1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 7, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Although monolingual children do not generally calculate the upper-bounded scalar implicature (SI) associated with ‘some’ without additional support, monolingual Spanish-speaking children have been reported to do so with (‘some’), and further distinguish from . Given documented cross-linguistic influence in interface phenomena in bilinguals, we asked whether young Spanish-English bilinguals calculate SIs with , or if there is an effect of acquiring languages with overlapping but diverging lexical entries. Two experiments reveal that not only do bilinguals inconsistently calculate SIs, Spanish monolinguals do not always either. In Experiment 1 , bilinguals did not calculate the SI associated with . However, in Experiment 2 , which calls upon their awareness of speaker-hearer dynamics, they did. This research highlights the challenges arising from interpreting linguistic phenomena where lexical, semantic, and pragmatic information intersect, and is a call for further investigation with bilinguals in a rapidly growing area where bilingual research is lacking.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.14019.syr
2016-02-29
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.14019.syr
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Argyri, E. & Sorace, A.
    (2007) Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 79–99. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002835
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002835 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barner, D. , Brooks, N. , & Bale, A.
    (2011) Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118, 87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bott, L. & Noveck, I. A.
    (2004) Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 437–457. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  4. Breheny, R. , Ferguson, H. , & Katsos, N.
    (2013) Investigating the time course of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 443–467. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.649040
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.649040 [Google Scholar]
  5. Caponigro, I. , Pearl, L. , Brooks, N. , & Barner, D.
    (2012) Acquiring the meaning of free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions. Journal of Semantics, 29, 261–293. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffr014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr014 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chierchia, G. , Fox, D. , & Spector, B.
    (2012) The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In C. Maienborn , K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbook of semanticsVol. 3 (pp.2297–2331). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Eve V.
    (1987) The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp.1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Crain, S. , & McKee, C.
    (1985) The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In S. Berman , Choe, J. , & McDonough, J. (Eds), Proceedings of 16th North Eastern Linguistics Society (pp.94–110). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Crain, S. , & Thornton, R.
    (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Degen, J. , & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2015) Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: A visual world eye-tracking study. Cognitive Science, 1–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Enç, M.
    (1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fabrégas, A.
    (2010) An argument for phrasal spell-out: Indefinites and interrogatives in Spanish. In P. Svenonius , G. Ramchand , M. Starke , and K. T. Taraldsen (Eds.), Nordlyd 36.1, Special Issue on Nanosyntax (pp.129–168). Tromsø: CASTL.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Foppolo, F. , Guasti, T. , & Chierchia, G.
    (2012) Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development, 8, 365–394. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2011.626386
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.626386 [Google Scholar]
  14. Giannikidou, A.
    (2011) In K. von Heusinger , Maienborn , and P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning Vol. 2 (pp.1660–1712). de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Grice, H. P.
    (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Grodner, D. , Klein, N. M. , Carbary, K. M. , Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2010) “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 42–55. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  17. Guasti, M. T. , Chierchia, G. , Crain, S. , Foppolo, F. , Gualmini, A. , & Meroni, L.
    (2005) Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 667–696. doi: 10.1080/01690960444000250
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000250 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gutiérrez-Rexach, J.
    (2001) The semantics of Spanish plural existential determiners and the dynamics of judgment types. Probus 13, 113–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Horn, L.R.
    (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2004) Implicature. In L. R. Horn and G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.1–28). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, Y. & Snedeker, J.
    (2009a) Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2009b) Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in five-year olds: Evidence from real time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1723–1739. doi: 10.1037/a0016704
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016704 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hulk, A. & Müller, N.
    (2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244. doi: 10.1017/S1366728900000353
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353 [Google Scholar]
  24. Katsos, N. & Bishop, D.
    (2011) Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120, 67–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  25. Katsos, N. , Roqueta, C. A. , Estevan, R. A. C. , & Cummins, C.
    (2011) Are children with Specific Language Impairment competent with the pragmatics and logic of quantification?Cognition, 119, 43–57. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ladusaw, W.
    (1994) Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In M. HaIvey and L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) IV (pp.220–229). Elanguage.net.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lidz, J. & Musolino, J.
    (2002) Children’s command of quantification. Cognition, 84, 113–154. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00013‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00013-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Markman, E. M. & Wachtel, G. F.
    (1988) Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(88)90017‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5 [Google Scholar]
  29. Martí, L.
    (2007) Restoring indefinites to normalcy: An experimental study on the scope of Spanish algunos. Journal of Semantics, 24, 1–25. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffl010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl010 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2008) The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in Spanish and Portuguese. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 1–37. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑007‑9023‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9023-x [Google Scholar]
  31. (2009) Contextual restrictions on indefinites: Spanish algunos vs. unos. In A. Giannakidou and M. Rathert (Eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization (pp.108–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 22.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. McNally, L. & van Geenhoven, V.
    (1998) Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Ms. Barcelona/Nijmegen: Universitat Pompeu Fabra/Max Plank Institut. Expanded version of a paper presented atthe 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Miller, D. , Giancaspro, D. , Iverson, M. , Rothman, J. , & Slabakova, Roumyana
    (in press) Not just algunos, but indeed unos L2ers can acquire scalar implicatures in L2 Spanish. In A. Alba de la Fuente , E. Valenzuela , and C. Martínez-Sanz (eds.), Language acquisition beyond parameters: Studies in honour of Juana Liceras. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.51.06mil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.51.06mil [Google Scholar]
  34. Miller, K. & Schmitt, C.
    (2004) An experimental study on child comprehension of Spanish indefinites and bare singulars. Language Acquisition, 12, 247–256. doi: 10.1080/10489223.1995.9671745
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.1995.9671745 [Google Scholar]
  35. Miller, K. , Schmitt, C. , Chang, H. , & Munn, A.
    (2005) Young children understand some implicatures. In A. Brugos , M. R. Clark-Cotton , & S. Ha (Eds.), Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 29 Proceedings (pp.389–400). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Milsark, G.
    (1974) Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Müller, N. & Hulk, A.
    (2001) Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 1–53. doi: 10.1017/S1366728901000116
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000116 [Google Scholar]
  38. Noveck, I. A.
    (2001) When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00114‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 [Google Scholar]
  39. Papafragou, A. , & Musolino, J.
    (2003) Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00179‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 [Google Scholar]
  40. Papafragou, A. , & Tantalou, N.
    (2004) Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition, 12, 71–82. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la1201_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Peña, E. Gutierrez-Clellen, V. , Iglesias, A. , Goldstein, B. & Bedore, L.
    (in progress) Bilingual English Spanish Assessment. Unpublished assessment tool.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Pesetsky, D.
    (1987) Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness (pp.98–129). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pouscoulous, N. , Noveck, I. , Politzer, G. , & Bastide, A.
    (2007) A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14, 347–375. doi: 10.1080/10489220701600457
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220701600457 [Google Scholar]
  44. Serratrice, L. , Sorace, A. , & Paoli, S.
    (2004) Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English–Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205. doi: 10.1017/S1366728904001610
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001610 [Google Scholar]
  45. Siegal, M. , Iozzi, L. , & Surian, L.
    (2009) Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition, 110, 115–122. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Siegal, M. , Matsuo, A. , & Pond, C.
    (2007) Bilingualism and cognitive development: Evidence from scalar implicatures. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp.265–280). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Slabakova, R.
    (2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120, 2444–2462. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith, C. L.
    (1980) Quantifiers and question answering in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 191–205. doi: 10.1016/0022‑0965(80)90057‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(80)90057-0 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sorace, A.
    (2000) Differential effects of attrition in the L1 syntax of near-native L2 speakers. In S. C. Howell , S. A. Fish , & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), Vol.2 (pp.719–725). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sorace, A. , & Filiaci, F.
    (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa [Google Scholar]
  51. Sorace, A. , Serratrice, L. , Filiaci, F. , & Baldo, M.
    (2009) Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460–477. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  52. Stiller, A. , Goodman, N. , & Frank, M. C.
    (2015) Ad-hoc implicature in preschool children. Language Learning and Development, 11, 176–190. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2014.927328
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2014.927328 [Google Scholar]
  53. Syrett, K. & Lidz, J.
    (2011) Competence, performance, and the locality of Quantifier Raising: Evidence from 4-year-old children. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 305–337. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00043
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00043 [Google Scholar]
  54. Syrett, K. , Lingwall, A. , Perez-Cortes, S. , Austin, J. , Sanchez, L. , Baker, H. , Germak, C. , & Arias-Amaya, A.
    (under revision) How Spanish-English bilingual children approach entailment-based scalar implicatures. Glossa Special Issue: Acquisition of Quantification.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Vargas-Tokuda, M. , Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. , & Grinstead, J.
    (2008) Children’s comprehension of the Spanish existential determiners unos and algunos. H. Chan , H. Jacob , and E. Kapia (Eds.), Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 32 Proceedings (pp.516–524). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.14019.syr
Loading
The influence of conversational context and the developing lexicon on the calculation of scalar implicatures
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7, 230 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14019.syr
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.14019.syr
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.14019.syr
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cross-linguistic influence; Pragmatics; scalar implicatures

Most Cited

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