Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:56:02.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What hinders child semantic computation: children's universal quantification and the development of cognitive control*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2011

UTAKO MINAI ,
NOBUYUKI JINCHO ,
NAOTO YAMANE  and
REIKO MAZUKA
UTAKO MINAI*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas, Department of Linguistics and RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Laboratory for Language Development
NOBUYUKI JINCHO
Affiliation:
RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Laboratory for Language Development
NAOTO YAMANE
Affiliation:
RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Laboratory for Language Development
REIKO MAZUKA
Affiliation:
RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Laboratory for Language Development and Duke University, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience
*
Address for correspondence: Utako Minai, Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas, Blake Hall Rm. 427, 1541 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies on the acquisition of semantics have argued that knowledge of the universal quantifier is adult-like throughout development. However, there are domains where children still exhibit non-adult-like universal quantification, and arguments for the early mastery of relevant semantic knowledge do not explain what causes such non-adult-like interpretations. The present study investigates Japanese four- and five-year-old children's atypical universal quantification in light of the development of cognitive control. We hypothesized that children's still-developing cognitive control contributes to their atypical universal quantification. Using a combined eye-tracking and interpretation task together with a non-linguistic measure of cognitive control, we revealed a link between the achievement of adult-like universal quantification and the development of flexible perspective-switch. We argue that the development of cognitive control is one of the factors that contribute to children's processing of semantics.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 39 , Issue 5 , November 2012 , pp. 919 - 956
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

[*]

We gratefully acknowledge Koji Sugisaki, Miwa Isobe, Takuya Goro, Edson Miyamoto and Robert Fiorentino for their fruitful feedback regarding the current study, and Kiwako Ito and Akitoshi Ogawa for their advice and comments on the design and analysis of the experiment.

References

REFERENCES

Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development 70, 636–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. & Martin, M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional card sort task. Developmental Science 7, 325–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conboy, B. T., Sommerville, J. A. & Kuhl, P. K. (2008). Cognitive control factors in speech perception at 11 months. Developmental Psychology 44, 1505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology 6, 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C., Conway, L., Lillo-Martin, D. & Woodams, E. (1996). Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition 5, 83–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C. & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia 44, 2037–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, A., Carlson, M. & Beck, D. M. (2005). Preschool children's performance in task switching on the dimensional change card sort task: Separating the dimensions aids the ability to switch. Developmental Neuropsychology 28, 689–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drozd, K. (2001). Children's weak interpretations of universally quantified questions. In Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. (eds), Conceptual development and language acquisition, 340–76. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D. & Palfai, T. (1995). Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning. Child Development 10, 483–527.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2003). Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition 11, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouro, T., Norita, H., Nakajima, M. & Ariji, K. (2001). Children's interpretation of universal quantifier and pragmatic interference. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), The proceedings of the second Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 61–78. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. (2004). The ups and downs in child language: Experimental studies on children's knowledge of entailment relationships and polarity phenomena. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., Husley, S., Hacquard, V. & Fox, D. (2008). The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics 16, 205–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kirkham, N., Cruess, L. & Diamond, A. (2003). Helping children apply their knowledge to their behavior on a dimension-switching task. Developmental Science 6, 449–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1966). Bilingualism and primary education: A study of Irish experience. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R., Jincho, N. & Oishi, H. (2009). Development of executive control and language processing. Language and Linguistic Compass 3(1), 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minai, U. (2006). Everybody knows, therefore every child knows: An investigation of logico-semantic competence in child language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Myers, B. & Goldstein, D. (1979). Cognitive development in bilingual and monolingual lower-class children. Psychology in the Schools 16, 137–42.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (1999). Quantification and wh-constructions. In Tsujimura, N. (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 269–96. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Philip, W. (1995). Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakhlin, N. (2007). Semantic manifestations of the developing theory of mind. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Shimoyama, J. (2006). Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14, 139–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedeker, J. & Yuan, S. (2008). Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language 58, 574–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugisaki, K. & Isobe, M. (2001). Quantification without qualification without plausible dissent. In Kim, J.-Y. & Werle, A. (eds), The proceedings of the first Conference on the Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas, 97–100. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Takahashi, D. (2002). Determiner raising and scope shift. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 575–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M. & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268, 1632–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C. & Gleitman, L. (2004). Children's eye movements during listening: Developmental evidence for a constraint-based theory of sentence processing. In Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (eds), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world, 319–46. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The dimensional change card sort (DCCS): Aa method of assessing executive function in children. Nature Protocols 1, 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelazo, P. D., Frye, D. & Rapus, T. (1996). An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them. Cognitive Development 11, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D. & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 68 (3, Serial No. 274).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed