The Quantificational Apparatus of Language: Integrating Theory, Development, and Pathology.

Julien MusolinoRutgers University

Quantification

Theoretical Linguistics

Developmental Psychology

Speech-language pathology

How does quantification work?

How does quantificational competence develop?

What happens in the case of atypical development?

Part 1: Developmental PsychologyPart 1: Theoretical Linguistics

Provide the ‘technical glue’ that is going to bind all three parts together.

Provide some general background on linguistic quantification.

Tell you why quantification is worth studying – why we should care.

Directly apply the theoretical notions discussed in part 1 to a classic developmental puzzle.

Part 2: Developmental Psychology

Present results that will lead to a reinterpretation of most previous research in that domain.

This will set the stage for part 3.

The approach developed in part 1 and 2 naturally extends to the study of atypical development.

Part 1: Developmental PsychologyPart 2: Linguistic TheoryPart 3: Speech-language pathology

Focus on the case of Williams Syndrome (WS).

Show that the integrative approach provides a unique way to address the central question of whether grammar is spared in WS.

To close the loop, I will show that new results on WS have implications for all three fields.

Part 1: Developmental PsychologyPart 1: Theoretical Linguistics

Provide the ‘technical glue’ that is going to bind all three parts together.

Provide some general background on linguistic quantification.

Tell you why quantification is worth studying – why we should care.

Quantifiers_______________________________________________________

Some, all, two, many, every, no …

Give us the power to express generalizations about quantities of individuals.

Quantifiers_______________________________________________________

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”

Abraham Lincoln (attributed)

George W. Bush

Why Study Quantification?_______________________________________________________

Core property of natural language

Extremely complex phenomenon

Causes problems until late in development

Quantifiers_______________________________________________________

Scope

C-command

Covert displacement

Logical Form

Buying candy …

not everybody

The phenomenon_______________________________________________________

(1) Every N neg VP

a. ‘None’

b. ‘Not all’

Scope_______________________________________________________

(2 X 3) + 5

2 X (3 + 5)

Scope & C-command_____________________________

(2 x 3) + 52 x (3 + 5)

Scope = C-command domain

Scope_______________________________________________________

(1) Every horse didn’t jump over the fence

Every horse (not jump) ‘none’

• Isomorphic interpretation

• Every horse is interpreted outside the scope of negation

Scope and covert displacement_______________________________________________________

(1) Every horse didn’t jump over the fence

(Not every horse) jumped ‘not all’

• Every horse is interpreted within the scope of negation

• Non-isomorphic interpretation

Logical Form (LF)_______________________________________________________

(1) Every N neg VP

ISOMORPHIC LF = every > not NON-ISOMORPHIC LF = not > every

IP

Every N I’

NEG VP

V’

IP

I’

NEG VP

Every N V’

Covert displacement

Why should we care?_______________________________________________________

Because the mapping between form and meaning is complex.

Because the grammatical operations involved are undetectable in the surface form.

How can we learn about what we can’t detect?

Directly apply the theoretical notions discussed in part 1 to a classic developmental puzzle.

Part 2: Developmental Psychology

Present results that will lead to a reinterpretation of most previous research in that domain.

This will set the stage for part 3.

Early use_______________________________________________________

‘Because there no pictures’ (Eve, 2;1)

‘I drink all grape juice’ (Eve, 1;10)

‘Then Eve have some milk’ (Eve, 1;11)

‘Two knife out the box’ (Eve, 1;11)

_________________________________________________________ Cause problems until late

Adults: YES 5-year-olds: NO

Is every dog on a mat?

Not this one

Previous Accounts_________________________________________________________

Lack of conceptual knowledge (Inhelder & Piaget, 1964)

Lack of syntactic knowledge (Bucci, 1978; Roeper and deVilliers, 1991)

Lack of semantic knowledge (Philip 1995, Drozd & van Loosbroek, 1999)

Incomplete knowledge (Musolino, Crain and Thornton, 2000)

In sum_________________________________________________________

On most accounts, children’s ‘errors’ are taken to reflect a lack of knowledge (conceptual or linguistic)

Remarkable lack of consensus regarding the nature of the problem

Vast majority of studies have focused on one construction

Specific goals_________________________________________________________

Investigate a broader range of quantificational phenomena and show that:

Accounts based on ‘lack of knowledge’ are likely to be incorrect

The ‘errors’ that children make can be used to uncover their grammatical knowledge

Results to be presented_______________________________________________________

I won’t discuss all the details (number of

subjects, age range, types of analyses) but …

Most of the data have been published

Most of the data have been replicated

Children are preschoolers (4-5 age range)

Experimental methodology_______________________________________________________

Truth Value Judgment Task

Crain and Thornton, (1998)

Universally quantified subjects_______________________________________________________

(1) Every horse didn’t jump over the fence.

Musolino, Crain and Thornton (2000) Linguistics

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

The end of the story “Every horse didn’t jump over the fence, am I right?”

Results (5-year-olds vs. adults)_______________________________________________________

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

5-year-olds Adults

Children’s justifications_______________________________________________________

“Every horse didn’t jump over the fence, am I right?”

Child:”You’re wrong because these two horses jumped over the fence!”

Numerally quantified objects_______________________________________________________

(2) The Smurf didn’t catch two birds

Lidz and Musolino (2002) Cognition

a. Not (caught 2)

b. 2 (not caught)

Isomorphic Condition_______________________________________________________

2 (not caught) = FALSE

Not (caught 2) = TRUE

Non-Isomorphic Condition_______________________________________________________

2 (not caught) = TRUE

Not (caught 2) = FALSE

NP didn't V two N: adult data

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

WtNf WfNt

Pro

port

ion

of Y

ES

res

pons

esResults: Adults_______________________________________________________

IsomorphicNon-Isomorphic

Results: Children_______________________________________________________

NP didn't V two N: child data

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

WtNf WfNt

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f Y

ES

re

sp

on

se

s

IsomorphicNon-Isomorphic

Children’s justifications (non-iso)_______________________________________________________

“The Smurf didn’t catch two birds, am I right?”

Child:”You’re wrong, she did catch two!”

Children’s justifications (iso)_______________________________________________________

“The Smurf didn’t catch two birds, am I right?”

Child:” You’re right! She only caught one”

The observation of Isomorphism_______________________________________________________

“Young children, unlike adults, have a strong tendency to interpret sentences containing quantified NPs and negation on the basis of the surface syntactic position of these elements”

Musolino, Crain and Thornton (2000) Linguistics

The observation of Isomorphism_______________________________________________________

Children Adults

Sentence type

Every horse didn’t jump over the fence

The Smurf didn’t catch two birds

2 22

Questions

Developmental question

Causal question

Structural question

The structural question _______________________________________________________

What underlies isomorphism?

Linear order ?

C-command ?

IP

SUBJECT I’

English (SVO)_______________________________________________________

INeg

VERB OBJECT

VP

Subj > Neg

Neg > Obj

Kannada

• Approximately 40 million speakers in Karnataka, south-western India.

Scope ambiguity in Kannada

naanu eraDu pustaka ood-al-illa

I-nom two books read-inf-neg

‘I didn't read two books.’

a. Not (read 2)b. 2 (not read)

S O V

IP

SUBJECT I’

Kannada (SOV)_______________________________________________________

INeg

OBJECT VERB

VP

Predictions for Kannada

To the extent that Kannada children display a preference for one of the two readings:

_______________________________________________________

C-command: same results as English

Linear order: opposite results from English

Results: Adults

'NP two Ns Ved not: adults"

0.87 0.85

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Wide-true / Narrow-false Wide-false / Narrow-true

Pro

port

ion

of 'Y

es' r

espo

nses

2 (not caught) not (caught 2)

Results: English vs. Kannada

English KannadaNP didn't V two N: child data

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

WtNf WfNt

Prop

ortio

n of

YES

resp

onse

s

2 (not) Not (2)0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

2 (not) not (2)2 (not) Not (2)

Conclusions _______________________________________________________

They differ in ways that are constrained by fundamental linguistic principles (i.e. c-command).

Children systematically differ from adults.

Children’s ‘errors’ tell us about the kinds of linguistic representations that they entertain.

Objections_______________________________________________________

Hint: complexity of displays, reverse linear order, selective focus

What else could account for the results on c-command?

The causal question_______________________________________________________

Lack of syntactic knowledge (Bucci, 1978; Roeper and deVilliers, 1991)

Lack of semantic knowledge (Philip 1995, Drozd & van Loosbroek, 1999)

Incomplete knowledge (Musolino, Crain and Thornton, 2000)

Lack of knowledge?_______________________________________________________

Children can be made to behave like adults

Adults can be made to behave like children

Musolino and Lidz (2003) Language Acquisition

Musolino and Lidz (2006) Linguistics

Turning children into adults_______________________________________________________

(2) Every horse jumped over the log but every horse didn’t jump over the fence

(1) Every horse didn’t jump over the fence.

One of the stories_______________________________________________________

The end of the story “Every horse jumped over the log but every horse didn’t jump over the fence, am I right?”

_______________________________________________________Results

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

5-year-olds Adults

Pro

po

rtio

ns

of

'YE

S' r

esp

on

ses

No contrast

Contrast

Conclusions_______________________________________________________

Context can be manipulated so as to boost children’s ability to access non-isomorphic interpretation

Renders ‘lack of knowledge’ account implausible

Turning adults into children_______________________________________________________

(2) NP didn’t V two N

What is the adult preference?

NP didn't V two N: adult data

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

WtNf WfNt

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f Y

ES

res

po

nse

s

Non-Isomorphic Isomorphic

Two > not = TRUE

Not > two = TRUE

Cookie Monster didn’t eat two slices of pizza

Same material as in Lidz and Musolino (2002)

Justifications_______________________________________________________

Narrow scope: “because he only ate one slice – not two”

Wide scope: “because there are two slices that he didn’t eat”

Unclear

Results (adults, n=20)_______________________________________________________

0.75

0.075

0.175

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Narrow Wide Unclear

Turning adults into children_______________________________________________________

(2) NP didn’t V two N

What is the adult preference?

NP didn't V two N: adult data

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

WtNf WfNt

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f Y

ES

res

po

nse

s

Non-Isomorphic Isomorphic

Conclusions_______________________________________________________

In this case, children’s preference for isomorphic interpretations reflects an exaggerated preference also observable in adults

Inducing Isomorphism in adults_______________________________________________________

(2) Two frogs didn’t jump over the rock

There are two frogs that didn’t jump over the rock (two>not)

It is not the case that two frogs jumped over the rock (not>two)

Isomorphic condition_______________________________________________________

Two > not = TRUE

Not > two = FALSE

Non-Isomorphic condition_______________________________________________________

Two > not = FALSE

Not > two = TRUE

Results (adults, n=20)_______________________________________________________

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Isomorphic Non-isomorphic

Helping adults_______________________________________________________

(1) Two frogs didn’t jump over the rock.

(2) Two frogs jumped over the fence but two frogs didn’t jump over the rock.

Two frogs jumped over the fence but two frogs didn’t jump over the rock.

Two > not = FALSE

Not > two = TRUE

Results (adults)_______________________________________________________

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

No-contrast Contrast

Conclusions_______________________________________________________

Remarkable continuity between the developing and the mature system

Children’s isomorphic behavior represents exaggerated preferences also observable in adults

The isomorphic effect can be induced in adults

The contextual factors that help children overcome their isomorphic tendencies have the same effects on adults

General conclusions_______________________________________________________

Systematic differences in the way children and adults interpret quantified statements.

Children’s errors can be used to uncover their grammatical knowledge.

Accounts based on ‘lack of knowledge’ are likely to be incorrect.

General conclusions_________________________________________________________

By the age of 5, children have adult-like knowledge of the grammar of quantification

However, children differ from adults in the way they implement their knowledge

Differences in processing resources deployed during language comprehension

The kindergartenpath effect (Trueswell et al. 1999)

SENTENCE

LF1 isomorphic LF2 non-isomorphic

Children & adults

Adults are better

The approach developed in part 1 and 2 naturally extends to the study of atypical development.

Part 1: Developmental PsychologyPart 2: Linguistic TheoryPart 3: Speech-language pathology

Focus on the case of Williams Syndrome (WS).

Musolino, Landau, and Chunyo (2007), In preparation

Issue

The status of grammatical knowledge in individuals with Williams Syndrome (WS)

Spared or impaired?

_______________________________________________________

Why should we care?

So WS can potentially to tell us a lot about the structure and development of the human mind.

WS suggests a potential dissociation between language and other aspects of cognition (e.g., spatial cognition).

_______________________________________________________

Main claim

Knowledge of core, abstract principles of syntactic and semantic computation is spared in WS.

Implications for the relevance of WS in the debate over modularity.

_______________________________________________________

Outline

Background on WS

Competing views

Apply the integrative approach

Experimental evidence

Implications

_______________________________________________________

Williams Syndrome_______________________________________________________

Williams Syndrome

Rare genetic disorder (1/15,000 live births) involving a micro-deletion on chromosome 7.

Physical anomalies along with mild to more serious mental retardation (IQ average 70).

Uneven cognitive profile with areas of strength (e.g., language) in the face of serious deficits in areas such as spatial cognition, motor planning, and number.

_______________________________________________________

Language in WS

“Verbal advantage over non-verbal intelligence” (Karmiloff-Smith et al., 1997)

Verbal IQ > Performance IQ

Different from individuals with similar levels of mental retardation (e.g., Down Syndrome)

_______________________________________________________

Interpretations

Is grammar spared in WS?

Yes (e.g., Pinker, 1999; Clahsen & Almazan, 1998; Brock, 2006; Mervis et al., 2003; Zukowski, 2006)

No (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith, 1998; Karmiloff-Smith et al., 1997; Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith, 2003 )

_______________________________________________________

Proponents of some version of modularity

Neuroconstructivist view

Knowledge of grammar is impaired or deviant in WS.

WS individuals learn language using different cognitive mechanisms.

Explicitly rejects modularity.

Emphasis on rote learning and inability to extract underlying regularities and form linguistic generalizations.

_______________________________________________________

Neuroconstructivist view

- Karmiloff and Karmiloff-Smith (2001)

“It has become increasingly clear, therefore, that the superficially impressive language skills of individuals with WS may be due to good auditory memory rather than an intact grammar module” (p.202-3).

“We argue that the language of WS people, although good given their level of mental retardation, will not turn out to be “intact””(p.247)

- Karmiloff et al. (1997)

_______________________________________________________

Neuroconstructivist view

“… they will tend to acquire a large number of words by rote and only weakly extract underlying regularities.” (p.257)

“This suggests that if WS children go about language acquisition differently from normal children … they will end up – as they indeed do – with large vocabularies but relatively poor system building” (p. 257)

- Karmiloff et al. (1997)

- Karmiloff et al. (1997)

_______________________________________________________

Goals

Focusing on knowledge of core syntactic and semantic principles.

Apply the integrative approach to test the predictions of these two opposing views.

Using an experimental technique (the TVJT) which has a proven track record in uncovering such knowledge.

_______________________________________________________

Looking at quantificational phenomena.

The phenomenon

The interaction of negation and disjunction

… NOT … OR …

_______________________________________________________

The phenomenon

(1) John had a beer or a glass of wine.

(2) * John had a beer and John had a glass of wine.

(3) John didn’t have a beer or a glass of wine.

(4) John didn’t have a beer and John didn’t have a glass of wine.

_______________________________________________________

De Morgan’s laws

(P Q) ( P) ( Q)

Not (beer or wine) (not beer) and (not wine)

“The negation of the disjunction of two propositions is logically equivalent to the conjunction of their negations”

_______________________________________________________

The phenomenon

The interpretation of negation and disjunction is governed by De Morgan’s laws of propositional logic

But only when disjunction occurs in the scope of negation

_______________________________________________________

Scope condition

C-command

Precede only

Inclusive (Neither)

Exclusive (Either)

(5) The man who got a pay raise didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot.

(6) The man who didn’t get a pay raise bought a BMW or a Peugeot.

_______________________________________________________

Knowledge to be tested

(a) Syntax: scope/c-command

(b) Semantics: entailment relations and De Morgan’s laws of propositional logic

(c) The relationship between (a) and (b)

… NOT … OR …

_______________________________________________________

Predictions

Spared grammar view: knowledge of scope, c-command, entailment relations and De Morgan’s laws should be spared.

Neuroconstructivist view: knowledge of scope, c-command, entailment relations and De Morgan’s laws should be impaired.

_______________________________________________________

Experiment

The idea

C-command

Precede

Neither

Either

The man who got a pay raise didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot.

The man who didn’t get a pay raise bought a BMW or a Peugeot.

_______________________________________________________

4 control conditions

The man [who got a pay raise] didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot.

Control 1

Control 2Control 3

Control 4

_______________________________________________________

The man who got a pay raise didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot

C-command

FALSE

The man who didn’t get a pay raise bought a BMW or a Peugeot

Precede

True

Participants (3 groups)

12 individuals with WS (M age = 16;4, Range = 11;10 to 21;11) (M IQ = 63; SD = 4.19)

12 Mental Age controls (M = 6;1, Range = 5;2 to 7;8) (M IQ = 118; SD = 2.44)

12 adults (all college undergraduates)

_______________________________________________________

Design

Conditions: 2 experimental and 4 control

- Precede vs. C-command (experimental)

3 (groups) x 6 (conditions)

Groups = WS, MA, Adults

- Or, negation, relative clauses, De Morgan’s law (controls)

_______________________________________________________

Methodology

Truth Value Judgment Task

- Short, animated vignettes presented on a computer monitor with pre-recorded narration.

- Statements about what happened are heard at the end of each vignette.

- Participants have to decide whether the statements are true or false.

_______________________________________________________

Results

Control conditions (proportion of correct responses)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Negation Disjunction Relative DeMorgan

WS

MA

- No main effect of group, condition, or interaction (All p values > .1)

Interim conclusions

Participants experienced no difficulty with the task.

WS and MA have knowledge of the meaning of components that make up the experimental items (or, negation, relative clauses, De Morgan).

WS do not differ from MA.

_______________________________________________________

Experimental conditions (proportion of correct responses)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

C-command Precede

WS

MA

- Main effect of group (p < . 05), no main effect of condition, or interaction (both p values > . 4)

* *

Interim conclusions

Both WS and MA have knowledge of c-command and De Morgan’s laws.

MA are slightly better at implementing their knowledge.

_______________________________________________________

Implementation

No differences between the two groups on each of the components when considered in isolation.

Cumulative difficulty of these interacting components is more taxing for WS than MA.

Presumably due to differences in processing resources between the two groups.

_______________________________________________________

Implementation

Is level performance on experimental conditions related to level of performance on control conditions (correlational analysis)?

YES for both WS and MA (r ≥ .7)

_______________________________________________________

Implementation

What is the precise nature of these correlations (regression analysis)?

For both WS and MA, performance on negation was a significant predictor of overall performance (accounting for 46% and 64% of the variance, respectively)

Makes sense given what is known about processing difficulties associated with negation (e.g., Horn, 1989)

_______________________________________________________

Implementation

No qualitative difference in the way WS and MA implement their knowledge.

If we are on the right track:

Results comparing WS to 4-year-olds suggest that this is indeed the case.

WS performance should be similar to that of younger, typically developing children.

_______________________________________________________

WS vs. MA (proportion correct responses)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Precede C-command

Negation Disjunction Relative DeMorgan

WS

MA

WS vs. 4-year-olds (proportion correct responses)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

prec

ede

c-co

mman

d

nega

tion

disjun

ction

relativ

es

demorg

an

WS

4s

Conclusions

Results are compatible with the spared grammar view.

Knowledge of core, and very abstract principles of syntactic and semantic computation is preserved, or intact, in the WS population (scope, c-command, entailment relations, De Morgan’s laws)

_______________________________________________________

Conclusions

Empirical challenge

Theoretical challenge

Our results directly contradict the claim that knowledge of grammar is not intact in WS.

How is knowledge of c-command, etc. acquired if the cognitive mechanisms involved are different from those used by typically developing children ?

Challenge for the neuroconstructivist view.

_______________________________________________________

Conclusions

The study of typical and atypical development must proceed hand and hand, with each area informing the other.

_______________________________________________________

If everything I said wasn’t clear, it is because I didn’t tell you

everything …