English-Speaking Children’s Interpretation of Disjunction in the Scope of ‘not every’
Keywords: acquisition of semantics, disjunction in natural language, scope ambiguity
AbstractThis study examined 4- to 5-year-old English-speaking children’s inter-pretations of sentences containing negation, the universal quantifier, and disjunction. Disjunction is assigned two different meanings in such sentences depending on its position in surface syntax: in the subject phrase of ‘not every’ (e.g., not every passenger who ordered chicken or beef became ill), a disjunctive meaning is assigned to disjunction (e.g. at least one passenger who ordered chicken OR at least one passenger who ordered beef became ill); in the predicate phrase of ‘not every’ (e.g., not every passenger who became ill ordered chicken or beef), a conjunctive meaning is assigned (e.g., at least one passenger who became ill did not order chicken AND did not order beef). If children bring knowledge of combinatory logical principles to the task of language acquisition, then they should be sensitive to this asymmetry. We tested this prediction using a truth-value judgment task.
Authors who submit to and publish with BIOLINGUISTICS agree to the following terms:
- The author(s) retain(s) copyright and grant(s) the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in BIOLINGUISTICS.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., archiving a format-free manuscript in institutional repositories, on their personal website, or a preprint server such as LingBuzz, PsyArXiv, or similar) prior to and during the submission process, because we believe that this behaviour can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).