Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present evidence that preschool children oftentimes understand disjunctive sentences as if they were conjunctive. The result holds for matrix disjunctions as well as disjunctions embedded under every. At the same time, there is evidence in the literature that children understand or as inclusive disjunction in downward-entailing contexts. We propose to explain this seemingly conflicting pattern of results by assuming that the child knows the inclusive disjunction semantics of or, and that the conjunctive inference is a scalar implicature. We make two assumptions about implicature computation in the child: (i) that children access only a proper subset of the adult alternatives (specifically, they do not access the lexicon when generating alternatives), and (ii) that children possess the adult capacity to strengthen sentences with implicatures. As a consequence, children are expected to sometimes not compute any implicatures at all, but in other cases they are expected to compute an implicature that is different from the adult implicature. We argue that the child’s conjunctive strengthening of disjunctive sentences realizes the latter possibility: the adult infers that the conjunction is false but the child infers that the conjunction is true. This behaviour is predicted when our assumptions about child development are coupled with the assumption that a covert exhaustive operator is responsible for strengthening in both the child and the adult. Specifically, children’s conjunctive strengthening is predicted to follow from the same mechanism used by adults to compute conjunctive free choice implicatures in response to disjunctive permission sentences (recursive exhaustification). We furthermore argue that this parallel between the child and the adult extends to disambiguation preferences. In particular, we present evidence that children prefer to strengthen disjunctions to conjunctions, in matrix and embedded positions (under every); this result mirrors previous findings that adults prefer to compute free choice, at the root and under every. We propose a disambiguation strategy that explains the preference for conjunctive strengthening – by both the child and the adult – even though there is no general preference for exhaustification. Specifically, we propose that the preference for a conjunctive strengthening follows from a pragmatic preference for a complete answer to the Question Under Discussion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aloni Maria (2007) Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15(1): 65–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2005. Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In Proceedings of NELS 35, ed. Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery, 75–86. Amherst. Mass.: GLSA.

  • Barker Chris (2010) Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(10): 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Barner David, Asaf Bachrach (2010) Inference and exact numerical representation in early language development. Cognitive Psychology 60: 40–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barner David, Neon Brooks, Alan Bale (2011) Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition 118: 87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen Leon, Daniel Grodner (2012) Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 38(5): 1450–1460

    Google Scholar 

  • Blutner, Reinhard, and Henk Zeevat (eds.). 2003. Optimality theory and pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Bowler, Margit. 2014. Conjunction and disjunction in a language without ‘and’. In Proceedings of SALT 24, ed. A. Chereches, 137–155. Washington, D.C.: LSA.

  • Braine Martin D.S., Barbara Rumain (1981) Development of comprehension of ‘or:’ Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31: 46–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009a. Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission, and presupposition projection. Manuscript, ENS, Paris.

  • Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009b. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–33.

  • Chemla Emmanuel, Lewis Bott (2014) Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition 130: 380–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, Emmanuel, and Raj Singh. 2014a. Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Part I. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(9): 373–386.

  • Chemla, Emmanuel, and Raj Singh. 2014b. Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(9): 387–399.

  • Chemla Emmanuel, Benjamin Spector (2011) Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28: 359–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, Emmanuel, Chris Cummins, and Raj Singh. 2016. Training and timing local scalar enrichments under global pragmatic pressures. Journal of Semantics. Advance online access (first published online 29 May 2016). doi:10.1093/jos/ffw006.

  • Chierchia Gennaro (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Stephen Crain, Maria Teresa Guasti, Andrea Gualmini, and Luisa Meroni. 2001. The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Proceedings of BUCLD 25, 157–168. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Maria Teresa Guasti, Andrea Gualmini, Luisa Meroni, Stephen Crain, and Francesca Foppolo. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic competence in children’s and adults’ comprehension of or. In Experimental pragmatics, ed. Ira A. Noveck and Dan Sperber, 200–283. New York: Palgrave.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Handbook of semantics, vol. 3, ed. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger, 2297–2331. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Clark, Eve V., and Patricia Matos Amaral. 2010. Children build on pragmatic information in language acquisition. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 445–457.

  • Crain Stephen (2008) The interpretation of disjunction in Universal Grammar. Language and Speech 51: 151–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain Stephen, Drew Khlentzos (2010) The logic instinct. Mind & Language 25(1): 30–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, Stephen, and Cecile McKee. 1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Proceedings of NELS 15, 94–110. Amherst, MA.: GLSA.

  • Crain, Stephen, and Mark Steedman. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, ed. David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold Zwicky, 320–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Crain, Stephen, and Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Crain, Stephen, and Kenneth Wexler. 1999. Methodology in the study of language acquisition: A modular approach. In Handbook of child language acquisition, ed. William C Ritchie and Tej K Bhatia, 387–425. New York: Academic Press.

  • Crain Stephen, Rosalind Thornton, Carole Boster, Laura Conway, Diane Lillo-Martin, Elaine Woodams (1996) Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition 5(2): 83–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, Stephen, Amanda Gardner, Andrea Gualmini, and Beth Rabbib. 2002. Children’s command of negation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 71–95. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company.

  • Crnič Luka, Emmanuel Chemla, Danny Fox (2015) Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunctions. Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 271–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson Kathryn (2013) ‘And’ and ‘or’: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drozd, Kenneth, and Erik van Loosbroek. 1998. Weak quantification, plausible dissent, and the development of children’s pragmatic competence. Proceedings of the 23rd Boston University Conference on Language Development, 184–195. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Ford, Marilyn, Joan Bresnan, and Ronald M. Kaplan. 1982. A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 727–796. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 71–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Fox, Danny. 2014. Cancelling the Maxim of Quantity: Another challenge for a Gricean theory of scalar implicatures. Semantics & Pragmatics 7: 1–20.

  • Fox Danny, Roni Katzir (2011) On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19: 87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny, and Benjamin Spector. 2015. Economy and embedded exhaustification. To be published by Natural Language Semantics.

  • Franke, Michael. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(1): 1–82. doi:10.3765/sp.4.1.

  • Franke, Michael, Fabian Schlotterbeck, and Petra Augurzky. 2016. Embedded scalars, preferred readings and prosody: An experimental revisit. To appear in Journal of Semantics.

  • Frazier Lyn, Janet D. Fodor (1978) The Sausage Machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6: 291–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furth Hans G., James Youniss, Bruce M. Ross (1970) Children’s utilization of logical symbols: An interpretation of conceptual behavior based on Piagetian theory. Developmental Psychology 3(1): 36–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski Jon, Yael Sharvit (2012) In defense of the grammatical approach to scalar implicature. Natural Language Semantics 20(1): 31–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar Gerald (1979) Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts Bart (2000) Buoyancy and strength. Journal of Semantics 17: 315–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts Bart (2003) Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition 11: 197–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts Bart (2009) Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language 24: 51–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts Bart, Nausicaa Pouscoulous (2009) Embedded implicatures?!?. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson Edward (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based measure of linguistic complexity. In Image, language, brain, ed. Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, and W. O’Neil, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Gibson, Edward, and Kevin Broihier. 1998. Optimality theory and human sentence processing. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Goodman, Noah D., and Andreas Stuhlmüller. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 173–184.

  • Goro, Takuya, and Sachie Akiba. 2004. The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In Proceedings of WCCFL 23, ed. G. Garding and M. Tsujimura, 101–114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Goro, Takuya, Utako Minai, and Stephen Crain. 2005. Bringing out the logic in child language. In Proceedings of NELS 35, ed. Leah Bateman and Cherson Ussery, 245–256. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Gualmini, Andrea, and Stephen Crain. 2002. Why no child or adult must learn De Morgan’s laws. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds. S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish, and Thea Keith-Lucas, 367–378. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Gualmini, Andrea, Stephen Crain, Luisa Meroni, Gennaro Chierchia, and Maria Teresa Guasti. 2001. At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. Proceedings of SALT 11, 231–247.

  • Gualmini, Andrea, Luisa Meroni, and Stephen Crain. 2003. An asymmetric universal in child language. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, ed. Matthias Weisgerber, 136–148. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.

  • Gualmini Andrea, Sarah Hulsey, Valentine Hacquard, Danny Fox (2008) The question–answer requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics 16: 205–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Francesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini, and Luisa Meroni. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5): 667–696.

  • Hatano Giyoo, Yasuko Suga (1977) Understanding and use of disjunction in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 24: 395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in english. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.

  • Inhelder, Barbel, and Jean Piaget. 1964. The early growth of logic in the child. London: Routledge.

  • Jing, Chunyuan, Stephen Crain, and Ching-Fen Hsu. 2005. The interpretation of focus in Chinese: Child versus adult language. In Proceedings of the 6th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 165–190. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing Company.

  • Johansson, Bo S., and Barbro Sjolin. 1975. Preschool children’s understanding of ‘and’ and ‘or’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 19: 233–240.

  • Johnson, Mark, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Sharon Goldwater. 2007. Adaptor grammars: a framework for specifying compositional nonparametric Bayesian models. In Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 19, ed. B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, and T. Hoffman, 641–648. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Jurafsky Daniel (1996) A probabilistic model of lexical access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp Hans (1973) Free choice permission. Aristotelian Society Proceedings 74: 57–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsos, Napoleon, and Dorothy V.M. Bishop. 2011. Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition 120: 67–81.

  • Katsos Napolean, Chris Cummins (2010) Pragmatics: From theory to experiment and back again. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 282–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir Roni (2007) Structurally defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 669–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, Roni. 2013. On the role of markedness and contradiction in the use of alternatives. In Semantics, pragmatics, and the case of scalar implicatures, ed. Salvatore Pistoia Reda. Basingstoke: Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, Palgrave.

  • Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

  • Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264.

  • Levin, Moshe, and Daniel Margulis. 2013. Universal quantifiers as existentials undercover: Evidence from Hebrew kol. Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2013.

  • Lewis David (1988) Relevant implication. Theoria 54: 161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magri Giorgio (2009) A theory of individual level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magri Giorgio (2011) Another argument for embedded scalar implicatures based on oddness in downward entailing environments. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(6): 1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Magri, Giorgio. 2014. An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In Pragmatics, semantics, and the case of scalar implicatures, ed. Salvatore Pistoia Reda, 99–145. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Merin Arthur (1992) Permission sentences stand in the way of Boolean and other lattice-theoretic semantics. Journal of Semantics 9(2): 95–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2015. Generalized free choice and missing alternatives. Journal of Semantics. Advance online access (first published online 4 November 2015), doi:10.1093/jos/ffv010.

  • Miller, George, and Noam Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush, and E. Galanter, 419–491. New York: Wiley.

  • Mosteller, Frederick, Stephen E. Fienberg, and Robert E.K. Rourke. 1983. Beginning statistics with data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  • Neimark, Edith D., and Nan S. Slotnick. 1970. Development of the understanding of logical connectives. Journal of Educational Psychology 61(6): 451–460.

  • Notley, Anna, Rosalind Thornton, and Stephen Crain. 2012a. English-speaking children’s interpretation of disjunction in the scope of ‘not every’. Biolinguistics 39: 484–522.

  • Notley, Anna, Peng Zhou, Britta Jensen, and Stephen Crain. 2012b. Children’s interpretation of disjunction in the scope of ‘before’: A comparison of English and Mandarin. Journal of Child Language 39(3): 484–522.

  • Noveck Ira (2001) When children are more logical than adults: Investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck Ira, Andres Posada (2003) Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85(2): 203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, Ira, and Anne Reboul. 2008. Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12: 425–431.

  • O’Donnell, Timothy J., Jesse Snedeker, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Noah D. Goodman. 2011. Productivity and reuse in language. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds. L. Carson et al., 1513–1518. Austin: The Cognitive Science Society.

  • Papafragou Anna, Julien Musolino (2003) Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 80: 253–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris Scott (1973) Comprehension of language connectives and propositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 16: 278–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, William C. H. 1995. Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Podlesny, Olivia. 2015. Investigating disjunction in American Sign Language: The importance of nonmanual signals and the influence of English. Master’s thesis, Carleton University.

  • Potts, Christopher, Daniel Lassiter, Roger Levy, and Michael C. Frank. 2015. Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. Journal of Semantics. Advanced Online Access (first published online 18 December 2015): doi:10.1093/jos/ffv012.

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure and discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In OSU working papers in linguistics, vol 49, ed. J.H. Yoon and Andreas Kathol, 91–136. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

  • Rooth Mats (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland Uli (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, Katrin. 2005. A pragmatic solution for the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese 147(2): 343–377.

  • Schulz Katrin, Robert van Rooij (2006) Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz Bernhard (1999) On the syntax of either\({\ldots}\) or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 339–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons Mandy (2005) Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 271–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Raj. 2001. A study of Optimality Theory and the human sentence processing mechanism. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • Singh, Raj. 2008a. Modularity and locality in interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Singh, Raj. 2008b. On the interpretation of disjunction: Asymmetric, incremental, and eager for inconsistency. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 245–260.

  • Snedeker, Jesse. 2009. Children’s sentence processing. In The handbook of child language, ed. Edith L. Bavin, 331–338. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2005. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In Questions in dynamic semantics, ed. Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler, and Paul Dekker, 225–249. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher order implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland, and Penka Stateva, 243–281. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Spector Benjamin (2014) Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(11): 1–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2015. Comparing exhaustivity operators. Accepted for publication in Semantics and Pragmatics.

  • Sternberg, Robert J. 1979. Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 28: 469–498.

  • Stevenson, Suzanne, and Paul Smolensky. 2006. Optimality in sentence processing. In Toward a calculus of the mind/brain: Neural network theory, optimality, and universal grammar, ed. Paul Smolensky and Geraldine Legendre, 307–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Stiller, Alex, Noah D. Goodman, and Michael C. Frank. 2011. Ad-hoc scalar implicature in adults and children. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. L. Carlson et al., 2134–2139. Austin: The Cognitive Science Society.

  • Stolcke Andreas (1995) An efficient probabilistic context-free parsing algorithm that computes prefix probabilities. Computational Linguistics 21: 165–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, Yi (Esther). 2014. The acquisition of logical connectives in child Mandarin. Language Acquisition 21(2): 119–155.

  • Su, Yi (Esther), and Stephen Crain. 2013. Children’s knowledge of disjunction and universal quantification in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 14(3): 599–631.

  • Su, Yi (Esther), Peng Zhou, and Stephen Crain. 2012. Downward entailment in child Mandarin. Journal of Child Language 39: 957–990.

  • Suppes Patrick, Shirley Feldman (1971) Young children’s comprehension of logical connectives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 12: 304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tieu, Lyn, Kazuko Yatsuhiro, Alexandre Cremers, Jacopo Romoli, Uli Sauerland, and Emmanuel Chemla. 2015. On the role of alternatives in the acquisition of simple and complex disjunctions in French and Japanese. Manuscript, ENS (Paris), ZAS (Berlin), and the University of Ulster.

  • Tieu, Lyn, Jacopo Romoli, Peng Zhou, and Stephen Crain. 2016. Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 33(2): 269–298.

  • Trinh Tue, Andreas Haida (2015) Constraining the derivation of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 249–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, John C., Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Susan M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 285–318.

  • van Rooij, Robert. 2010. Conjunctive interpretation of disjunction. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(11): 1–28.

  • van Rooij, Robert, and Katrin Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 13: 491–519.

  • van Rooij, Robert, and Michael Franke. 2015. Optimality-theoretic and game-theoretic approaches to implicature. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/implicature-optimality-games/.

  • Zimmerman, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

    Raj Singh & Deepthi Kamawar

  2. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Ken Wexler & Danny Fox

  3. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Ken Wexler

  4. Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

    Andrea Astle-Rahim & Deepthi Kamawar

Authors
  1. Raj Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Wexler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Astle-Rahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deepthi Kamawar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Danny Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raj Singh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, R., Wexler, K., Astle-Rahim, A. et al. Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development. Nat Lang Semantics 24, 305–352 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9126-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9126-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation