The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment
By Andrea Gualmini, S. Hulsey, Valentine Hacquard, Danny Fox. 2008
149 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This paper focuses on children’s interpretation of sentences containing negation and a quantifier (e.g., The detective didn’t find some guys). Recent studies suggest that, although children are capable of accessing inverse scope interpretations of such sentences, they resort to surface scope to a larger extent than adults. To account for children’s behavioral pattern, we propose a new factor at play in Truth Value Judgment tasks: the Question–Answer Requirement (QAR). According to the QAR, children (and adults) must interpret the target sentence that they evaluate as an answer to a question that is made salient by the discourse.
Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/37ea558d77d62da7f2bbe957c095a0b6b0ef45ef
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Artificial Intelligence
- Colin Phillips
- Eri Takahashi
- Uli Sauerland
- Jeffrey Lidz
- A. Conroy
- Benjamin Bruening
- Philippe Schlenker
- Raj Singh
In Cognitive Neuroscience
Citations in the corpus
- Equal Treatment for All Antecedents: How Children Succeed with Principle B (2009, background): “The requirement is commonly satisfied by making the deictic interpretation of the sentence almost become true in the story, although we argue that this is insufficient if the event that almost happens is incidental to the rest of the narrative (see also Hulsey et al. 2004).”
- A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection (2009, background): “5 See also Gualmini et al. (2008), which appeared after this manuscript was prepared.”
- Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development (2016, unknown): “We tentatively follow Gualmini et al. (2008) and suggest (Sect.”