Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:52:10.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differentiating scalar implicature from exclusion inferences in language acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2019

Jessica SULLIVAN ,
Kathryn DAVIDSON ,
Shirlene WADE  and
David BARNER
Jessica SULLIVAN*
Affiliation:
Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
Kathryn DAVIDSON
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
Shirlene WADE
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
David BARNER
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Skidmore College, #101 Tisch Learning Center, 815 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During acquisition, children must learn both the meanings of words and how to interpret them in context. For example, children must learn the logical semantics of the scalar quantifier some and its pragmatically enriched meaning: ‘some but not all’. Some studies have shown that ‘scalar implicature’ – that some implies ‘some but not all’ – poses a challenge even to nine-year-olds, while others find success by age three. We asked whether reports of children's successes might be due to the computation of exclusion inferences (like contrast or mutual exclusivity) rather than scalar implicatures. We found that young children (N = 214; ages 4;0–7;11) sometimes compute symmetrical exclusion inferences rather than asymmetric scalar inferences. These data suggest that a stronger burden of evidence is required in studies of implicature; before concluding that children compute implicatures, researchers should first show that children exhibit sensitivity to asymmetric entailment in the task.

Keywords

pragmaticsmutual exclusivitycontrastscalar implicatureinference
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 733 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Au, T., & Markman, E. (1987). Acquiring word meanings via linguistic contrast. Cognitive Development, 2, 217–36.Google Scholar
Barner, D., & Bachrach, A. (2010). Inference and exact numerical representation in early language development. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 40–62.Google Scholar
Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: the role of scalar alternatives in children's pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118, 84–93.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I., Pearl, L., Brooks, N., & Barner, D. (2012). Acquiring the meaning of free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions. Journal of Semantics, 29, 261–93.Google Scholar
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language, 15, 17–29.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Do, A. H.-J., Domínguez, L. & Johansen, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 157–168). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1987). The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition: The 20th Annual Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Cognition. MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), pp 1–29.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1988). On the logic of contrast. Journal of Child Language, 15(2), 317–35.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language, 17(2), 417–31.Google Scholar
de Marchena, A., Eigsti, I. M., Worek, A., Ono, K. E., & Snedeker, J. (2011). Mutual exclusivity in autism spectrum disorder: testing the pragmatic hypothesis. Cognition, 119(1), 96–113.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. (1989). Contrast: a semantic constraint? Journal of Child Language, 16, 685–702.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1970). Logic and conversations. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics volume three: speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guasti, M., 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, 667–696.Google Scholar
Halberda, J. (2003). The development of a word-learning strategy. Cognition, 87, B23–B34.Google Scholar
Heibeck, T., & Markman, E. (1987). Word learning in children: an examination of fast mapping. Child Development, 58, 1021–34.Google Scholar
Hochstein, L., Bale, A., Fox, D., & Barner, D. (2016). Ignorance and inference: Do problems with Gricean epistemic reasoning explain children's difficulty with scalar implicature? Journal of Semantics, 33(1), 107–35.Google Scholar
Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120, 67–81.Google Scholar
Katsos, N., & Wilson, E. (2014). Convergence and divergence between word learning and pragmatic inferencing. In Degen, J., Franke, M. & Goodman, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of Formal and Experimental Pragmatics, 2014 (pp. 14–20). Retrieved from http://elspethwilson.uk/wp-content/uploads/elspethwilson.uk/2016/01/Katsos-Wilson2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mani, N., & Plunkett, K. (2010). In the infant's mind's ear: evidence for implicit naming in 18-month-olds. Psychological Science, 21, 908–13.Google Scholar
Markman, E., & Wachtel, G. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–57.Google Scholar
Markman, E., Wasow, J., & Hannsen, M. (2003). Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 241–75.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., Belke, E., Telling, A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). Early activation of object names in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 710–16.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. F. (2007). Activation of distractor names in the picture-picture word interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 35, 494–503.Google Scholar
Miller, K., Schmitt, C., Chang, H., & Munn, A. (2005). Young children understand some implicatures. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–88.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–82.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Tantalou, N. (2004). Children's computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition, 12(1), 71–82.Google Scholar
Skordos, D., & Papafragou, P. (2016). Children's derivation of scalar implicatures: alternatives and relevance. Cognition, 153, 6–18.Google Scholar
Snedeker, J. (2015). Scalar implicature: a whirlwind tour with stops in processing, development, and disorder. Tubingen, Germany. Slides available online at: <https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/research/snedeker/jesse-snedeker/>..>Google Scholar
Spiegel, C., & Halberda, J. (2011). Rapid fast-mapping abilities in 2-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 132–40.Google Scholar
Stiller, A. J., Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2015). Ad-hoc implicature in preschool children. Language Learning and Development, 11(2), 176–90.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J., Bale, A., & Barner, D. (2018). Most children don't know ‘most’. Language Learning and Development, 14, 320–338.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., & Arunachalam, S. (2016). Young children's developing expectations about the language of events. In Scott, J. & Waughtal, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 375–390). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, A., & Markman, E. (1991). Constraints on learning and default assumptions: comments on Merriman and Bowman's “The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning”. Developmental Review, 11, 137–63.Google Scholar
Wynn, K. (1992). Children's acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 220–51.Google Scholar
Yoon, E., Wu, Y., & Frank, M. (2015). Children's online processing of ad-hoc implicatures. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved form http://langcog.stanford.edu/papers/YWF_cogsci2015.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sullivan et al. supplementary material

Sullivan et al. supplementary material 1

Download Sullivan et al. supplementary material(File)
File 125.3 KB