Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Linguistics / Communication Disorders
Thomas RoeperBarbara Zurer Pearson
Margaret Grace
University of Massachusetts [email protected]
BUCLD November 2010Boston University
Quantifier Spreading Is Not Distributive
2Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Plan of the talk
Brief definitions of spreading and distributive
Why spreading has been construed as distributive.
Our evidence that exhaustivity, not distributivity
is at the root of children’s spreading with every,
and even with each.• Adult survey (baseline)• Child survey
Our interpretation
Your questions and suggestions
3Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
“Classic Spreading”
Quantifiers apply to both nouns:
Is every girl riding a bike?
= every girl rides (every) bike
= and every bike is ridden by a girl
4Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Example (from DSLT*): “Is every girl riding a bike?”
No, not this bike.
Copyright 2000 TPC
Dialect Sensitive Language Test (Seymour, Roeper & de Villiers, 2000)
5Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Find spreading with other quantifiers:
Applies to all, some, and most
Example some of the circles are red =>
some of the circles have (some) red(Matthei & Roeper, 1975; Philip, 1995)
Also work by Drozd, Crain, Stickney, others
Is it syntactic or semantic or both?
6Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Is spreading distributive or exhaustive?
Does the quantifier really float?
The experiment confounds exhaustivity and distributivity
Exhaustivity = all bikes and all girls
Distributivity = one bike for each girl
Can we pull these apart?
7Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Lexical properties of quantifiers:
all = collective => all the water
every = collective or distributive• Everyone surrounded the house = collective• *every person surrounded the house
each = distributive and specific
(presupposed set)• Each elephant has two trunks [picture with two trunks]• Does every elephant have two trunks?
Each => defined set in situation Every => possibly generic
8Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Tunstall classic example:
[ waiter lifts tray of glasses]
=> he lifted every glass
=> *he lifted each glass
9Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Acquisition challenge:
1. Children begin with early collective readings: “allgone milk”
2. Child must learn both exhaustive and distributive meaning
Evidence of cognitive ability early with plurals (Avrutin & Thornton, 1994)
3. Child must associate distributivity with each.
10Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Syntactic proposal (Roeper Strauss & Pearson, 2006) Every => syntactic Operator
Spreading = floated quantifier
Note: quantifier as higher operator argued for Hungarian (see Kang,1999; Brody, 1990)
11Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Floating is lexically specific:
All the children are here The children are all here
Each of the children are here The children are each here
Every boy is here *the boys are every here Note: possible with jeder in German
12Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Semantic alternative
Many Scandinavians won the Nobel Prize => many Nobel Prize winners are Scandinavian
(Drozd, 2001)
Semantic account: Strong quantifiers (every, each, most) obey
conservativity: Q applies only to NP and requires truth of VP
=> No syntactic effects predicted
13Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
(semantic alternative – cont.
Weak Quantifiers (many): involve Context variable (C) and a formula:
A = set of Scandinavians, B = set of nobel prizes and C =
set of contextually relevant Scandinaviansmany => Union of A,B where A,B > C = B
Conclusion: pragmatically conditioned
14Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Smits (2010), (see Stickney for most):
many parrots are wearing hats True for: 4/5 parrots have hats
6/30 monkeys have hats
Result: acquired later but with clear pragmatic conditioning =/= spreading
15Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Hypothesis
Children do not identify lexical properties correctly
Maybe All Q’s = exhaustive or distributive
Generalization: each = every = exhaustive• every = each = distributiveChild could go in either direction
16Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Is spreading syntactic? Can we see the Q float?
Data from the DSLT (Seymour Roeper & de Villiers, 2000)
Pilot version of the DELV tests (Seymour, Roeper & de Villiers, 2003, 2005).
Piloted with 1458 children, African American English speakers, general American English speakers, typically developing, language impaired, ages 4 to 12.
The following graph is from 333 typically-developing general American English speakers
17Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Long trajectory -increases before it decreases
4 5 6 7-8 9-10 11-12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
spreading responsestarget
age in years
% o
f ch
ild
ren
giv
ing
re
pso
nse
ty
pe
And doesn’t go awayFrom Roeper et al. 2006
18Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Looks like children are either---
Trying to distribute the girls to the bikes, and can’t if they don’t have enough girls—so they say “no, what about this bike?”
Or they may just be thinking the “every” is telling them to attend to everything in the picture (and in the sentence)—to be exhaustive and so they say “no.”
Every girl is riding a bike.
19Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
To tease apart explanations
Gave child 3 options for EVERY• 1-1 Distributive/ NOT exhaustive
• Exhaustive/ not 1-1 distributive
• Collective/ NOT exhaustive
Tried to push toward distributivity, by giving an opportunity with EACH (lexically, strongly distributive).
20Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Separating Distributivity and Exhaustivity.
A no distrib not exhaustive
B 1-1 distributivenot exhaustive
C not 1-1 distrib Exhaustive(partial distrib?)
A
B
C
Stimuli from Brooks et al. 2001
21Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
(aside for “partial distributivity” – see S. Lima, 2010)
A
/ | \
C D E
| | / \
F G H I
Partial distributivity
under E, not one to one
A
/ \
B C
/ \ / | \
D E F G
Partially distributive
because C has empty node(non-exhaustive if any of the nodes are empty)
22Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Participants
Adults N = 40
http://www.kwiksurvey etc.
Native English speakers Ages 20 to 71 (20+) Residence UK (6),
Canada (3) and U.S. (31)
Children = 38
Ages 5-9 (most 6-8) Average 7;4 Grade K-3 Middle to lower
middle-class school district in western MA
23Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Ask, which pictures does this sentence describe?
(could be 0, 1, any 2 of them, or all three)
Could it be any others? Which is best? Why? and why not?
Every flower is in a vase.
Each flower is in a vase.
A
B
C
Stimuli from Brooks et al. 2001
24Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
(Add your intuitions)
A version (of the adult survey)—is available athttp://www.kwiksurveys.com/online survey.php?surveyID=OIHKG_7f21b1b7
(be entered in a raffle for a copy of Tom’s or my book)
25Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Adult preferences – Every flower is in a vase.
All ok Prefer A Prefer B Prefer C0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Every
26Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Adult preferences – Each flower is in a vase.
All OK B Best only B Rejects B0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Each
27Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Children’s Every (with adult shaded as reference)
All ok Prefer A Prefer B Prefer C0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
AdultChild
28Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Children’s Each (with adult shaded as reference)
All OK B Best only B Rejects B
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 AdultChild
29Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
(only) 4 children focused on flowers for every “All the flowers have vases that they’re in.” (5;4)
“There are empty vases, [clearly a concern] but where there are flowers, they are in a vase.” (8;1)
30Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Most children focused on vases
[C], “the only one where vases are filled with flowers” (8;0)
“these two vases don’t have flowers” (6;2) “not A or B, no flowers in those two vases” (7;8) “no, two vases empty there” (6;5) “no, the others have empty vases” (6;11) (7;4)
(8;4) “no, because some of the vases are empty” (7;9) “not A, only one filled vase” (8;2)
31Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Spontaneously SPREAD the quantifier to vases. “[C], it’s the only one with flowers in every vase.”
(9;4)
“Not B, there’s just one in each [vase]” (6;1)
“No, they don’t have flowers in all vases.” (9)
(for every flower in a vase), “could be 1 flower in each vase” (9)
32Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
SPREAD a quantifier to vases even with “each” “looks like each flower is in each vase” (8;0) “all vases are full” (8) “flowers in all [vases]” (7;9) “could be C, if there was just one flower in each,
in all the vases” (7;1) “one [flower] in each [vase]” (8;1)
“these two vases don’t have flowers” (6;2) “not A or B, no flowers in those two vases” (7;8)
??? Each flower has its own vase?
33Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
They did not like empty vases.
Little concern for distributivity…..
34Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
(only) 4 children described configuration of flowers, even for each
“B is a little better because it’s spread out” (8;1)
“B – each flower has its own vase.” (9;0)
“C has too many flowers; A they’re all in one” (6;5)
“Could be C if there was just one flower in each, in all the vases.” (7;1)
**(one appealed to config for every—”only C, all in same is wrong; 1 in 1 is wrong”) (7;7)
35Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Each was clearly not distributive for the children In fact, 14 children did not distinguish
each and every • (either gave same answer, or said “I already
told you” when asked why about the second sentence)
To the extent that it’s confounded with every might be more likely exhaustive as well.
36Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Acquisition Theory
Treat quantificational elements as Operators Attach to the Root CP
Negation:
• “I don’t want none’
• Tense:
• “wented” “did lifted”, “had came” etc
• Plural:
• Does a dog have tails => dogs have tails
37Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Every, some, most, all Wh- => who bought what
• Schulz (2010)
who gave what to whom
=> 3 quantifiers no harder than 2
Cf. John didn’t buy anything anyhow anywhere
38Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
How do children eliminate quantifier spreading?
Roeper et al: they experience a second quantifier As in: Every dog has some hats [extra hat] Prediction: children will stop spreading in these cases earlier than in others
39Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Conclusion:
1. Children take quantifiers to be exhaustive but not distributive initially
• 2. Each interpreted as exhaustive like every• 3. Verbatim evidence supports the original claims of syntactic account of spreading• 4. Weak quantification is a separate phenomenon
5. Operators are Default syntactic assumptions for children
40Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
References Brody, M. (1990). Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working
Papers 2: 201-225.
Brooks, P., Braine, M., Jia, G. & da Graca Dias (2001). Early representations of all, each and their counterparts in Mandarin Chinese and Portuguese. In Bowerman, M. and S. Levinson (eds.) Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, p. 316-339. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C., Conway, L., Lillo-Martin, D. & Woodams, E. (1996). “Quantification without qualification.” Language Acquisition, 5(2): 83-153.
Drozd, K.F. (2001). Children’s weak interpretation of universally quantified sentences. In Bowerman, M. and S. Levinson (eds.) Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, pp. 340-376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geurts, B. (2001). Quantifying kids. Ms., Humboldt University, Berlin and University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
41Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
References - 2 Kang, H.-K. (1999). Quantifier spreading by English and Korean children.
Ms., University College, London.
Philip, W. (1995). Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification, Doctoral dissertation, UMass Amherst.
Roeper, T. & , E. (1974). “On the acquisition of some and all,” Presented at the Sixth Child Language Research Forum, Stanford University, April 1974. Appeared in Papers and reports on child language development (1975), Stanford University, 63-74.
Roeper, T., Strauss, U., & Pearson, B. Z. (2006). The acquisition path of the determiner quantifier every: Two kinds of spreading. In T. Heizmann (Ed.), Papers in Language Acquisition (pp. 97-128), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers UMOP, 34. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Schulz, P. (2010). Presentation on wh- and exhaustive pairing. COST meeting, London.
42Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
References -3
Smits, E-J. (2010) Acquiring quantification:How children use semantics and pragmatics to constrict meaning. Dissertation Groningen, Holland.
Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and
processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Westerstahl, D. (1985). Determiners and context sets In J. van Bentham and A. ter-Meulen (Eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
43Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Acknowledgments
Some of the materials in the current experiment were assembled while Pearson was a visiting researcher at the ESRC in Bangor.
We want to thank Margaret Grace, who was helpful in adapting the adult survey for children, and administering it to them with me.
44Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Thank you.
Questions?
45Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
Prizes: Prism of Grammar or RBC (english/spanish)
[email protected]@linguist.umass.edu
46Linguistics/ Communication Disorders
(Note also that Brooks et al., 2001, working on all and each in English, (and Mandarin, and Portuguese) say they found that
the English learning children didn’t seem to “pay attention to the location of each” until around age 9.)