scholarly journals When pragmatics matters more for truth-value judgments: An investigation of quantifier scope ambiguity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Scontras ◽  
Lisa S. Pearl
Keyword(s):  
Ambiguity Resolution ◽  
Cognitive Modeling ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Linguistic Meaning ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Modeling Framework ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Computational Cognitive Modeling ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
The Individual

Investigations of linguistic meaning rely crucially on truth-value judgments, which assess whether a sentence can truthfully describe a given scenario. In investigations of language acquisition, truth-value judgments are used to assess both the target knowledge adults have and the developing knowledge children have at different ages. On the basis of truth-value judgments, researchers have concluded that differences between how children resolve ambiguous utterances and how adults do so persist until at least age five. Current explanations compatible with the experimental data attribute these differences to both grammatical processing and pragmatic factors. Here, we use computational cognitive modeling to formally articulate the ambiguity-resolution process that underlies child and adult judgments in a truth-value judgment task; crucially, the model can separate out the individual contributions of specific grammatical processing and pragmatic factors to the resulting judgment behavior. We find that pragmatic factors play a larger role than grammatical processing factors in explaining children’s non-adult-like ambiguity resolution behavior, and the computational modeling framework allows us to understand exactly why that is. Interestingly, the model predicts qualitative similarity between child and adult ambiguity resolution. Given this prediction, we then extend our model to show how the same processes are active in adult ambiguity resolution. This result supports continuity in the development of ambiguity resolution, where children do not qualitatively change how they resolve ambiguity in order to become adult-like. We discuss the implications of our results for acquisition more generally, including both theories of development and methods for assessing that development.

scholarly journals Difficulties in Comprehending Affirmative and Negative Sentences: Evidence From Chinese Children With Reading Difficulties

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shenai Hu ◽  
Maria Vender ◽  
Gaetano Fiorin ◽  
Denis Delfitto
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Reading Difficulties ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
Chinese Children ◽  
Behavioral Data ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
General Validity ◽  
Truth Value

Recent experimental results suggest that negation is particularly challenging for children with reading difficulties. This study looks at how young poor readers, speakers of Mandarin Chinese, comprehend affirmative and negative sentences as compared with a group of age-matched typical readers. Forty-four Chinese children were tested with a truth value judgment task. The results reveal that negative sentences were harder to process than affirmative ones, irrespective of the distinction between poor and typical readers. Moreover, poor readers performed worse than typical readers in comprehending sentences, regardless of whether they were affirmative or negative sentences. We interpret the results as (a) confirming the two-step simulation hypothesis, based on the result that the difficulty in processing negation has a general validity (persisting in pragmatically felicitous contexts), and (b) disconfirming that negation, as far as behavioral data are concerned, can be used as a reliable linguistic predictor of reading difficulties.

Linguistic cues facilitate children’s understanding of belief-reporting sentences

2021 ◽  
pp. 014272372110486
Author(s):  
Xiaowen Zhang ◽  
Peng Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Gold Medal ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
False Belief ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Linguistic Cues ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Mental Verbs

It has been well-documented that although children around 4 years start to attribute false beliefs to others in classic false-belief tasks, they are still less able to evaluate the truth-value of propositional belief-reporting sentences, especially when belief conflicts with reality. This article investigates whether linguistic cues, verb factivity in particular, can facilitate children’s understanding of belief-reporting sentences. Two experiments were implemented, one testing children’s knowledge of verb factivity using a gold medal task, and one investigating children’s interpretation of belief-reporting sentences using a truth-value-judgment task. Both experiments took advantage of the contrast between neutral non-factive mental verbs and strong negatively biased mental verbs. What sets the two apart is that the complement clause following a strong negatively biased mental verb is definitely false, whereas the one following a neutral non-factive mental verb remains indeterminate in the absence of additional information. The findings were that, first, 4-year-old children were able to tell the difference between the two types of mental verbs in factivity, and second, children’s performance was significantly improved when a strong negatively biased mental verb than when a neutral non-factive mental verb was used as the main verb of the belief-reporting sentences. The findings suggest that the use of strong negatively biased mental verbs facilitates children’s understanding of belief-reporting sentences. Implications of the findings are discussed in relation to the underlying mechanisms connecting verb factivity and false-belief understanding.

scholarly journals Conditionals on crutches: Expanding the modal horizon

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Paape ◽  
Malte Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Computational Modeling ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Counterfactual Conditionals ◽  
Modeling Techniques ◽  
On Line ◽  
Truth Value

Using truth-value judgment tasks, we investigated the on-line processing of counterfactual conditionals such as "If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over". Face-value plausibility of the counterfactual as well as the complexity of the antecedent were manipulated. Results show that readers' judgments deviate from face-value plausibility more often when the antecedent is complex, and when the counterfactual is plausible rather than implausible. We interpret our results based on the modal horizon assumption of von Fintel (2001) and argue that they are compatible with a variably strict semantics for counterfactuals (Lewis, 1973). We make use of computational modeling techniques to account for reaction times and truth-value judgments simultaneously, showing that implementing detailed process models deepens our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms triggered by linguistic stimuli.

RESEARCH METHODS FOR STUDYING EVALUATION: ACADEMIC DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVE

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-115
Author(s):  
А.А. Водяницкая
Keyword(s):  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Innovative Methods ◽  
A Value ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Traditional Approaches ◽  
Relationship Of

Постановка задачи. Работа посвящена изучению традиционных подходов к исследованию оценочных значений и инновационных методов их изучения. Задача исследования заключается в анализе методов изучения оценки, которые можно было бы применить при выявлении оценочной специфики академического дискурса. Результаты. Как показало исследование, оценочные значения, оценка привлекают внимание исследователей различных областей знания, различных дискурсов. По-прежнему открыт вопрос разграничения эмоции, экспрессии и оценки. Тесная связь оценки с ценностями индивида, выносящего оценочное суждение, предполагает возможность ее изучения с позиций аксиологии, тогда как взаимосвязь с психологией позволяет подходить к оценке с точки зрения психологии (например, оценочные стили). Выводы. Комбинация традиционных и инновационных методов позволит выявить онтологические свойства оценки в академическом дискурсе. Речь идет о вербализованных оценочных суждениях, выносимых различными участниками академического дискурса. Вопросы оценочной категоризации, разграничение эмоции и оценки, оценочных стилей участников академического дискурса, привлечение корпуса текстов как источника материала и как инструмента познания представляются релевантными аспектами при изучении оценочной составляющей академического дискурса. Вместе с тем не все методы исследования оценки можно одинаково успешно использовать при изучении оценочной составляющей академического дискурса. Например, метод триады, предложенный Ж. Мартином, который на данном этапе исследован применительно к изучению устного академического дискурса в его специфическом проявлении - в драматическом тексте. Как представляется, данный метод требует более детальной разработки применительно к нехудожественной, повседневной, речи академического дискурса. Problem statement. The paper focuses on the study of traditional approaches evaluations and innovative methods of their study. The objective of the research. is to analyze the methods of studying evaluation that could be applied in identifying the evaluative specifics of academic discourse. Results. The research has revealed that evaluative meanings attract the attention of researchers in various fields of knowledge, various discourses. The question of differentiating emotion, expressive language means and evaluation is still open. The close relationship of assessment with the values of the individual making a value judgment suggests the possibility of studying it from the standpoint of axiology, while the relationship with psychology allows one to approach assessment from the point of view of psychology (for example, evaluative styles). Conclusion. The combination of traditional and innovative methods will reveal the ontological properties of assessment in academic discourse. We are talking about verbalized value judgments made by various participants in academic discourse. Issues of evaluative categorization, differentiation of emotion and evaluation, evaluative styles of participants in academic discourse, corpus-based analysis seem to be relevant aspects in the study of the evaluative component of academic discourse.

scholarly journals When “one” can be “two”: Cross-linguistic differences affect children’s interpretation of the numeral one

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-313
Author(s):  
Sarah Dolscheid ◽  
Franziska Schleussinger ◽  
Martina Penke
Keyword(s):  
Judgment Task ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Linguistic Difference ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
Do So ◽  
The Way

In English, a lexical distinction is drawn between the indefinite determiner “a” and the numeral “one”. English-speaking children also interpret the two terms differently, with an exact, upper bounded interpretation of the numeral “one”, but no upper bounded interpretation of the indefinite determiner “a”. Unlike English, however, German does not draw a distinction between the indefinite determiner and the numeral one but instead uses the same term “ein/e” to express both functions. To find out whether this cross-linguistic difference affects children’s upper bounded interpretation of “ein/e”, we tested German-speaking children and adults in a truth-value-judgment task and compared their performance to English-speaking children. Our results revealed that German-speaking children differed from both English children and German adults. Whereas the majority of German adults interpreted “ein/e” in an upper bounded way (i.e. as exactly one, not two), the majority of German-speaking children favored a non-upper bounded interpretation (thus accepting two as a valid response to “ein/e”). German-speaking children’s proportion of upper bounded responses to “ein/e” was also significantly lower than English children’s upper bounded responses to “one”. However, German children’s rate of upper bounded responses increased once a number-biasing context was provided. These findings suggest that German-speaking children can interpret “ein/e” in an upper bounded way but that they need additional cues in order to do so. When no such cues are present, German-speaking children differ from both German-speaking adults and from their English-speaking peers, demonstrating that cross-linguistic differences can affect the way speakers interpret numbers.

scholarly journals Plurality inferences are scalar implicatures: Evidence from acquisition

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyn Tieu ◽  
Cory Bill ◽  
Jacopo Romoli ◽  
Stephen Crain
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Title Page ◽  
Scalar Implicature ◽  
Scalar Implicatures ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Downward Entailing ◽  
Truth Value

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>This paper provides novel experimental evidence for a scalar implicature approach to the plurality inferences that are associated with English plural morphology (</span><span>Emily fed giraffes </span><span>-&gt; </span><span>Emily fed more than one giraffe</span><span>). Using a Truth Value Judgment Task, we show that both adults and 4–5-year-old children compute more plurality inferences in upward-entailing than downward-entailing environments, but children compute fewer plurality inferences overall than adults do. These findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating children’s relative insensitivity to scalar implicatures. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of plurality inferences, and for the acquisition of scalar inferences more generally. </span></p></div></div></div>

Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
JENNIFER SPENADER ◽  
ERIK-JAN SMITS ◽  
PETRA HENDRIKS
Keyword(s):  
Target Sentence ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Production Task ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Truth Value ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Dutch Children ◽  
Interpretation Problem ◽  
Object Pronouns

ABSTRACTMany comprehension studies have shown that children as late as age 6 ; 6 misinterpret object pronouns as co-referring with the referential subject about half the time. A recent review of earlier experiments testing children's interpretation of object pronouns in sentences with quantified subjects (Elbourne, 2005) also suggests that there is a ‘Pronoun Interpretation Problem’. In contrast, two experiments addressing English children's pronoun production (Bloom, Barss, Nicol & Conway, 1994; de Villiers, Cahillane & Altreuter, 2006) show almost perfect usage. The aim of this study is to verify this asymmetry between pronoun production and pronoun comprehension for Dutch, and to investigate the effects of coherent discourse and topicality on pronoun production and comprehension. Employing a truth-value judgment task and an elicited production task, this study indeed finds such an asymmetry in 83 Dutch children (age range 4 ; 5–6 ; 6). When object pronouns were clearly established as the topic of the target sentence, the Pronoun Interpretation Problem dissolved entirely. These results are compatible with the asymmetrical grammar hypothesis of Hendriks & Spenader (2005/2006) and suggest, contrary to many previous claims, that children are highly proficient at using pragmatic clues in interpretation.

Children's interpretation of disjunction in the scope of ‘before’: a comparison of English and Mandarin

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNA NOTLEY ◽  
PENG ZHOU ◽  
BRITTA JENSEN ◽  
STEPHEN CRAIN
Keyword(s):  
Classical Logic ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Finish Line ◽  
Value Judgment ◽  
Truth Value

ABSTRACTThis study investigates three- to five-year-old children's interpretation of disjunction in sentences like ‘The dog reached the finish line before the turtle or the bunny’. English disjunction has a conjunctive interpretation in such sentences (‘The dog reached the finish line before the turtle and before the bunny’). This interpretation conforms with classical logic. Mandarin disjunction (‘huozhe’) can take scope over ‘before’ (‘zai … zhiqian’), so the same sentence can mean ‘The dog reached the finish line before the turtle or before the bunny (I don't know which)’. If children are guided by adult input in the acquisition of sentence meanings, English- and Mandarin-speaking children should assign different interpretations to such sentences. If children are guided by logical principles, then children acquiring either language should initially assign the conjunctive interpretation of disjunction. A truth-value judgment task was used to test this prediction and English- and Mandarin-speaking children were found to behave similarly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document