Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:35:36.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economy in the acquisition of English universal quantifier sentences: The interpretations of deaf and hearing students and second language learners at the college level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

GERALD P. BERENT ,
RONALD R. KELLY  and
TANYA SCHUELER-CHOUKAIRI
GERALD P. BERENT*
Affiliation:
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
RONALD R. KELLY
Affiliation:
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
TANYA SCHUELER-CHOUKAIRI
Affiliation:
English Language Center, Rochester Institute of Technology
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Gerald P. Berent, Department of Research and Teacher Education, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, HLC-2337, 96 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623-5604. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English sentences containing the universal quantifiers each, every, and all are highly complex structures in view of the subtleties of their scope properties and resulting ambiguities. This study explored the acquisition of universal quantifier sentences as reflected in the performance of three diverse college-level student groups on a multipicture sentence interpretation task. The participant groups (hearing native speakers, deaf students, and second language learners of English) all exhibited fundamental knowledge of universal lexical, semantic, and syntactic properties that contribute to quantifier sentence interpretation. The native speakers outperformed the deaf and second language groups, whose performance was strikingly parallel. Performance patterns are explained in terms of the influences of derivational economy, including the option to restrict in situ indefinite noun phrases to singleton indefinites. The symmetry effect observed in child language studies was also observed among the college-aged participants in this study. It is explained in terms of a pragmatic challenge in managing contextual information that invokes an unexpected singleton indefinite interpretation. The results contribute to the understanding of sentence comprehension under conditions of restricted learner access to target language input and underscore the value of seeking correlates of theory-internal derivational economy in language acquisition and use.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 251 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Aldersley, S. (2007, January). Teaching and learning English at NTID. Professional development presentation to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Empirical evidence of the need for instruction in pragmatics. In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berent, G. P. (1983). Control judgments by deaf adults and by second language learners. Language Learning, 33, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berent, G. P. (1996a). The acquisition of English syntax by deaf learners. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 469–506). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Berent, G. P. (1996b). Learnability constraints on deaf learners' acquisition of English wh-questions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 625–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, G. P. (in press). The interlanguage development of deaf and hearing learners of L2 English: Parallelism via minimalism. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Berent, G. P., & Kelly, R. R. (2005). English Sentence Picture Task—Quantifiers. Unpublished manuscript, Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf.Google Scholar
Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., Porter, J. E., & Fonzi, J. (2008). Deaf learners' knowledge of English universal quantifiers. Language Learning, 58, 401–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berent, G. P., & Samar, V. J. (1990). The psychological reality of the subset principle: Evidence from the governing categories of prelingually deaf adults. Language, 66, 714–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J., & Sekerina, S. (2006). Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults. Language Acquisition, 13, 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. J., & Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 207–230). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1998). Some observations on economy in generative grammar. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., & Pesetsky, D. (Eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax (pp. 115–127). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C., Conway, L., Lillo-Martin, D., & Woodams, E. (1996). Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition, 5, 83–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuculick, J. A., & Kelly, R. R. (2003). Relating deaf students' reading and language scores at college entry to their degree completion rates. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DelliCarpini, M. (2003). Developmental stages in the semantic acquisition of quantification by adult L2 learners of English: A pilot study. In Liceras, J. M., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 55–63). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. (2007). The interface of language and theory of mind. Lingua, 117, 1858–1878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drozd, K. (2000). Children's weak interpretations of universally quantified sentences. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. (Eds.), Conceptual development and language acquisition (pp. 340–376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
English Language Institute, University of Michigan. (1977). Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (1995). Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 283–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1995). Logical form. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1999). Minimalism and quantifier raising. In Epstein, S. D. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 45–75). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In Kimball, J. P. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 37–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, A. L. (2001). Language facility and theory of mind development in deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeanes, R. C., Nienhuys, T. G. W. M., & Rickards, F. W. (2000). The pragmatic skills of profoundly deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, H.-K. (2001). Quantifier spreading: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Lingua, 111, 591–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, H. (1989). Speech and hearing in communication. In Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice: Vol. 3. Low incidence conditions. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. (1993). Deaf readers and universal grammar. In Marschark, M. & Clark, M. D. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness (pp. 311–337). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. C. (1998). The acquisition of English by deaf signers: Is universal grammar involved? In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O'Neil, W. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 131–149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2003). Inverse scope in L2 Japanese. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 27 (pp. 496–507). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2004). L2 knowledge of quantifier scope in Korean and English learners of Japanese. In Cazzoli-Goeta, M., Mukai, M., & Van Espen, L. (Eds.), Durham working papers in linguistics (Vol. 10, pp. 137–150). Durham: University of Durham, School of Linguistics and Language.Google Scholar
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2006). Why children aren't universally successful with quantification. Linguistics, 44, 817–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the syntax–semantics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philip, W. (1995). Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. (1996). The initial hypothesis of syntax. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 369–414). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premack, D. G., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quigley, S. P., & King, C. M. (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakhlin, N. (2007a). A new pragmatic account of quantifier-spreading. Nanzan Linguistics, 3, 239–282 [Special issue].Google Scholar
Rakhlin, N. (2007b). Semantic manifestations of the developing theory of mind. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (1999). Verb movement and markedness. In DeGraff, M. (Ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development (pp. 287–327). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S., & Lust, B. (2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: Dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language, 29, 813–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute. (1999). Statview. Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
Sato, E. (2003). Minimality and scope rigidity in English. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2, 283–322.Google Scholar
Scheffé, H. (1953). A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrika, 40, 87–104.Google Scholar
Schick, B., de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and theory of mind: A study of deaf children. Child Development, 78, 376–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarzschild, R. (2002). Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics, 19, 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trusty, J., Thompson, B., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2004). Practical guide for reporting effect size in quantitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, A. (1999). A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In Epstein, S. D. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 283–315). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. B., & Goodhart, W. C. (1985). Comprehension of indefinite pronouns and quantifiers by hearing-impaired students. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. B., Goodhart, W. C., & Montandon, E. (1983). Comprehension of nine syntactic structures by hearing impaired students. The Volta Review, 85, 328–345.Google Scholar