Article published in:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 7:2 (2017) ► pp. 230–264

The influence of conversational context and the developing lexicon on the calculation of scalar implicatures

Insights from Spanish-English bilingual children

| Rutgers University-New Brunswick
| Rutgers University-Newark
| Rutgers University-New Brunswick
| Rutgers University-New Brunswick
| Rutgers University-New Brunswick
| Rutgers University-New Brunswick
| Rutgers University-New Brunswick
| Rutgers University-New Brunswick
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 algunos (‘some’), and further distinguish algunos from unos. Given documented cross-linguistic influence in interface phenomena in bilinguals, we asked whether young Spanish-English bilinguals calculate SIs with algunos, 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 algunos. 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.
Keywords: Pragmatics, scalar implicatures, cross-linguistic influence
Published online: 29 February 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14019.syr
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Antoniou, Kyriakos, Alma Veenstra, Mikhail Kissine & Napoleon Katsos
2020. How does childhood bilingualism and bi-dialectalism affect the interpretation and processing of pragmatic meanings?. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23:1 ► pp. 186 ff. Crossref logo
Fekete, István, Petra Schulz & Esther Ruigendijk
2018. Exhaustivity in single bare <i>wh</i>-questions: A differential-analysis of exhaustivity. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 96 ff. Crossref logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2019.  In English as a Lingua Franca, Crossref logo
Mazzaggio, Greta, Daniele Panizza & Luca Surian
2021. On the interpretation of scalar implicatures in first and second language. Journal of Pragmatics 171 ► pp. 62 ff. Crossref logo
Miller, David, David Giancaspro, Michael Iverson, Jason Rothman & Roumyana Slabakova
2016.  In Language Acquisition Beyond Parameters [Studies in Bilingualism, 51], ► pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo
Schulze, Cornelia, Antje Endesfelder Quick, Anja Gampe & Moritz M. Daum
2020. Understanding verbal indirect communication in monolingual and bilingual children. Cognitive Development 55 ► pp. 100912 ff. Crossref logo
Syrett, Kristen, Jennifer Austin & Liliana Sanchez
2020. Establishing upper bounds in English monolingual and Heritage Spanish-English bilingual language development. Language Acquisition ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Argyri, E. & Sorace, A.
(2007) Crosslinguistic influence and language dominance in older bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 79–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A.
(2011) Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118, 87–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 semantics Vol. 3 (pp. 2297–2331). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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
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
Crain, S., & Thornton, R.
(1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
Enç, M.
(1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–26.Google Scholar
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
Foppolo, F., Guasti, T., & Chierchia, G.
(2012) Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development, 8, 365–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Grice, H. P.
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rexach, J.
(2001) The semantics of Spanish plural existential determiners and the dynamics of judgment types. Probus 13, 113–154.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R.
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Implicature. In L. R. Horn and G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. & Snedeker, J.
(2009a) Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in five-year olds: Evidence from real time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1723–1739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, A. & Müller, N.
(2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katsos, N. & Bishop, D.
(2011) Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120, 67–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
Lidz, J. & Musolino, J.
(2002) Children’s command of quantification. Cognition, 84, 113–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. & Wachtel, G. F.
(1988) Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martí, L.
(2007) Restoring indefinites to normalcy: An experimental study on the scope of Spanish algunos. Journal of Semantics, 24, 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in Spanish and Portuguese. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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
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 at the 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. & Schmitt, C.
(2004) An experimental study on child comprehension of Spanish indefinites and bare singulars. Language Acquisition, 12, 247–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Milsark, G.
(1974) Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Müller, N. & Hulk, A.
(2001) Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 1–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A.
(2001) When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J.
(2003) Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Tantalou, N.
(2004) Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition, 12, 71–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peña, E. Gutierrez-Clellen, V., Iglesias, A., Goldstein, B. & Bedore, L.
(in progress) Bilingual English Spanish Assessment. Unpublished assessment tool.Google Scholar
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
Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., & Bastide, A.
(2007) A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14, 347–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siegal, M., Iozzi, L., & Surian, L.
(2009) Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition, 110, 115–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Slabakova, R.
(2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120, 2444–2462. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. L.
(1980) Quantifiers and question answering in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 191–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F.
(2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stiller, A., Goodman, N., & Frank, M. C.
(2015) Ad-hoc implicature in preschool children. Language Learning and Development, 11, 176–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Syrett, K. & Lidz, J.
(2011) Competence, performance, and the locality of Quantifier Raising: Evidence from 4-year-old children. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 305–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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