Volume 46, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1810-7478
  • E-ISSN: 2589-5230



The present study investigates children’s first language acquisition of donkey sentences and bare conditionals in Mandarin Chinese, both of which are concerned with quantification. Kindergarteners, Grade 2 and Grade 4 were recruited for experimental groups, each group consisting of 18 subjects, and 18 adults comprised a control group against which to compare their interpretations. Each subject finished two Truth-Value Judgment tasks, which were sentences in isolation and sentences in context. The results of this research identified a developmental pattern regarding the acquisition of donkey sentences and bare conditionals in Mandarin Chinese. It was found that overall children under seven years of age had difficulty interpreting quantificational sentences. First, concerning the relatedness of the two constructions, all four groups showed a tendency to find donkey sentences easier to interpret than bare conditionals. With respect to contextual effects, by Grade 2, children could obtain adult-like interpretations of donkey sentences in a biasing context, but it was not until they were in Grade 4 that they could interpret both donkey sentences and bare conditionals in their supporting context with adult-like readings. As a result, the subjects’ interpretations were greatly affected by context, but the two constructions were affected in different ways.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Champollion, Lucas
    2016 Homogeneity in donkey sentences. Proceedings of the 26th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. byMary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard and Dan Burgdorf, 684–704. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and C.-T. James Huang
    1996 Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics4:121–163. 10.1007/BF00355411
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355411 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cheung, Candice Chi Hang
    2007 The syntax and semantics of bare conditionals in Chinese. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung11, ed. byEstela Puig-Waldmüller, 150–164. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1986Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen, Ariel
    2001 Relative readings of many, often, and generics. Natural Language Semantics9.1:41–67. 10.1023/A:1017913406219
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017913406219 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook, Vivian James
    1988Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Crain, Stephen, Rosalind Thornton, Carole Boster, Laura Conway, Diane Lillo-Martin, and Elaine Woodams
    2009 Quantification without quantification. Language Acquisition5.2:83–153. 10.1207/s15327817la0502_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0502_2 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dekker, Paul
    2001 On if and only. Proceedings of the 11th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. byRachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson and Zsofia Zvolenszky, 114–133. New York: New York University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DeVault, David, and Matthew Stone
    2004 Interpreting vague utterances in context. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING, ed. byLothar Lemnitzer, Detmar Meurers and Erhard Hinrichs, 1247–1253. Geneva, Switzerland: University of Geneva. 10.3115/1220355.1220536
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1220355.1220536 [Google Scholar]
  10. Foppolo, Francesca
    2009 The puzzle of donkey anaphora resolution. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. byMartin Walkow and Muhammad Abdurrahman, 297–310. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gelman, Susan A., and Henry M. Wellman
    1991 Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition38.3:213–244. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90007‑Q
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90007-Q [Google Scholar]
  12. Geurts, Bart
    2002 Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy25.2:129–156. 10.1023/A:1014624331450
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014624331450 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2003 Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition11:197–218. 10.1207/s15327817la1104_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1104_1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gopnik, Alison
    1988 Conceptual and semantic development as theory change: The case of object permanence. Mind & Language3.3:197–216. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1988.tb00143.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1988.tb00143.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Gopnik, Alison, and Andrew N. Meltzoff
    1997Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grosz, Patrick G., Pritty Patel-Grosz, Evelina Fedorenko, and Edward Gibson
    2014 Constraints on donkey pronouns. Journal of Semantics32.4:619–648. 10.1093/jos/ffu009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Haspelmath, Martin
    1997Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Herburger, Elena
    1997 Focus and weak noun phrases. Natural Language Semantics5.1:53–78. 10.1023/A:1008222204053
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008222204053 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2015 Conditional perfection: The truth and the whole truth. Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. bySarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney and Carol Rose Little, 615–635. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, C.-T. James
    1984 On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry15.4:531–574.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Inhelder, Bärbel, and Jean Piaget
    1958The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures. New York: Basic Books. 10.1037/10034‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ireri, Anthony M., Daniel M. Mukuni, Philomena N. Mathuvi, Amos M. Njagi, and Njagi I. Karugu
    2012 An overview of major biological and contextual factors in language acquisition. American Journal of Linguistics1.3:33–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kanazawa, Makoto
    1994 Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inferences in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy17.2:109–158. 10.1007/BF00984775
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984775 [Google Scholar]
  24. Keil, Frank C.
    1989Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Krifka, Manfred
    1996 Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. Proceedings of the 6th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. byTeresa Galloway and Justin Spence, 136–153. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lin, Keng-yu, and Shiao-hui Chan
    2019 When senses meet functions: An amodal stage in conceptual processing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology31.1:64–75. 10.1080/20445911.2018.1560299
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2018.1560299 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ni, Weijia
    1987 Empty topics in Chinese. UConn Working Papers in Linguistics1. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pan, Haihua, and Yan Jiang
    1997 NP interpretation and donkey sentences in Chinese. Paper presented at theWorkshop on Interface Strategies in Chinese, Cornell University, Ithaca.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pearson, Barbara Zurer, and Peter de Villiers
    2005 Child language acquisition: Discourse, narrative, and pragmatics. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition), ed. byKeith Brown. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Piaget, Jean
    1936Origins of Intelligence in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Prévost, Philippe, and Johanne Paradis
    (eds.) 2004The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.32 [Google Scholar]
  32. Tannen, Deborah
    1982Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Thuan, Tran, and Benjamin Bruening
    2013 Wh-phrases as indefinites: A Vietnamese perspective. Linguistics of Vietnamese: An International Survey, ed. byDaniel Hole and Elisabeth Löbel, 217–241. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110289411.217
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110289411.217 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, Xin
    2007 Guanyu luziju de jidian yiwen yu sikao [Some questions and reflections about donkey sentences]. Yuwen Xuekan2:69–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Yatsushiro, Kazuko
    2008 Quantifier acquisition: Presuppositions of “every”. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung12, ed. byAtle Grønn, 663–677. Oslo: University of Oslo.
    [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