Week 14.Week 14.Acquisition of semanticsAcquisition of semantics

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Acquisition of semanticsAcquisition of semantics Relatively recently, there has been an Relatively recently, there has been an

increased interest in the acquisition of increased interest in the acquisition of semantics.semantics. Overuse of Overuse of thethe.. Limited scope ambiguity?Limited scope ambiguity?

Some of the hardest stuff to imagine Some of the hardest stuff to imagine how you’d learn from the input.how you’d learn from the input.

Maximality (Wexler 2003)Maximality (Wexler 2003) Karmiloff-Smith (1979)Karmiloff-Smith (1979)

French determinersFrench determiners Experimental setup:Experimental setup:

Ask the girl to lend you that.Ask the girl to lend you that. Lend me a book. Lend me the bottle.Lend me a book. Lend me the bottle.

Girl-doll’s roomGirl-doll’s room Boy-doll’s roomBoy-doll’s room1 blue book1 blue book 3 books (each a 3 books (each a

different color)different color)3 multicolored balls3 multicolored balls 1 multicolored ball1 multicolored ball1 bottle1 bottle 1 car1 car

Maximality (Wexler 2003)Maximality (Wexler 2003) Karmiloff-Smith (1979)Karmiloff-Smith (1979)

French determinersFrench determiners Similar results obtain for EnglishSimilar results obtain for English

AgeAge Type of DType of D SingletonSingleton Sev. Ident.Sev. Ident.33 defdef 6262 4848

indefindef 00 3366 defdef 9292 5656

indefindef 88 444499 defdef 100100 00

indefindef 00 100100

Egocentricity?Egocentricity? Maratsos 1976, Karmiloff-Smith 1979. Maratsos 1976, Karmiloff-Smith 1979.

Observed and supposed that this Observed and supposed that this might be due to an inability of the might be due to an inability of the child to take the listener’s point of child to take the listener’s point of view.view.

What does What does thethe mean? mean? Presupposes existence and uniqueness. Use Presupposes existence and uniqueness. Use

it when you can. Else: it when you can. Else: aa.. Also: maximal (Also: maximal (the booksthe books).).

Making noiseMaking noise Once there was a lady. She had lots of girls Once there was a lady. She had lots of girls

and boys, about four girls and three boys. and boys, about four girls and three boys. They were very noisy, and they kept her They were very noisy, and they kept her awake all the time. One night she went to awake all the time. One night she went to bed. She told them to be very quiet. She said, bed. She told them to be very quiet. She said, ‘If anyone makes any noise, they won’t get ‘If anyone makes any noise, they won’t get any breakfast tomorrow.’ Then she went to any breakfast tomorrow.’ Then she went to bed. But do you know what happened? One of bed. But do you know what happened? One of them started laughing and giggling. Now let’s them started laughing and giggling. Now let’s see, there were four girls and three boys. Who see, there were four girls and three boys. Who was laughing and giggling like that?was laughing and giggling like that? 4-year olds. The boy. About 58% of the time.4-year olds. The boy. About 58% of the time.

Not intent to refer but Not intent to refer but uniquenessuniqueness

Wexler proposes that definite error Wexler proposes that definite error arise from kids not observing the arise from kids not observing the Maximality presupposition in their Maximality presupposition in their lexical entry for lexical entry for thethe..

So, So, the bookthe book is fine even if it isn’t is fine even if it isn’t unique.unique.

Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004)Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004) Interestingly, it seems that this might Interestingly, it seems that this might

also be at work in L2 acquisition.also be at work in L2 acquisition.

L2’ers are known to have trouble L2’ers are known to have trouble with articles. But this is not going to with articles. But this is not going to be explained by cognitive be explained by cognitive development.development.

Partitive contextsPartitive contexts One of them started laughing and One of them started laughing and

giggling.giggling. The boy.The boy.

Wexler 2003: the X = ‘one of the X’Wexler 2003: the X = ‘one of the X’ So, expect overuse in partitive So, expect overuse in partitive

contexts.contexts.

Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004)Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004) They tested 20 L1 Korean speakers.They tested 20 L1 Korean speakers. Partitive context:Partitive context:

Elissa: How is your nephew Aaron doing? He is Elissa: How is your nephew Aaron doing? He is such a nice little boy!such a nice little boy!

Robert: He has some good news—his parents Robert: He has some good news—his parents finally allowed him to get a pet—just one! So last finally allowed him to get a pet—just one! So last week, he went to our local pet shop. This pet shop week, he went to our local pet shop. This pet shop had five puppies and seven kittens, and Aaron had five puppies and seven kittens, and Aaron loved all of them. But he could get only one!loved all of them. But he could get only one!

Elissa: Oh, so what did he do?Elissa: Oh, so what did he do? Robert: Well, it was difficult for him to make up his Robert: Well, it was difficult for him to make up his

mind. But finally, he got mind. But finally, he got (a, the, —)(a, the, —) puppy. Aaron puppy. Aaron went home really happy.went home really happy.

Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004)Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004) Non-partitive context:Non-partitive context:

Elissa: How is your nephew Joey doing? He is Elissa: How is your nephew Joey doing? He is such a nice boy!such a nice boy!

Robert: Well, he was a bit depressed the last Robert: Well, he was a bit depressed the last few days. So, his parents decided to get him a few days. So, his parents decided to get him a pet. So last week, he went to our local pet ship.pet. So last week, he went to our local pet ship.

Elissa: Oh, so did he buy some animal there?Elissa: Oh, so did he buy some animal there? Robert: No, he did not like the puppies in the Robert: No, he did not like the puppies in the

pet shop, in fact. But then he was walking pet shop, in fact. But then he was walking home and he found home and he found (a, the, —)(a, the, —) kitten in the kitten in the street! So now he has a new pet after all!street! So now he has a new pet after all!

Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004)Ko, Ionin, Wexler (2004) And indeed… (Overuse of And indeed… (Overuse of thethe with indefinites) with indefinites)

05

10152025

3035

simple want

Explicit partImplicit partNon-part

Acquisition of semanticsAcquisition of semantics Another popular topic in the study of the Another popular topic in the study of the

acquisition of semantics is quantifiers.acquisition of semantics is quantifiers. One popular topic has been investigating One popular topic has been investigating

children’s knowledge of sentences like:children’s knowledge of sentences like: The guy didn’t deliver two pizzas.The guy didn’t deliver two pizzas.

For adults, this can mean:For adults, this can mean: There are 2 pizzas that the guy didn’t deliverThere are 2 pizzas that the guy didn’t deliver

(E.g., after delivering the rest of his pizzas, he had 2 (E.g., after delivering the rest of his pizzas, he had 2 left)left)

It’s not the case that the guy delivered 2 pizzasIt’s not the case that the guy delivered 2 pizzas (E.g., he delivered 4 pizzas, or 1)(E.g., he delivered 4 pizzas, or 1)

QRQR The availability of the two readings is generally The availability of the two readings is generally

accounted for in terms of accounted for in terms of Quantifier RaisingQuantifier Raising (QR): (QR): A quantificational DP moves (covertly) to adjoin to the A quantificational DP moves (covertly) to adjoin to the

IP.IP. If there are two quantificational DPs, they can do this If there are two quantificational DPs, they can do this

adjunction in either order.adjunction in either order. A student read every book.A student read every book. [a student][a student]kk [every book] [every book]ii [t [tkk read t read tjj ] ] [every book][every book]ii [a student] [a student]kk [t [tkk read t read tjj ] ]

The relative structural positions determine their The relative structural positions determine their relative scope unambiguously.relative scope unambiguously.

[Not][Not]kk [2 pizzas] [2 pizzas]ii [The guy did t [The guy did tii deliver t deliver tkk ] ] [2 pizzas][2 pizzas]ii [Not] [Not]kk [The guy did t [The guy did tii deliver t deliver tkk ] ]

Musolino’s (2000) OOIMusolino’s (2000) OOI Musolino (2000) found that kids Musolino (2000) found that kids

seem not to seem not to reversereverse scope relations scope relations found in the surface form (the found in the surface form (the Observation of IsomorphismObservation of Isomorphism).). Every horse didn’t jump over the fence.Every horse didn’t jump over the fence. The detective didn’t find some guysThe detective didn’t find some guys The smurf didn’t buy every orange.The smurf didn’t buy every orange.

Musolino & Lidz (2002)Musolino & Lidz (2002) The detective didn’t find 2 guys.The detective didn’t find 2 guys.

TVJT: Dramatic preference on the part of TVJT: Dramatic preference on the part of kids (4yo) for the surface scope.kids (4yo) for the surface scope.

Linear order?Linear order? Or structure (c-command?)Or structure (c-command?)

Tested kids on the same thing in Kannada Tested kids on the same thing in Kannada (where negation is at the end). Same result: (where negation is at the end). Same result: It’s c-command that matters.It’s c-command that matters.

For a while, this was thought to be an For a while, this was thought to be an aspect of children’s aspect of children’s competencecompetence. Their . Their grammar, e.g., lacked QR.grammar, e.g., lacked QR.

Gualmini (2003)Gualmini (2003) By manipulating the context, however, By manipulating the context, however,

Gualmini (2003) showed that kids could Gualmini (2003) showed that kids could access the “inverse scope” interpretation. It access the “inverse scope” interpretation. It just has to do what would be a just has to do what would be a sensible/felicitous thing to say.sensible/felicitous thing to say. Grover orders 4 pizzas from the Troll, who Grover orders 4 pizzas from the Troll, who

supposed to deliver them all to Grover. But the supposed to deliver them all to Grover. But the Troll drives too fast and loses 2.Troll drives too fast and loses 2.

The Troll didn’t deliver some pizzas.The Troll didn’t deliver some pizzas. 90% accept90% accept The Troll didn’t lose some pizzas.The Troll didn’t lose some pizzas. 50% accept50% accept

One points out a discrepancy between the One points out a discrepancy between the expectations and what actually happened, one expectations and what actually happened, one doesn’t.doesn’t.

Hulsey, Hacquard, Fox, & Hulsey, Hacquard, Fox, & Gualmini (2004)Gualmini (2004)

The Question-Answer Requirement The Question-Answer Requirement on TVJ tasks: on TVJ tasks: The test sentence must be understood as an The test sentence must be understood as an answer to the “question under discussion.”answer to the “question under discussion.” Will the Troll deliver all of the pizzas?Will the Troll deliver all of the pizzas? Yes (the Troll will deliver them all)Yes (the Troll will deliver them all) No (the Troll will not deliver them all)No (the Troll will not deliver them all) #There are some pizzas delivered by the Troll.#There are some pizzas delivered by the Troll.

““Isomorphism” isn’t even really a default.Isomorphism” isn’t even really a default. Tested passives (when compared to actives, teases Tested passives (when compared to actives, teases

apart isomorphism and QAR):apart isomorphism and QAR): Some pizzas were not delivered.Some pizzas were not delivered. 94% (adult 100%)94% (adult 100%) Some pizza were not lost.Some pizza were not lost. 43% (adult 93%)43% (adult 93%)

Kids and QR, Lidz et al. Kids and QR, Lidz et al. (2003)(2003)

(BUCLD 28) More direct test of whether kids (BUCLD 28) More direct test of whether kids have QR by looking at constructions where have QR by looking at constructions where QR is necessary in order to get the right QR is necessary in order to get the right interpretation.interpretation. Quantifier-variable bindingQuantifier-variable binding

Kermit kissed every dancer before she went on stageKermit kissed every dancer before she went on stage Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD)Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD)

Miss Red jumped over every frog that Miss Black did.Miss Red jumped over every frog that Miss Black did.

(Also: Syrett & Lidz submitted)(Also: Syrett & Lidz submitted)

Quantifier-variable bindingQuantifier-variable binding Subject QNP (QR not necessary)Subject QNP (QR not necessary)

Every dancerEvery dancer kissed Kermit before kissed Kermit before sheshe went on stage.went on stage.

Object QNP (QR required)Object QNP (QR required) Kermit kissed Kermit kissed every dancerevery dancer before before sheshe

went on stage.went on stage. Kids about 4;6. Acted like adults, yes Kids about 4;6. Acted like adults, yes

where yes was required, no where no where yes was required, no where no was required.was required.

ACDACD VP ellipsis involves interpreting an “empty VP” as VP ellipsis involves interpreting an “empty VP” as

a copy of the “audible VP” (or leaving an identical a copy of the “audible VP” (or leaving an identical VP unpronounced).VP unpronounced). John bought a tape and Mary did too.John bought a tape and Mary did too.

ACD: the elided VP is ACD: the elided VP is insideinside the audible one. the audible one. MR jumped over every frog that MB did.MR jumped over every frog that MB did.

Audible: jumped over every frog that MB did [VP]Audible: jumped over every frog that MB did [VP] Elided: jumped over … what?Elided: jumped over … what?

Infinite regress: MR jumped over every frog that MB Infinite regress: MR jumped over every frog that MB jumped over every frog that MB jumped over every jumped over every frog that MB jumped over every frog that…frog that…

QR solves the problem, though:QR solves the problem, though: [Every frog that MB [jumped over t]][Every frog that MB [jumped over t]]ii

MR [jumped over MR [jumped over ttii].].

ACDACD MB jumped over every frog that MR didMB jumped over every frog that MR did

QR: relative clause readingQR: relative clause reading No QR: coordinated reading?No QR: coordinated reading?

MB jumped over every frog and MB did too.MB jumped over every frog and MB did too. Kids about 4;5 act basically like adults.Kids about 4;5 act basically like adults. So, they must have QR. Whatever OOI is So, they must have QR. Whatever OOI is

about, it isn’t about kids lacking QR from about, it isn’t about kids lacking QR from their grammar.their grammar.

Musolino & Lidz (2003)Musolino & Lidz (2003) Adults can be made to act like kids with Adults can be made to act like kids with

respect to isomorphism too, in fact.respect to isomorphism too, in fact. Cookie Monster didn’t eat two slices of pizza.Cookie Monster didn’t eat two slices of pizza.

Try a context where Try a context where bothboth interpretations interpretations are true…are true… E.g.: CM gets 3, but eats 1.E.g.: CM gets 3, but eats 1.

……justifications given seemed to be justifications given seemed to be isomorphic (75% vs. 7.5% reverse, the isomorphic (75% vs. 7.5% reverse, the rest unclear).rest unclear).

Musolino & Lidz (2003)Musolino & Lidz (2003) Two frogs didn’t jump over the rockTwo frogs didn’t jump over the rock

Four frogs decide to jump over a rock, and two Four frogs decide to jump over a rock, and two end up jumping whereas the other two end up end up jumping whereas the other two end up not jumping.not jumping. Wide: True. Narrow: False.Wide: True. Narrow: False.

Two frogs attempting to jump over a rock. One Two frogs attempting to jump over a rock. One ends up jumping and the other one does not.ends up jumping and the other one does not. Wide: False. Narrow: True.Wide: False. Narrow: True.

Accepted narrow scope reading only 27% of the Accepted narrow scope reading only 27% of the time, justifications: wide scope is false.time, justifications: wide scope is false. Condition 2: Two frogs jumped over the fence but two Condition 2: Two frogs jumped over the fence but two

frogs didn’t jump over the rock. Up to 92% frogs didn’t jump over the rock. Up to 92% acceptance.acceptance.

EntailmentsEntailments E.g., Minai, Meroni, & Crain (2004):E.g., Minai, Meroni, & Crain (2004):

John has a black dog > John has a dogJohn has a black dog > John has a dog Every boy has a black dog > Every boy has a dogEvery boy has a black dog > Every boy has a dog Nobody has a black dog < Nobody has a dogNobody has a black dog < Nobody has a dog Every black dog caught a cicada < Every dog caught a Every black dog caught a cicada < Every dog caught a

cicadacicada Nobody caught every black dog > Nobody caught every dogNobody caught every black dog > Nobody caught every dog

Can be used as an argument for an innateness Can be used as an argument for an innateness hypothesis vs. constructional analogy.hypothesis vs. constructional analogy.

Kids (mean 4;10), 95% on #2. 90% on #4. 89% on #5.Kids (mean 4;10), 95% on #2. 90% on #4. 89% on #5. Nobody could feed every (big) koala bearNobody could feed every (big) koala bear

Notice that this is a bit early—weren’t Chien & Wexler Notice that this is a bit early—weren’t Chien & Wexler (1990) relying on kids’ inability to do quantifiers?(1990) relying on kids’ inability to do quantifiers?