Children's Acquisition of Reciprocal Sentences With Stative and Active Predicates

Abstract

In this article, I show that children (mean age = 4;4) not only know the meaning and use of complex reciprocal anaphors like each other, but that they also have knowl-edge of subtle differences in the possible interpretations of such anaphors depending on the type of predicates involved. Fiengo and Lasnik (1973) noted a contrast between reciprocal sentences with active predicates ((1)), which are ambiguous, and those with stative predicates ((2)), which are not: (1) The men in the room are hitting each other. (2) The men in the room know each other. Example (1), with an active predicate, has both a strong reciprocal reading (i.e., every one of the men in the room is hitting every other one) and a weak reciprocal reading (e.g., A and B are hitting each other and B and C are hitting each other when four people (A-D) are engaged in the action). On the other hand, (2) with a stative predicate allows only the strong reading (i.e., every one of the men in the room knows every other one). I present results that show that children can distinguish (1) from (2).