Children’s sensitivity Children’s sensitivity to semantic to semantic

properties of the properties of the count-mass count-mass distinction?distinction?

SHARON ARMON-LOTEMSHARON ARMON-LOTEMBar Ilan UniversityBar Ilan University

Language, Culture and MindLanguage, Culture and Mind

University of Portsmouth, July 18-University of Portsmouth, July 18-2020

Rote learned distinctions

Cognitive distinctions Syntactic

distinctions

Semantic distinctionsPragmatic

distinctions

What do children know about nouns?

QuestionsQuestions

• What do children know about the What do children know about the semantics of nouns and the relations semantics of nouns and the relations between them ?between them ?

• What is rote learned and what is rule What is rote learned and what is rule bound?bound?

• What is semantically universal and What is semantically universal and what is based on world knowledge?what is based on world knowledge?

The count - mass The count - mass distinctiondistinction

• Things are counted Things are counted

• Substance is measured. Substance is measured.

Syntactic distinctions Syntactic distinctions (Chierchia 1998)(Chierchia 1998)

• Countability:Countability:

• desk/desks desk/desks vs.vs. furniture/*furnitures furniture/*furnitures

• four desksfour desks vs.vs. * *four furnituresfour furnitures

• **four pieces of deskfour pieces of desk vs.vs.four pieces of four pieces of furniturefurniture

• Determiners and quantifiers sensitivity:Determiners and quantifiers sensitivity:

• each bookeach book vsvs..*each suger*each suger

• much sugarmuch sugar vsvs. . *much book(s)*much book(s)

• a lot of booksa lot of books vs. vs. *a lot of book*a lot of book

• a lot of sugara lot of sugar

• some book(s), some sugarsome book(s), some sugar

Grammatical Grammatical Distinctions Distinctions Intuitive Intuitive Cognitive DistinctionsCognitive Distinctions

• Near semantic synonyms within the Near semantic synonyms within the same language:same language:

shoes, footwareshoes, footware

• Near semantic synonyms across Near semantic synonyms across languages languages

English English furniturefurniture and Hebrew and Hebrew rehitimrehitim

Gordon (1985) – Task 1Gordon (1985) – Task 1• Question: What do children rely on in Question: What do children rely on in

making the count-mass distinction?making the count-mass distinction?• Syntactic information: Syntactic information: a book, some a book, some

waterwater• Age: 3 -5Age: 3 -5• Methodology: sentence completion with Methodology: sentence completion with

nonce words. Conflicting and nonce words. Conflicting and complementary scenarioscomplementary scenarios

• Procedure: Procedure: This is This is a/somea/some garn, can you garn, can you say garn? …. So, here we have say garn? …. So, here we have a/somea/some garn, garn, over there we have more … what?over there we have more … what?

• Findings: strong preference for Findings: strong preference for syntactic information in all age groups.syntactic information in all age groups.

ButBut… …

• They rely on syntactic clues by the They rely on syntactic clues by the age of three, but what happens age of three, but what happens before? How do they learn these before? How do they learn these distinctions?distinctions?

• Maybe the results are because Maybe the results are because nonce words were used.nonce words were used.

So …So …

Gordon (1985) – Task 2Gordon (1985) – Task 2

• Syntactic information: Syntactic information: books, waterbooks, water• Age range: 2-5;9Age range: 2-5;9• Methodology: elicitation task with real Methodology: elicitation task with real

words.words.• Procedure: Procedure: Paddington went shopping. He Paddington went shopping. He

came to a furniture/toy store. Do you know came to a furniture/toy store. Do you know what you get in a furniture/toy store?what you get in a furniture/toy store?

• Findings: Very low error rate even in Findings: Very low error rate even in conflicting settings, e.g., lettuce, furniture.conflicting settings, e.g., lettuce, furniture.

But ...But ...• This looks like evidence for rote This looks like evidence for rote

learning, not necessarily syntactic or learning, not necessarily syntactic or semantic knowledge.semantic knowledge.

• Do they have a semantic knowledge Do they have a semantic knowledge at all?at all?

• What do children know about the What do children know about the semantic properties of nouns?semantic properties of nouns?

So …So …

Semantic definitions of Semantic definitions of count and mass (Link count and mass (Link

1983)1983)• Mass expressions are Mass expressions are homogeneoushomogeneous. .

Count expressions are not.Count expressions are not.• Upward homogeneity (cumulativity): Upward homogeneity (cumulativity):

wine + wine = winewine + wine = wine a dog + a dog = dogs/*a doga dog + a dog = dogs/*a dog• Downward homogeneity: Downward homogeneity:

If I split wine into two parts each If I split wine into two parts each part is still wine.part is still wine.If I split a dog into two parts, If I split a dog into two parts, each part is not a dog.each part is not a dog.

Homogeneity is not a Homogeneity is not a linguistic distinction linguistic distinction

(Rothstein 2004(Rothstein 2004((

• Homogeneity is a realHomogeneity is a real--world distinctionworld distinction..

• The fact that half a dog is not a dog The fact that half a dog is not a dog while half a quantity of wine is wine while half a quantity of wine is wine depends on what counts as a dog or as depends on what counts as a dog or as wine in the worldwine in the world. .

• So is the count mass distinction formal, So is the count mass distinction formal, or does it reflect the way things are in or does it reflect the way things are in the worldthe world??

Count nouns can be Count nouns can be homogeneous toohomogeneous too ((Rothstein 2004)Rothstein 2004)

• Fence, wall, hedgeFence, wall, hedge are all homogeneous are all homogeneous and countand count. . – A fence can be broken into two A fence can be broken into two

fencesfences::– Two fences can be put together into a Two fences can be put together into a

single fencesingle fence..• Rothstein 2004Rothstein 2004: : homogeneous count homogeneous count

nouns are a systematic part of the language nouns are a systematic part of the language and not odd exceptions and not odd exceptions ((in contradistinction in contradistinction to Krifka 1992, Zucchi and White)to Krifka 1992, Zucchi and White)..

• So [±homogeneousSo [±homogeneous] ] is not at the basis of is not at the basis of the count mass distinctionthe count mass distinction..

Three categories of Three categories of nounsnouns

• Mass nouns [-count] [+homogenous]Mass nouns [-count] [+homogenous]

• Count nouns [+count] [- Count nouns [+count] [- homogenous]. homogenous].

• Some count predicates such as, Some count predicates such as, fencefence and and wallwall, are [+count] and , are [+count] and [+homogenous] [+homogenous]

What are children What are children sensitive too?sensitive too?

Are children sensitive Are children sensitive to to

• World distinction World distinction [[±± homogeneous] homogeneous]

• Formal distinction Formal distinction [[±± count] count]

• BothBoth

MethodologyMethodology

• Syntactic information: Syntactic information: plural vs. singularplural vs. singular• 20 children, age: 3 -5 + 10 Adults20 children, age: 3 -5 + 10 Adults• Methodology: elicitation task with real Methodology: elicitation task with real

words and objects.words and objects.• Three semantic categories, which the two Three semantic categories, which the two

features yield.features yield.• Presentation: Presentation: Mom went shopping. She Mom went shopping. She

put an apple in her basket, then put an apple in her basket, then another apple, and then another another apple, and then another apple. What’s in the basket? What do apple. What’s in the basket? What do we have herewe have here??

When is plural used?When is plural used?

Figure 1 – The use of plural forms by different age groups (by Figure 1 – The use of plural forms by different age groups (by

percentage)percentage)

100%100%94%

0%6%0%10%

34%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AdultsFivesThrees

Apples

Sugars

Fences

FindingsFindings

• The Threes like the adults made a binary The Threes like the adults made a binary distinction based on world distinction. distinction based on world distinction.

• Three of the Fives made a binary Three of the Fives made a binary distinction based on the formal distinction based on the formal distinction. distinction.

• Seven of the Fives followed the world Seven of the Fives followed the world distinction, but used other linguistic distinction, but used other linguistic means to make the formal distinction, means to make the formal distinction, making a three-fold distinction. making a three-fold distinction.

How did the Five’s make How did the Five’s make the three-fold the three-fold

distinctiondistinction??• Half of their responses included Half of their responses included

classifiers in order to make the classifiers in order to make the formal distinction between ‘sugar’ formal distinction between ‘sugar’ and ‘fence’:and ‘fence’:

Shalosh peamim xol Shalosh peamim xol three times sandthree times sandshtey kosot mayimshtey kosot mayimtwo cups watertwo cups water

• Half of their responses included an Half of their responses included an adjective indicating the length of the adjective indicating the length of the row of objects in order to make the row of objects in order to make the formal distinction between ‘sugar’ formal distinction between ‘sugar’ and ‘fence’: and ‘fence’: – srox srox arox arox– Shoelace longShoelace long– sharsheret arukasharsheret aruka– ChainChain long long

SummarySummary• The Threes go by the world distinction The Threes go by the world distinction

between things which are between things which are homogeneous and things which are not. homogeneous and things which are not.

• The Fives show awareness of the The Fives show awareness of the tension between the linguistic tension between the linguistic indicators and the non-linguistic ones.indicators and the non-linguistic ones.

• The Fives form a syntactic distinction The Fives form a syntactic distinction between the three semantic categories, between the three semantic categories, even in ways which are atypical of their even in ways which are atypical of their language, thus following the uniqueness language, thus following the uniqueness principle (Wexler (1979), Pinker (1984)). principle (Wexler (1979), Pinker (1984)).

ConclusionConclusion

• Both groups are highly sensitive world Both groups are highly sensitive world knowledge as manifested by the knowledge as manifested by the homogeneity of the targets homogeneity of the targets

• In the absence of linguistic input (which In the absence of linguistic input (which was available in Gordon’s tasks), younger was available in Gordon’s tasks), younger children rely on world knowledge, i.e. children rely on world knowledge, i.e. making the cognitive distinctions.making the cognitive distinctions.

• Older children, however reveal Older children, however reveal awareness of the tension between real awareness of the tension between real world, cognitive distinction and the world, cognitive distinction and the formal, semantic distinctions.formal, semantic distinctions.

Thank youThank you