandarin-speaking children were found to behave similarly.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 482 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amidon, A. & Carey, P. (1972). Why five-year-olds cannot understand before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11, 417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1964). Before and after. The Philosophical Review 73(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boster, C. T. & Crain, S. (1993). On children's understanding of Every and Or. In Conference Proceedings: Early Cognition and the Transition to Language, chapter 8. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. & Rumain, B. (1981). Development of comprehension of “Or”: Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31, 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., Meroni, L., Crain, S. & Foppolo, F. (2004). Semantic and pragmatic competence in children's and adults' comprehension of or. In Noveck, I. A. & Sperber, D. (eds), Experimental Pragmatics, 283–300. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10, 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conroy, A., Lidz, J. & Musolino, J. (2009). The fleeting isomorphism effect. Language Acquisition 16(2), 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. (1982). Temporal terms: Mastery by age five. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 21, 33–38.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Gardner, A., Gualmini, A. & Rabbin, B. (2002). Children's command of negation. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 71–95. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Goro, T. & Thornton, R. (2006). Language acquisition is language change. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35(1), 31–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crain, S., Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2000). The acquisition of logical words. LOGOS and Language 1, 49–59.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Gualmini, A. & Pietroski, P. (2005). Brass tacks in linguistic theory: Innate grammatical principles. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. & Stich, S. (eds), The innate mind: Structure and contents, 175–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., Ni, W. & Conway, L. (1994). Learning, parsing, and modularity. In Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, 443–67. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (2006). Acquisition of syntax and semantics. In Traxler, M. J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (eds), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 2nd edn.1073–1110. Amsterdam: Academic Press, Elsevier Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, L. A. & Brown, A. L. (1977). Comprehension of before and after in logical and arbitrary sequences. Journal of Child Language 4, 247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goro, T. & Akiba, S. (2004a). The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodriguez, A. J. & Schmeiser, B. (eds), WCCFL 23 Proceedings, 251–64. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goro, T. & Akiba, S. (2004b). Japanese disjunction and the acquisition of positive polarity. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 137–62. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds), Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts, vol. 3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. (2005). The ups and downs of child language: Experimental studies on children's knowledge of entailment relationships and polarity phenomena. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. & Crain, S. (2002). Why no child or adult must learn de Morgan's laws. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S. & Do, A. H.-J. (eds), BUCLD 26 Proceedings, 243–54. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. & Crain, S. (2005). The structure of children's linguistic knowledge. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3), 463–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gualmini, A., Crain, S. & Meroni, L. (2000). Acquisition of disjunction in conditional sentences. In Howell, S. C., Fish, S. A. & Keith-Lucas, T. (eds), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 1, 367–78. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L., Chierchia, G. & Guasti, M. T. (2001). At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. Paper presented at the SALT XI: Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistics Theory XI, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., Meroni, L. & Crain, S. (2003). An asymmetric universal in child language. In Weisgerber, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference ‘sub7 – Sinn und Bedeutung’, vol. 114, 136–48. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Konstanz.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5), 667–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinamaki, O. (1972). Before. Chicago Linguistic Society 8, 139–51.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1996). Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin, S. (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 299–319. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. L. (1975). The meaning of before and after for preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 19, 88–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kavanaugh, R. D. (1979). Observations on the role of logically constrained sentences in the comprehension of ‘before’ and ‘after’. Journal of Child Language 6, 353–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, J. & Musolino, J. (2002). Children's command of quantification. Cognition 84, 113–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Musolino, J. (2006). On the semantics of the Subset Principle. Language Learning and Development 2(3), 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J., Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 38(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J. & Lidz, J. (2006). Why children aren't universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44(4), 817–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, R. J. & Pollitt, C. (1987). The acquisition of temporal terms. Journal of Child Language 14, 533–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, E. & Crain, S. (2009). Disjunction and universal quantification in child Mandarin. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 265–89. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (2002). Hungarian disjunctions and positive polarity. In Kenesei, Istvan & Siptar, Peter (eds), Approaches to Hungarian 8, vol. 8, 217–41. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1982). Children's comprehension of ‘before’ and ‘after’ reinvestigated. Journal of Child Language 9(2), 381–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, P. & Crain, S. (2009). Scope assignment in child language: Evidence from the acquisition of Chinese. Lingua 119, 973–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar