Genericity Signals the Difference between each and every in Child-Directed Speech
Genericity Signals the Difference between each and every in Child-Directed Speech
复制标题
通用性标志着针对儿童的言语之间的差异
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Lidz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tyler Knowlton;J. Lidz
全称量词each和every都可以用来表示世界上相同的情况。即便如此，它们在语义上也有微妙的区别（§2）。特别是，它们至少在以下方面有所不同：（i）是否允许对问题的回答，（ii）它们与某些“通用”解释的兼容性，以及（iii）它们鼓励将量化领域视为独立个体或更大群体的成员的程度。这就提出了一个习得问题（第3节）：学习者使用什么证据来推断每个词的含义？在这里，我们报告的语料库分析的儿童环境的语音建议，父母使用每一个谈论一个局部域，并使用每一个广泛的概括，项目超出了局部域。这些用法上的差异伴随着较低层次的伴随词，比如在个体和时间上的量化，或者是动词的论元而不是话题设置附加语（第4节）。由于这些表层足迹在学习者的输入中是可用的，原则上，它们可以被学习者用来推断意义上的相关差异。我们还提出了一个学习故事的建议（§5），以供将来研究。我们假设，用法的差异源于表征的差异：每一个都有一个完全的一阶意义，涉及个人和他们的属性，而每一个都有一个二阶意义，涉及一个单一的群体。这些不同的心理表征由两种不同的认知系统来支持，用于表示对象：每个对象的对象文件和每个对象的集合表征。我们认为，只有后者才与每个人习惯表达的那种“一般”思想相兼容。然后，学习者可以从父母的言语和父母的预期信息层面意义的较低层次差异中推断出量词和概念的适当配对（一阶普遍概念基于每个对象文件;二阶普遍概念基于每个集合表征）。
The universal quantifiers each and every can both be used to label the same situations in the world. Even so, they differ semantically in subtle ways (§2). In particular, they differ at least with respect to (i) whether they allow pair-list answers in response to questions, (ii) their compatibility with certain “generic” interpretations, and (iii) the extent to which they encourage treating the domain of quantification as independent individuals or as members of a larger group. This raises an acquisition question (§3): what evidence do learners use to infer the meanings of each and every? Here, we report on a corpus analysis of child-ambient speech suggesting that parents use each to talk about a local domain and use every to make broad generalizations that project beyond the local domain. These differences in use come with lower-level concomitants, like quantifying over individuals versus times, or being the argument of a verb as opposed to a topic-setting adjunct (§4). Since these surface-level footprints are available in learners’ input, they might, in principle, be used by learners to infer the relevant difference in meaning. We also sketch a proposal of a learning story (§5) to be investigated in future work. We assume that the usage difference stems from a representational difference: each has a fully first-order meaning that implicates individuals and their properties, whereas every has a second-order meaning that implicates a single group. These distinct mental representations are supported by two different cognitive systems for representing objects: object-files for each and ensemble representations for every. We propose that only the latter is compatible with “generic” thoughts of the sort that every gets used to express. Learners can then make the inference from the lower-level differences in parents’ speech and parents’ intended message-level meaning to the appropriate pairing of quantifiers and concepts (a first-order universal concept grounded in object-files for each; a second-order universal concept grounded in ensemble representations for every).
对儿童互动中的交际行为进行分类。
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Ninio,A;Snow,CE;Pan,BA;Rollins,PR
通讯作者：
Rollins,PR
超越标签：母亲的投入在获得丰富的结构类别中的作用。
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Gelman,SA;Coley,JD;Rosengren,KS;Hartman,E;Pappas,A
通讯作者：
Pappas,A
36 个月大时口聋和正常听力儿童的交流。
DOI：
10.1044/jslhr.4006.1314
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR
影响因子：
--
作者：
Nicholas,JG;Geers,AE
通讯作者：
Geers,AE