Skip to main content

Presuppositions Are Challenging Not Only for Pre-Schoolers, but Also for School-Aged Children

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches on Implicatures and Presuppositions

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition ((PSPLC))

  • 452 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter the authors present an experimental study conducted with Italian children from Grade 1 to Grade 5 of elementary school (age 6–10) in which they assess children’s performance with sentences containing the focus operators also and only. Beyond the rich acquisition literature on presupposition, the authors aimed at contributing by taking into account children’s performance in the two layers of meaning associated with these focus operators, that is, the prejacent and the alternatives evoked. Also, they aimed at testing the interaction of these operators with negation, in order to evaluate children’s performance with respect to the operations required on the alternatives, that is, from contrasting cases of exclusion in which the alternatives are negated, to cases of addition in which the alternatives are identified as lively options. The authors found a clear developmental trend in children’s performance and also interesting differences between the aspects involved in the computation of presupposed meaning, such as the status of the prejacent (which is claimed to differ in the two particles tested) and the processing of the alternatives evoked (which might be more costly in the case of addition than exclusion).

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The exact percentages of rewards in the condition “no particle” of Experiment 1 were not reported in the article.

  2. 2.

    Please note that in this example, and in all the test sentences with a pre-object focus particle, the direct object is preceded by a definite description. This is done to avoid a possible ambiguity deriving from the fact that in Italian the indefinite determiner uno/a is the same as the numeral one. In order to avoid a reading in which the exclusive particle refers to the numeral itself (“Fabio put only one apple, not two”), we opted for a definite article on the object.

  3. 3.

    We decided to test both sentences because our informants all agreed that the meaning was the same, but some preferred one version and some the other.

  4. 4.

    Recall that, in our experimental design, only two alternatives on the subject and object were presented each time. This rendered the ambiguity—that we alluded to in the text—between a universal or an existential meaning of anche under negation vacuous: in a context in which only two alternatives are present, in fact, there’s no difference between the negative universal reading (no-one, nothing) or the negative existential one (someone else did not—something else was not), both being realized by the same individual/object.

References

  • Berger, F., and B. Höhle. 2012. Restrictions on Addition: Children’s Interpretation of the Focus Particles auch ‘also’and nur ‘Only’ in German. Journal of Child Language 39 (2): 383–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergsma, W. 2002. Children’s Interpretations of Dutch Sentences with the Focus Particle Alleen (‘Only’). In The Process of Language Acquisition: Proceedings of the 1999 GALA Conference, ed. I. Lasser, 263–280. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. (Un)stressed ook in Dutch. In Semantics in Acquisition, ed. V. van Geenhoven, 329–348. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E., and R. Singh. 2014. Remarks on the Experimental Turn in the Study of Scalar Implicature, Part I and II. Language and Linguistics Compass 8 (9): 373–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, J., and K. Szendrői. 2006. Acquisition of Focus Marking in European Portuguese. The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, 319–330. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., W. Ni, and L. Conway. 1994. Learning, Parsing and Modularity. In Perspectives on Sentence Processing, ed. C. Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner, 443–467. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., W. Philip, K. Drozd, T. Roeper, and K. Matsuoka. 1992. Only in Child Language. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gualmini, A., S. Maciukaite, and S. Crain. 2003. Children’s Insensitivity to Contrastive Stress in Sentences with Only. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (1): 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhle, B., F. Berger, A. Müller, M. Schmitz, and J. Weissenborn. 2009. Focus Particles in Children’s Language: Production and Comprehension of auch ‘also’ in German Learners from 1 year to 4 years of age. Language Acquisition 16 (1): 36–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. 1969. A Presuppositional Analysis of Only and Even. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 5: 98–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1979. Only, Even, and Conventional Implicature. LSA Paper, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüttner, T., H. Drenhaus, R. van de Vijver, and J. Weissenborn. 2004. The Acquisition of the German Focus Particle auch ‘Too’: Comprehension Does Not Always Precede Production. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L., and S. Peters. 1979. Conventional Implicature. In Syntax & Semantics Volume 11: Presupposition, ed. C.-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York, San Francisco, and London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsos, N., and D.V. Bishop. 2011. Pragmatic Tolerance: Implications for the Acquisition of Informativeness and Implicature. Cognition 120 (1): 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. 1993. Focus and Presupposition in Dynamic Interpretation. Journal of Semantics 10 (4): 269–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuoka, K. 2004. Addressing the Syntax/Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: The Acquisition of the Japanese Additive Particle mo. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston Conference in Language Development, ed. A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, and C.E. Smith. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuoka, K., N. Miyoshi, H. Hoshi, M. Ueda, I. Yabu, and M. Hirata. 2006. The Acquisition of Japanese Focus Particles: Dake ‘only’ and mo ‘also’. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston Conference in Language Development, ed. D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, and C. Zaller. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J.D. 1981. Everything That Linguists Have Always Wanted to Know About Logic… but were Ashamed to ask. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, A., B. Höhle, M. Schmitz, and J. Weissenborn. 2009. Information Structural Constraints on Children’s Early Language Production: The Acquisition of the Focus Particle auch (‘also’) in German-Learning 12- to 36-month-olds. First Language 29 (4): 373–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, A., P. Schulz, and B. Höhle. 2011. Pragmatic Children: How German Children Interpret Sentences with and without the Focus Particle Only. In Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics, ed. J. Meibauer and M. Steinbach, 79–100. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Panzeri, F., and F. Foppolo. 2016. Not only task matters, position also. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38: 229–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, K.B., S.P. Liversedge, C. Rowland, and R. Filik. 2003. Children’s Comprehension of Sentences with Focus Particles. Cognition 89: 263–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Umass Amherst, Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, F. 2015. Introduction: Presuppositions in Context—Theoretical Issues and Experimental Perspectives. In Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, ed. F. Schwarz, 1–37. Springer International: Publishing. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szendrői, K. 2004. Acquisition Evidence for an Interface Theory of Focus. LOT Occasional Series 3: 457–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., and S. Crain. 2010. Focus Identification in Child Mandarin. Journal of Child Language 37: 965–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Foppolo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Foppolo, F., Panzeri, F. (2017). Presuppositions Are Challenging Not Only for Pre-Schoolers, but Also for School-Aged Children. In: Pistoia-Reda, S., Domaneschi, F. (eds) Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches on Implicatures and Presuppositions. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50696-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50696-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50695-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50696-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics