El papel de la Pregunta Bajo Investigación en la generación de implicaturas escalares en adultos y niños hispanohablantes
Resumen
Existen líneas independientes de investigación que han examinado tanto lo que los niños saben acerca de las implicaturas como, con respecto al alcance de los cuantificadores, el papel desempeñado por la estructuración del discurso experimental con una Pregunta Bajo Investigación (PBI) explícita, con el fin de hacer que los niños accedan más fácilmente a las interpretaciones. En esta investigación, nos preguntamos si una PBI explícita puede facilitar la generación de implicaturas, por lo cual comparamos dos PBIs particulares para determinar si el nivel de especificidad es importante. Los resultados demuestran que los adultos, a diferencia de los niños, generaron implicaturas y que sus juicios eran más categóricos que en la investigación previa. No había diferencias significativas entre las PBIs generales vs. las específicas.Descargas
Citas
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis and Paula Menéndez-Benito (2003), “Some epistemic indefinites,” on Makoto Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawara (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 33, mit, held on November 8-10, 2002, Chareston, BookSurge, pp. 1-12.
Beghelli, Filippo and Tim Stowell (1997), “Distributivity and Negation: The syntax of each and every,” in Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 71-107.
Brown, Roger William and Camille Hanlon (1970), “Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech,” in John R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, New York, Wiley, pp. 11-53.
Carlson, Gregory Norman (1977), Reference to Kinds in English, PhD dissertation in Lin¬guistics, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.
Chierchia, Gennaro, Stephen Crain , Maria Teresa Guasti and Rosalind Thornton (1998), ““Some” and “Or”: A Study on the Emergence of Logical Form,” in Annabel Greenhill, Mary Hughes, Heather Littlefield y Hugh Walsh (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 1, Boston University, November, Cascadilla Press, pp. 97-108.
Chomsky, Noam (1959), “A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior,” Language, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 26-58.
Clifton, Charles and Lyn Frazier (2012), “Discourse integration guided by the ‘Question Under Discussion’,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 65, no. 2, September, pp. 352-379.
Crain, Stephen and Cecile McKee (1985), “The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora,” en Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe y Joyce McDonough (eds.), Proceedings of North-Eastern Linguistic Society 16, Universidad de McGrill, GLSA Publicatons, pp. 91-110.
Dotlačil, Jakub (2010), Anaphora and Distributivity: A study of Same, Different, Reciprocals and Others, PhD dissertation in Linguistics, Utrecht, Universiteit Utrecht.
Feeney, Aidan, Susan Scrafton, Amber Duckworth and Simon Handley (2004), “The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults,” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 121-132.
Gazdar, Gerald (1979), Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form, New York, Academic Press.
Grice, Paul (1975), “Logic and Conversation,” in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, New York, Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
Grinstead, John, Jennifer Thorward, Sharon Miriam Ross and Laurie Maynell (2010), “Vowel reduction, pitch accent and scalar implicatures in child English,” in Katie Franich, Kate M. Iserman and Lauren L. Keil (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 1, Boston University, held on November 6-8, 2009, Boston, Cascadilla Press, pp. 138-149.
Gualmini, Andrea, Sarah Hulsey, Valentine Hacquard and Danny Fox (2008), “The ques¬tion-answer requirement for scope assignment,” Natural Language Semantics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 205-237.
Guasti, Maria Teresa, Gennaro Chierchia, Stephen Crain, Franesca Foppolo, Andrea Gualmini and Luisa Meroni (2005), “Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures,” Language and Cognitive Processes, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 667-696.
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (2010), “Varieties of indefinites in Spanish,” Language and Lin¬guistics Compass, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 680-693.
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (2001), “The semantics of Spanish plural existential determiners and the dynamics of judgment types,” Probus, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 113-154.
Horn, Laurence Robert (1972), On the semantic properties of logical operators in English, PhD dissertation in Linguistics, Los Angeles, University of California.
Katsos, Napoleon and Dorothy Vera Margaret Bishop (2011), “Pragmatic tolerance: Im¬plications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature,” Cognition, vol. 120, no. 1, July, pp. 67-81.
Ladusaw, William (1979), Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, PhD dissertation in Linguistics, Austin, University of Texas.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983), Pragmatics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
López-Palma, Helena (2007), “Plural indefinite descriptions with unos and the interpre¬tation of number,” Probus, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 235-266.
Martí, Luisa (2008), “The semantics of plural indefinite noun phrases in Spanish and Portuguese,” Natural Language Semantics, vol. 16, no. 1, March, pp. 1-37.
Miller, Karen, Cristina Schmitt, Hsiang-Hua Chang and Alan Munn (2005), “Young chil¬dren understand some implicatures,” in Alejna Burgos, Manuella R. Clark-Cotton and Seungwan Ha (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 2, Boston University, held on November 5-7, 2004, Boston, Cascadilla Press, pp. 389-400.
Milsark, Gary Lee (1977), “Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English,” Linguistic Analysis, vol. 3, pp. 1-29.
Morgan, James L. and Lisa L. Travis (1989), “Limits on negative information in language input,” Journal of Child Language, vol. 16, no. 3, October, pp. 531-552.
Musolino, Julien (1998), Universal Grammar and the Acquisition of Semantic Knowledge: An Experimental Investigation into the Acquisition of Quantifier-Negation Interaction in English, PhD dissertation in Linguistics, College Park, University of Maryland.
Noveck, Ira A. (2001), “When Children Are More Logical Than Adults: Experimental In¬vestigations of Scalar Implicature,” Cognition, vol. 78, no. 2, February, pp. 165-188.
Padilla-Reyes, Ramón, John Grinstead, Melissa Nieves-Rivera and Dorian González-Bonilla (2015), “Collective and Distributive Interpretations: The Development of Semantic Primitives in Child Spanish,” Paper presented at the Symposium on Research In Child Language Disorders.
Papafragou, Anna and Julien Musolino (2003), “Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface,” Cognition, vol. 86, no. 3, January, pp. 253-282.
Roberts, Craige (2003), “Uniqueness in definite noun phrases,” Linguistics & Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 3, June, pp. 287-350.
Russell, Bertrand (1905), “On denoting,” Mind, vol. 14, no. 56, October, pp. 479-493.
Smith, Carol L. (1980), “Quantifiers and question answering in young children,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2, October, pp. 191-205.
Stalnaker, Robert (1974), “Pragmatic presuppositions,” in Milton Karl Munitz and Peter Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York, New York University Press, pp. 197-219.
Vargas-Tokuda, Marissa, John Grinstead y Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach (2009), “Context and the scalar implicatures of indefinites in child Spanish,” in John Grinstead (ed.), Hispanic Child Languages: Typical and Impaired Development, Amsterdam/Phila¬delphia, John Benjamins, pp. 93-116.
