Volume 37, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919



Sentences with plural expressions are compatible with distributive and collective interpretations. Adults generally prefer collective interpretations, whereas children do not. Dotlačil (2010) argues that the adult collective preference arises via an implicature. Adults can reason about alternative utterances with the distributive marker , thereby ruling out distributive interpretations in favor of collective interpretations. Experiment 1 used the covered-box paradigm to investigate whether adults and children make the comparisons predicted by Dotlačil’s implicature account. Adults’ responses suggest that they made comparisons with internally generated alternatives, supporting the implicature account. Moreover, children seem to do so from around 11 years old onwards, after they have learned the distributive character of . Experiment 2 excluded the possibility that our results in Experiment 1 were influenced by participants’ exposure to both collective and distributive pictures, making the collective interpretation more salient. Both experiments thus point towards an implicature underlying the adult collective preference.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Akaike, Hirotugu
    1974 “A new look at the statistical model identification.” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(6): 716–723. 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas Bates
    2008 “Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items.” Journal of Memory and Language59(4): 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brooks, Patricia J. & Martin D. S. Braine
    1996 “What do children know about the universal quantifiers all and each?” Cognition60(3): 235–268. 10.1016/0010‑0277(96)00712‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00712-3 [Google Scholar]
  4. Champollion, Lucas
    2017Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Vol.66, Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198755128.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198755128.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dotlačil, Jakub
    2010 “Anaphora and distributivity. A study of same, different, reciprocals and others.” PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
  6. Frazier, Lyn, Jeremy Patch & Keith Rayner
    1999 “Taking on semantic commitments, II: collective versus distributive readings.” Cognition70(1): 87–104. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00002‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00002-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Grice, Herbert. P.
    1975 “Logic and conversation.” InSyntax and semantics. Volume 3: Speech acts, ed. byP. Cole & J. J. Morgan. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Huang, Yi Ting, Elizabeth Spelke & Jesse Snedeker
    2013 “What exactly do numbers mean?” Language Learning and Development9(2): 105–129. 10.1080/15475441.2012.658731
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2012.658731 [Google Scholar]
  9. Katsos, Napoleon & Dorothy V. M. Bishop
    2011 “Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature.” Cognition120(1): 67–81. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  10. de Koster, Anna M. B., Jakub Dotlačil & Jennifer K. Spenader
    2017 “Children’s understanding of distributivity and adjectives of comparison.” InProceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development1: 373–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Landman, F.
    2000 Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures, vol.76. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Pub.10: 978–94. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4359‑2
  12. Musolino, Julien
    2009 “The logical syntax of number words: Theory, acquisition and processing.” Cognition111(1): 24–45. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Padilla-Reyes, Ramon E.
    2018 “Connections among scales, plurality, and intensionality in Spanish”. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.
  14. Pagliarini, Elana, Gaetano Fiorin & Jakub Dotlačil
    2012 “The acquisition of distributivity in pluralities.” InProceedings of the 36st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development2: 387–399.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Schwarz, Florian, Cory Bill & Jacopo Romoli
    2016 “Reluctant acceptance of the literal truth: Eye tracking in the covered box paradigm.” InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung20: 61–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Syrett, Kristen & Julien Musolino
    2013 “Collectivity, distributivity, and the interpretation of plural numerical expressions in child and adult language.” Language Acquisition20(4): 259–291. 10.1080/10489223.2013.828060
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2013.828060 [Google Scholar]
  17. Van Tiel, Bob, Emiel Van Miltenburg, Natalia Zevakhina & Bart Geurts
    2016 “Scalar diversity.” Journal of Semantics33(1): 137–175.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error