Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:37:30.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's understanding of epistemic modals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ira A. Noveck ,
Simon Ho  and
Maria Sera
Ira A. Noveck*
Affiliation:
Centre de Recherche en Epistémologie Appliquée, Paris
Simon Ho
Affiliation:
Carleton College
Maria Sera
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
CREA-Ecole Polytechnique, 1, rue DESCARTES, 75005 Paris, France.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prior empirical work in semantic development has produced an impressive finding showing that children can reliably detect a modal's relative force (e.g. that must is stronger sounding than may) by five-and-a-half years of age. We investigate the extent to which a representation of relative force can account for an understanding of epistemic modals when their logical meaning is considered (i.e. when modals are interpretable as expressions of necessary and possible conclusions). Experiment 1 presents a replication of Hirst & Weil's hidden-object task, which originally included the supremely forceful indicative is. Thirty-two five-year-olds were required to find a peanut hidden under one of two containers based on a pair of statements that contrasted is with has to, has to with might, or is with might. Half the children were entitled to search for the peanut upon hearing the two statements and half were required to indicate only where they would look. Results largely confirmed the influence of relative force in this paradigm. Both groups of children usually searched under the container associated with the stronger-sounding term. Experiment 2 employed a modified version of the hidden-object task in which contrasts presented one true and one false modal statement and 32 five-year-olds, 20 seven-year-olds, 16 nine-year-olds and 20 adults were asked to determine which of two statements was correct. Half the contrasts presented a relatively weaker-sounding modal term in the true statement and the other half presented equally forceful modal terms in the two statements. No age group systematically endorsed a false stronger-sounding modal statement over a true weaker-sounding one. The five-year-olds' rate of correct responding overall was above levels predicted by chance. Mature logical modal understanding was found among seven-year-olds who routinely endorsed a contrast's true modal statement. These findings suggest that deductive inference is an early semantic component of modal terms.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , October 1996 , pp. 621 - 643
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH15755-14) and the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (T32 HD-07151 and HD-27376). Portions of this study were presented at the Jean Piaget Society Meeting in Chicago, June, 1994. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the late Martin Braine, to Bill Charlesworth, Karen Freeman, Michael Maratsos, Eric Reittinger, Dan Sperber, two anonymous reviewers, and Katharine Perera for their comments on various parts of this work, to Valerie Abel for help in piloting an early version of Experiment 2, to Ying-rui Yang for explicating certain issues concerning modal logic, and to the principals, teachers and students of the Friends School of Minneapolis, The Torah Academy and the Minneapolis Jewish Day School.

References

REFERENCES

Acredolo, C. & Horobin, K. (1987). Development of relational reasoning and premature closure. Developmental Psychology 23 (1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1990). The ‘Natural Logic’ approach to reasoning. In Overton, W. F. (ed.), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: developmental perspectives, pp. 135–58. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. & O'Brien, D. P. (1991). A theory of if: lexical entry, reasoning program, and pragmatic principles. Psychological Review 98, 182–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. & Rumain, B. (1983). Logical Reasoning. In Mussen, P. (ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. III. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Byrnes, J. P. & Duff, M. A. (1989). Young children's comprehension of modal expressions. Cognitive Development 4, 369–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, J. P. & Overton, W. F. (1986). Reasoning about certainty and uncertainty in concrete, causal, and propositional contexts. Developmental Psychology 22, 793–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (1988). The acquisition of the meanings of modality in children aged eight and twelve. Journal of Child Language 15, 425–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabricius, W. V., Sophian, C. & Wellman, H. M. (1987). Young children's sensitivity to logical necessity in their inferential search behavior. Child Development 58, 409–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirst, W. & Weil, J. (1982). Acquisition of the epistemic and deontic meaning of modals. Journal of Child Language 9, 659–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, G. (1986). Zum verstädnis epistemischer modalaus-drücke des Deutschen im kindergartenalter. Universität zu Köln, Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft, Arbeitspaper Nr. 1 (Neue Folge).Google Scholar
Horobin, K. & Acredolo, C. (1989). The impact of probability judgments on reasoning about multiple possibilities. Child Development 60, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1994). Word meanings and what it takes to learn them: reflections on the Piaget-Chomsky debate. In Overton, W. F. and Palermo, D. S. (eds), The nature and ontogenesis of meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1978). The meaning of modality. Cognitive Science, 2, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In Kimbal, J. P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. I. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Kucjaz, S. & Maratsos, M. (1975). What children can say before they will. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 21 (2), 89–111.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milner, R. (1993). Encyclopedia of evolution: humanity's search for its origins. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Moore, C., Bryant, D. & Furrow, D. (1989). Mental terms and the development of certainty. Child Development 60, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C. & Davidge, J. (1989). The development of mental terms: pragmatics or semantics? Journal of Child Language 16, 633–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, C. & Furrow, D. (1991). The development of the language of belief: the expression of relative certainty. In Frye, D. & Moore, C. (eds), Children's theories of mind: mental states and social understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moore, C., Pure, K. & Furrow, D. (1990). Children's understanding of the modal expression of speaker certainty and uncertainty and its relation to the development of a representational theory of mind. Child Development 61, 722–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoloff, F. (1994). MAY and meaningSN. Journal of Pragmatics 22, 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1965). A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Perkins, M. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Pieraut-LeBonniec, G. (1980). The development of modal reasoning: genesis of necessity and possibility notions. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Shatz, M. & Wilcox, S. A. (1991). Constraints on the acquisition of English modals. In Gelman, S. A. & Byrnes, J. P. (eds), Perspectives on language and thought: interrelations in development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sophian, C. & Somerville, S. (1988). Early developments in logical reasoning: considering alternative possibilities. Cognitive Development 3, 183–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephany, U. (1986). Modality. In Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (eds.), Language acquisition: studies in first language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1979). Learning and using the auxiliary verb in English. In Lee, V. (ed.), Language development. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar