Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:22:27.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

William Hirst  and
Joyce Weil
William Hirst
Affiliation:
The Rockefeller University/Princeton University
Joyce Weil
Affiliation:
Yeshiva University/The Rockefeller University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modal auxiliaries have an epistemic and deontic sense and range in strength, e.g. must propositions are stronger than may propositions. Children (ages 3; 0–6; 6) heard two contradictory modal propositions of varying strength. In the epistemic condition, the propositions concerned the location of a peanut. In the deontic condition, they were commands by two teachers about what room a puppet should go to. The child was to indicate which command should be followed. The general acquisitional rule was: the greater the difference in the strength of the two modal propositions the earlier the difference was appreciated. Since the acquisitional history was similar across conditions, the two senses probably arose from a single lexical entry.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , October 1982 , pp. 659 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

Both authors made equal contributions to the work described herein. We thank Mary Jo Altom for her assistance and George Miller for his guidance. Support from a Junior Faculty Award to Joyce Weil from Yeshiva University and from NSF grant BNS77–16612 to the Rockefeller University is gratefully acknowledged. Address for correspondence: William Hirst, Dept. of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08544.

References

REFERENCES

Boyd, J. & Thorne, J. P. (1969). The semantics of modal verbs. JL 5. 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, B. F. (1956). A method of Scalogram analysis using summary statistics. Psychometrica 21. 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1976). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. E. & Creswell, M. J. (1968). An introduction to modal logic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Ling & Phil. 1. 337–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. (1977). Old and new forms, old and new meanings: the form-function hypothesis revisited. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development,New Orleans.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. & Maratsos, M. P. (1975). What children can say before they will. MPQ 21. 89–111.Google Scholar
Bonniec, G. Le (1974). Le raisonnement modal: étude génétique. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 2. London: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1965). The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ransom, E. N. (1977). On the representation of modality. Ling & Phil 1. 357–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster‘s New World Dictionary. (1971). New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, R. (1972). The significance of sense. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Worsetschager, E. F. (1977). A semantic theory of the English auxiliary system. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar