TY - JOUR
T1 - On the quantificational status of indefinites
T2 - The view from child language
AU - Lidz, Jeffrey
AU - Musolino, Julien
N1 - Funding Information:
We are engaged in a continuing collaboration in which the order of names alternates from one paper to the next. We contributed equally to the work reported here. This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0418309). Thanks to the Central Institute of Indian Languages (Mysore), especially Udaya Narayana Singh, B. Mallikarjun, and B. K. Suvarna Devi, without whom this research would not have been possible. Thanks to Ken Drozd and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of the article.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - Theories of indefinites vary with respect to whether these noun phrases can be treated as quantificational. Although everyone seems to be in agreement that indefinites do not always introduce their own quantificational force, there is widespread disagreement as to whether they ever do. In this article, we present experimental evidence from children learning English and Kannada demonstrating that children's indefinites show scopal restrictions parallel to the restrictions they show with other unambiguously quantificational expressions. Children, unlike adults, show a strong preference to assign quantificational expressions surface scope. This is true for both strong and weak quantifiers, which would be surprising on a theory of indefinites that treated these expressions as uniformly nonquantificational. Consequently, we argue that in adult grammars indefinites must have a quantificational representation at least some of the time.
AB - Theories of indefinites vary with respect to whether these noun phrases can be treated as quantificational. Although everyone seems to be in agreement that indefinites do not always introduce their own quantificational force, there is widespread disagreement as to whether they ever do. In this article, we present experimental evidence from children learning English and Kannada demonstrating that children's indefinites show scopal restrictions parallel to the restrictions they show with other unambiguously quantificational expressions. Children, unlike adults, show a strong preference to assign quantificational expressions surface scope. This is true for both strong and weak quantifiers, which would be surprising on a theory of indefinites that treated these expressions as uniformly nonquantificational. Consequently, we argue that in adult grammars indefinites must have a quantificational representation at least some of the time.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748308968&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748308968&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1207/s15327817la1302_3
DO - 10.1207/s15327817la1302_3
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:33748308968
SN - 1048-9223
VL - 13
SP - 73
EP - 102
JO - Language Acquisition
JF - Language Acquisition
IS - 2
ER -