Cover not available

Article published In: Concentric
Vol. 46:1 (2020) ► pp.66–94

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

Are donkey sentences and bare conditionals family or friends?

Evidence from L1 Chinese

 | National Taiwan Normal University
 | National Taiwan Normal University
 | National Taiwan Normal University
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: 1 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.00013.che
Abstract
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Geurts (2002)
    • 2.2Foppolo (2009)
    • 2.3Grosz et al. (2014)
    • 2.4Summary
  • 3.Research design
    • 3.1Subjects
    • 3.2Materials and method
      • 3.2.1Donkey sentences
      • 3.2.2Bare conditionals
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Relatedness of the two constructions
    • 4.2Contextual effect
    • 4.3Age effect
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Champollion, Lucas. 2016. Homogeneity in donkey sentences. Proceedings of the 26th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard and Dan Burgdorf, 684–704. Austin, TX: University of Texas. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and C.-T. James Huang. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 41:121–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheung, Candice Chi Hang. 2007. The syntax and semantics of bare conditionals in Chinese. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 111, ed. by Estela Puig-Waldmüller, 150–164. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel. 2001. Relative readings of many, often, and generics. Natural Language Semantics 9.1:41–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian James. 1988. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, Rosalind Thornton, Carole Boster, Laura Conway, Diane Lillo-Martin, and Elaine Woodams. 2009. Quantification without quantification. Language Acquisition 5.2:83–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dekker, Paul. 2001. On if and only. Proceedings of the 11th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson and Zsofia Zvolenszky, 114–133. New York: New York University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeVault, David, and Matthew Stone. 2004. Interpreting vague utterances in context. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING, ed. by Lothar Lemnitzer, Detmar Meurers and Erhard Hinrichs, 1247–1253. Geneva, Switzerland: University of Geneva. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foppolo, Francesca. 2009. The puzzle of donkey anaphora resolution. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Martin Walkow and Muhammad Abdurrahman, 297–310. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan A., and Henry M. Wellman. 1991. Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition 38.3:213–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2002. Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy 25.2:129–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition 111:197–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gopnik, Alison. 1988. Conceptual and semantic development as theory change: The case of object permanence. Mind & Language 3.3:197–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gopnik, Alison, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 1997. Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick G., Pritty Patel-Grosz, Evelina Fedorenko, and Edward Gibson. 2014. Constraints on donkey pronouns. Journal of Semantics 32.4:619–648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 1997. Focus and weak noun phrases. Natural Language Semantics 5.1:53–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Conditional perfection: The truth and the whole truth. Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney and Carol Rose Little, 615–635. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15.4:531–574.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inhelder, Bärbel, and Jean Piaget. 1958. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Linguistics 1.3:33–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kanazawa, Makoto. 1994. Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inferences in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17.2:109–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keil, Frank C. 1989. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1996. Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. Proceedings of the 6th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Teresa Galloway and Justin Spence, 136–153. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, Keng-yu, and Shiao-hui Chan. 2019. When senses meet functions: An amodal stage in conceptual processing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 31.1:64–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ni, Weijia. 1987. Empty topics in Chinese. UConn Working Papers in Linguistics 11. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, Haihua, and Yan Jiang. 1997. NP interpretation and donkey sentences in Chinese. Paper presented at the Workshop on Interface Strategies in Chinese, Cornell University, Ithaca.
Pearson, Barbara Zurer, and Peter de Villiers. 2005. Child language acquisition: Discourse, narrative, and pragmatics. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition), ed. by Keith Brown. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean. 1936. Origins of Intelligence in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1982. Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thuan, Tran, and Benjamin Bruening. 2013. Wh-phrases as indefinites: A Vietnamese perspective. Linguistics of Vietnamese: An International Survey, ed. by Daniel Hole and Elisabeth Löbel, 217–241. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Xin. 2007. Guanyu luziju de jidian yiwen yu sikao [Some questions and reflections about donkey sentences]. Yuwen Xuekan 21:69–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 2008. Quantifier acquisition: Presuppositions of “every”. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 121, ed. by Atle Grønn, 663–677. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue