When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature.

By Ira A. Noveck. Cognition, 2001

822 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dea1ccbfc6dc03bc39cc8b2db832f80879737429

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Negation: A theory of its meaning, representation, and use (2012, background): “Evidence suggests, however, that preschool children tend to think more like logicians and are less likely to infer ‘‘scalar implicatures’’ of the sort illustrated in (23b) (see Noveck, 2001; Papafragou & Musolino, 2003).”
Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures (2005, methodology): “In a recent paper, Noveck (2001) argues that, despite adult-like competence in dealing with many logical statements, children between the ages of 7 and 11 years old differ from adults in that they do not readily access the scalar meaning of weak scalar terms (e.g., some and might); children stick ”
Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences (2004, background): “Second, until recently, linguistic-pragmatic issues have not been central to traditional cognitive investigations (see Noveck, 2001).”
The Why and How of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘Scalar Inferences’ (2007, methodology): “In a third experiment, therefore, Noveck (2001) essentially continued from where Smith left off.”
Scalar Implicatures in Child Language: Give Children a Chance (2012, methodology): “For example, Guasti et al. (2005) report a replication of Noveck’s study on Italian children and adults by means of the same task employed by Noveck (2001) in which the only manipulation was translating the French sentences containing certains into Italian sentences introduced by qualche.”
The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures (2001, background): “In describing events whose outcome is not in question, however, the interpretation of logical words is constrained by principles of pragmatics (see e.g., Grice, 1975, Horn 1972, 1989; Levinson, 1983 ).”
'And' or 'or': General use coordination in ASL (2013, background): “There are many examples in the literature testing scalar implicature calculation in languages other than English (Noveck 2001, Papafragou & Musolino 2003, Slabakova 2010, among others) and all find similar behavioral results in their participants with prototypical scales like 〈and,or〉.”
Why children aren't universally successful with quantification (2006, background): “Finally, note that these results comport well with other recent findings on the development of pragmatic abilities also showing that preschoolers are remarkably insensitive to scalar implicatures (Noveck 2001; Chierchia et al. 2001; Papafragou and Musolino 2003).”
A Developmental Investigation of Processing Costs in Implicature Production (2007, methodology): “For instance, Noveck (2001), who was the first to conduct systematic experiments on children’s treatment of scalar expressions, showed that 8- to 10-year-olds do not make scalar inferences associated with some and might to the same degree as adults.”
Communication and Folk Psychology (2006, background): “Quite remarkably, children treat 'Some elephants have trunks' as a logician would, not finding anything untoward about such an utterance; whereas the majority of adults tested by Noveck (2001) actually judged such an utterance false.”
Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for theories of implicature and child development (2016, neutral): “State of affairs Sentence Adults Children ∀ ∃ F T A ∧B A ∨B F T What (2) has been taken to show is that children pass through a stage of development at which they know the meanings of logical operators but do not compute scalar implicatures – they behave as if they are ‘logicians’ (cf. Noveck 2001).”
Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. (2003, background): “…EDFNJURXQG WR VFDODU LPSOLFDWXUH DQG ZH LQWURGXFH D YDULHW\ RI H[SUHVVLRQV DQG FRQWH[WV ZKLFK OLFHQVH VXFK LQIHUHQFHV 6HFWLRQ :H JR RQ WR UHYLHZ LQ VRPH GHWDLO SUHYLRXV H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV RI VFDODU LPSOLFDWXUHV 6HFWLRQ 7KHVH ZLOO SURYLGH WKH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG PHWKRGRORJLFDO EDFNGURS WR WKH…”
Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature (2009, neutral): “This study is based on several earlier studies (Gualmini et al. 2001, Noveck 2001, Papafragou and Musolino 2003) that explore the development of conversational implicatures in children.”
Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition (2010, neutral): “Recent experimental investigations into children’s interpretations of scalar terms have concluded that preschool children and even children 8–10 years old are often insensitive to these implicational meanings (Chierchia et al., 2001; Musolino and Lidz, 2002; Noveck, 2001).”
Asymmetries in the Acquisition of Numbers and Quantifiers (2006, background): “In the course of acquisition, children and adults may be differentially sensitive to the logical meaning and the pragmatics of utterances (Hurewitz et al., 2000; Noveck, 2001; Papafragou & Musolino, 2003).”