Universal Grammar and the Acquisition of Semantic Knowledge: An Experimental Investigation into the Acquisition of Quantifier-Negation Interaction in English

This dissertation explores the way in which English-speaking children acquire the meaning of sentences containing negation and quantified noun phrases (QNPs). This investigation is based on a series of psycholinguistic experiments designed to assess children’s comprehension of sentences like ‘Every horse didn’t jump over the fence’ or ‘Cookie Monster didn’t eat two slices of pizza’ among others. The major finding is that children around the age of 5 do not interpret these sentences the way adult speakers of English do. This finding raises the following questions (a) How and why do children’s interpretations of sentences containing negation and quantified noun phrases differ from those of adults? (b) How do children manage to converge onto the adult system of interpretation? Regarding the first question, it appears that children’s non-adult interpretations are nevertheless systematic, i.e. governed by principle. Specifically, children (unlike adults) are found to map overt syntactic relations between QNPs and negation and their relative semantic interpretation isomorphically. This, however, is just a descriptive generalization. The observation of isomorphism is treated as an epiphenomenon, derived from the interplay between a universally encoded dichotomy splitting the class of QNPs and learnability considerations. Regarding the second question, I show that children can move from their system of interpretation to the adult system solely on the basis of positive evidence and thus, that the observed difference does not create a learnability problem. In summary, this dissertation uncovers a new area where the linguistic behavior of children and adults diverge: the comprehension of sentences containing negation and quantified noun phrases. The rest of the dissertation is a methodological statement, namely that it is not only desirable but also possible to account for the observed difference between children and adults without invoking any differences between the two groups beyond minimal conceptual necessity. To the extent that this goal is achieved, the present investigation emphasizes the role played by the theory of Universal Grammar and language learnability in helping us understand language development and its biological basis. Comments University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No. IRCS-99-01. This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/40 UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR AND THE ACQUISITION OF SEMANTIC KNOWLEDGE: An Experimental Investigation into the Acquisition of QuantifierNegation Interaction in English.

[1]  William Philip,et al.  Distributivity and Logical Form in the Emergence of Universal Quantification , 1992 .

[2]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[4]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Language learnability and language development , 1985 .

[5]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  The Lexicon in Acquisition , 1996 .

[6]  Cheng-Teh James Huang,et al.  Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar , 1998 .

[7]  U. Neisser Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[8]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[9]  Ruth Clark,et al.  Errors in Talking to Learn , 1980 .

[10]  Norbert Hornstein,et al.  Logic as Grammar , 1984 .

[11]  M. Barrett,et al.  Lexical development and overextension in child language , 1978, Journal of Child Language.

[12]  D. Slobin Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar , 1973 .

[13]  Frederick J. Newmeyer,et al.  Explaining language universals , 1990, Journal of Linguistics.

[14]  Mark Aronoff,et al.  Word Formation in Generative Grammar , 1979 .

[15]  E. Koerner,et al.  The Transformational-generative paradigm and modern linguistic theory , 1975 .

[16]  E. G. Ruys,et al.  The scope of indefinites , 1992 .

[17]  Lawrence M. Solan,et al.  The Acquisition of Structural Restrictions on Anaphora , 1981 .

[18]  D. Slobin Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language-making Capacity , 1985 .

[19]  Richard S. Kayne Connectedness and binary branching , 1984 .

[20]  D. Bolinger,et al.  Meaning and form: Some fallacies of asemantic grammar , 1975 .

[21]  Kenneth Wexler,et al.  Formal Principles of Language Acquisition , 1980 .

[22]  Yafei Li,et al.  Negative and positive polarity , 1994 .

[23]  C. Mervis Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. , 1987 .

[24]  Feng-Hsi Liu,et al.  Scope dependency in english and chinese , 1990 .

[25]  D. H. Wheeler,et al.  The early growth of logic in the child : classification and seriation , 1965 .

[26]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  On the semantic properties of logical operators in english' reproduced by the indiana university lin , 1972 .

[27]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. , 1987 .

[28]  R. May Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation , 1985 .

[29]  D. Slobin The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition , 1987 .

[30]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[31]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[32]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  Analyses of negation in English. , 1972 .

[33]  E. Markman,et al.  Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  C. L. Baker,et al.  The Logical problem of language acquisition , 1984 .

[35]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Rules and representations , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[36]  J. Macnamara Names for Things: A Study in Human Learning , 1984 .

[37]  Dorit Ben-Shalom Object Wide Scope and Semantic Trees , 1993 .

[38]  A. Avramides Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[39]  Han Xi-w Negation in English , 2000 .

[40]  S A Kuczaj,et al.  More on children's initial failures to relate specific acquisitions , 1981, Journal of Child Language.

[41]  William A. Ladusaw Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations , 1980 .

[42]  Eric H. Lenneberg,et al.  New directions in the study of language , 1964 .

[43]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Simplicity and Generality of Rules in Language Acquisition. , 1984 .

[44]  Laurence R. Horn A Natural History of Negation , 1989 .

[45]  Jill de Villiers,et al.  The emergence of bound variable structures , 1991 .

[46]  Noam Chomsky Some notes on economy of derivation and representation , 2013 .

[47]  William Churchill Houston Philip Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification , 1995 .

[48]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[49]  Albert Borgmann,et al.  The Structure of Language , 1954, The Classical Review.

[50]  D. Slobin,et al.  Studies of child language development , 1973 .

[51]  J. Hawkins Explaining Language Universals , 1988 .

[52]  Noam Chomsky Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use , 1988 .

[53]  J. Higginbotham Pronouns and Bound Variables , 1980 .

[54]  J. Barwise,et al.  Generalized quantifiers and natural language , 1981 .

[55]  Chien Yu-Chin,et al.  Children's Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics , 1990 .

[56]  M. Linebarger The grammar of negative polarity , 1981 .

[57]  M. Bowerman The 'no negative evidence' problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? , 1988 .

[58]  V. Gathercole,et al.  The contrastive hypothesis for the acquisition of word meaning: a reconsideration of the theory , 1987, Journal of Child Language.

[59]  Charles James Nice Bailey,et al.  New ways of analyzing variation in English , 1973 .

[60]  Katherine Nelson,et al.  Constraints on word learning , 1988 .

[61]  R. Quirk A Grammar of contemporary English , 1974 .

[62]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  Restricting the Theory of Transformations: A Case Study , 1990 .

[63]  Thomas H. C. Lee Studies on quantification in Chinese , 1986 .

[64]  Martyn D. Barrett,et al.  Early Semantic Representations and Early Word-Usage , 1986 .

[65]  Ljiljana Progovac,et al.  Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach , 1994 .

[66]  William E. Merriman,et al.  How Children Learn the Reference of Concrete Nouns: A Critique of Current Hypotheses , 1986 .

[67]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[68]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Quantification Without Qualification , 1996 .

[69]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Deletion And Logical Form , 1976 .

[70]  Joseph Aoun,et al.  The Syntax of Scope , 1995 .

[71]  E. Markman How children constrain the possible meanings of words. , 1987 .

[72]  M. R. Manzini Learnability and Cognition , 1991 .

[73]  Anthony Warner,et al.  Ellipsis Conditions and the Status of the English Copula. , 1986 .

[74]  Joseph E. Aoun,et al.  Scope and constituency , 1989 .

[75]  David Gil,et al.  Quantifier scope, linguistic variation, and natural language semantics , 1982 .

[76]  W. Merriman,et al.  The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning. , 1989, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[77]  K. Jon Barwise,et al.  On branching quantifiers in English , 1979, J. Philos. Log..