Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:00:59.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Memory for generic and quantified sentences in Spanish-speaking children and adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2015

SUSAN A. GELMAN ,
INGRID SÁNCHEZ TAPIA  and
SARAH-JANE LESLIE
SUSAN A. GELMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
INGRID SÁNCHEZ TAPIA
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago
SARAH-JANE LESLIE
Affiliation:
Princeton University
*
Address for correspondence: Susan A. Gelman, Department of Psychology, 530 Church St., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1043. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Generic language (Owls eat at night) expresses knowledge about categories and may represent a cognitively default mode of generalization. English-speaking children and adults more accurately recall generic than quantified sentences (All owls eat at night) and tend to recall quantified sentences as generic. However, generics in English are shorter than quantified sentences, and may be better recalled for this reason. The present study provided a new test of the issue in Spanish, where generics are expressed with an additional linguistic element not found in certain quantified sentences (Los búhos comen de noche ‘Owls eat at night’ [generic] vs. Muchos búhos comen de noche ‘Many owls eat at night’ [quantified]). Both preschoolers and adults recalled generics more accurately than quantified sentences, and quantified sentences were more often recalled as generic than the reverse. These findings provide strong additional evidence for generics as a cognitive default, in an understudied cultural context.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 1231 - 1244
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Brandone, A. C. & Gelman, S. A. (2013). Generic language use reveals domain differences in young children's expectations about animal and artifact categories. Cognitive Development 28, 63–75.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. M. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds) (1995). The generic book. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A. (2013). Generic statements, causal attributions, and children's naive theories. In Banaji, M. R. & Gelman, S. A. (eds), Navigating the social world: what infants, children, and other species can teach us, 269–74. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A. & Erickson, L. C. (2012). Remembering kinds: new evidence that categories are privileged in children's thinking. Cognitive Psychology 64, 161–85.Google Scholar
Cimpian, A., Gelman, S. A. & Brandone, A. C. (2010). Theory-based considerations influence the interpretation of generic sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 261–76.Google Scholar
Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, 148–153.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. (2010). Generics as a window onto young children's concepts. In Pelletier, F. J. (Ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: the cognitive side of generics and mass terms (New Directions in Cognitive Science 12). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Brandone, A. C. (2010). Fast-mapping placeholders: using words to talk about kinds. Language Learning and Development 6, 223–240.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Goetz, P. J., Sarnecka, B. S. & Flukes, J. (2008). Generic language in parent–child conversations. Language Learning and Development 4, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Ware, E. A. & Kleinberg, F. (2010). Effects of generic language on category content and structure. Cognitive Psychology 61, 273–301.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Ware, E. A., Manczak, E. M. & Graham, S. A. (2013). Children's sensitivity to the knowledge expressed in pedagogical and nonpedagogical contexts. Developmental Psychology 49, 491–504.Google Scholar
Gülgöz, S. & Gelman, S. A. (2015). Children's recall of generic and specific labels regarding animals and people. Cognitive Development 33, 84–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 61–83.Google Scholar
Hollander, M. A., Gelman, S. A. & Raman, L. (2009). Generic language and judgements about category membership: Can generics highlight properties as central? Language and Cognitive Processes 24, 481–505.Google Scholar
Hollander, M. A., Gelman, S. A. & Star, J. (2002). Children's interpretations of generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology 38, 883–94.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J. (2007). Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives 21, 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, S. J. (2008). Generics: cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review 117, 1–47.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J. (2012). Generics. In Russell, G. & Fara, D. G. (eds), The Routledge companion to philosophy of language, 355–67. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. & Gelman, S. A. (2012). Quantified statements are recalled as generics: evidence from preschool children and adults. Cognitive Psychology 64, 186–214.Google Scholar
Leslie, S. J., Khemlani, S. & Glucksberg, S. (2011). Do all ducks lay eggs? The generic overgeneralization effect. Journal of Memory and Language 65, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, B., Gelman, S. A., Escalante, C., Huayhua, M. & Puma, R. (2011). A developmental analysis of generic nouns in Southern Peruvian Quechua. Language Learning and Development 7, 1–23.Google Scholar
Meyer, M., Gelman, S. A. & Stilwell, S. M. (2011). Generics are a cognitive default: evidence from sentence processing. In Carlson, L., Hoelscher, C. & Shipley, T. F. (eds), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 913–8. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Munn, A., Schmitt, C. & DeIrish, M. (2004). Learning definite determiners: genericity and definiteness in English and Spanish. Proceedings supplement to the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Online: <http://www.bu.edu/bucld/proceedings/supplement/vol28/>..>Google Scholar
Prasada, S. & Dillingham, E. M. (2006). Principled and statistical connections in common sense conception. Cognition 99, 73–112.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B., González, C. P., Quiacaín, C. C. & Quiacaín, J. C. (2011). Developing destinies: a Mayan midwife and town. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sutherland, S. L., Cimpian, A., Leslie, S. J. & Gelman, S. A. (in press). Memory errors reveal a bias to spontaneously generalize to categories. Cognitive Science. Google Scholar
Tardif, T., Gelman, S. A., Fu, X. & Zhu, L. (2012). Acquisition of generic noun phrases in Chinese: learning about lions without an ‘-s’. Journal of Child Language 30, 1–32.Google Scholar