Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2017
Edited by Sander Lestrade and Bert Le Bruyn
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 34] 2017
► pp. 143–155

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Learning to suspend implicated contrast

The acquisition of ook in Dutch

 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.34.10wol
Abstract
Children acquire the meaning of ook ‘also’ in Dutch relatively late (. 2006. “(Un)stressed ook in Dutch.” Semantics in acquisition ed. by Veerle van Geenhoven, 29–48. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), although this focus particle is highly frequent. We argue that this late acquisition is caused by a pragmatic rule: contrastive implicature. We follow Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2004. “Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: topic implicatures and additive presuppositions.” Journal of Semantics: An International Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of the Semantics of Natural Language (21)21: 199–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, who argues that additives are used because without them, the sentences they appear in would be interpreted as contrastive in relation to the context. Data from a sentence completion task administered to Dutch L1 learners (N = 62, ages 4;0–5;11) show that, on average, four-year-olds do not distinguish sentences with ook from sentences without ook. Five-year-olds do better on sentences with ook but worse on sentences without it. We argue that they have generally acquired contrastive implicature: they apply the correct contrastive interpretation to sentences without ook, but overgeneralize this implicature to sentences with ook, before completely acquiring the meaning of ook.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contrastive implicature and the semantics of additive particles
  • 3.The acquisition of contrastive implicature and ook
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials and procedure
    • 4.3Scoring
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (16)
References
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra & Christine Dimroth. 2015. “Additive Particles in Romance and Germanic Languages.” Linguistik online 71(2): 9–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, Frauke & Barbara Höhle. 2012. “Restrictions on addition: children’s interpretation of the focus particles auch ‘also’ and nur ‘only’ in German.” Journal of Child Language 391: 383–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergsma, Wenda. 2002. “Children’s interpretations of Dutch sentences with the focus particle alleen (‘only’).” The process of language acquisition: Proceedings of the 1999 GALA Conference ed. by Inge Lasser, 263–280. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “(Un)stressed ook in Dutch.” Semantics in acquisition ed. by Veerle van Geenhoven, 29–48. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
uit den Boogaart, Pieter C. 1975. Woordfrequenties in geschreven en gesproken Nederlands. Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Costa, João & Kriszta Szendröi. 2006. “Acquisition of focus marking in European Portuguese – Evidence for a unified approach to focus.” The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages ed. by Vincent Torrens and Linda Escobar, 319–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hüttner, Thomas, Heiner Drenhaus, Ruben van de Vijver & Jürgen Weissenborn. 2004. “The acquisition of German focus particle auch ‘too’: Comprehension does not always precede production.” Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development <[URL]> (26 June, 2017).
Jordens, Peter. 2012. Language Acquisition and the functional category system. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London, New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. “Additive particles under stress.” Proceedings of SALT 81 ed. by Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 111–129. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nederstigt, Ulrike. 2003. Auch and Noch in child and adult German. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2004. “Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: topic implicatures and additive presuppositions.” Journal of Semantics: An International Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of the Semantics of Natural Language (21)21: 199–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitz, Tijn, Lotte Hogeweg & Helen de Hoop. Under review. “Adding the Dutch additive particle ook ‘too’: not to add something but to avoid contrast.” Unpublished ms, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
Zeevat, Henk. 2009. ““Only” as a mirative particle.” Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 1–2(09): 179–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue