Abstract

Donkey pronouns and plural definites show similarities in their semantic interpretation. The parallels between the two elements seem to suggest a unified analysis. Studies of children’s understanding of plural definites show that children initially interpret plural definites existentially rather than universally. The findings invite us to ask whether children also exhibit a preference for interpreting donkey pronouns existentially. Two experiments were conducted to compare children’ and adults’ interpretation of donkey pronouns in conditional and relative- clause donkey sentences. The results of Experiment 1 show that children preferred the ∃-reading, whereas adults entertained the ∀-reading for both types of donkey sentences in upward- entailing contexts. Experiment 2 examined whether monotonicity influences the interpretation of donkey pronouns by creating a downward-entailing context. The findings were that in a downward-entailing context both children and adults preferred the ∃-reading. The findings led us to propose that the ∃-reading is perhaps the basic semantics of donkey pronouns while the ∀-reading is derived, and we suggest that the derivational path is bridged by free choice strengthening. The findings were then discussed in relation to the analysis of homogeneity and plural predication by Bar-Lev (2020).

Highlights

  • Since Geach (1962), much research has investigated the interpretation of donkey sentences as in (1) and (2)

  • This interpretational difference between (3) and (4) leads to the generalization that donkey sentences with quantifiers that are downward entailing in the nuclear scope prefer an existential interpretation of the donkey pronoun, whereas donkey sentences with quantifiers that are upward entailing in the nuclear scope favor a universal reading (Rooth 1987; Krifka 1996; Yoon 1996).1 (3) a

  • The results clearly show that 5-year-old Mandarin-speaking children prefer to interpret donkey pronouns existentially in both conditional and relative-clause donkey sentences, whereas Mandarin-speaking adults strongly favor a universal reading of donkey pronouns in both types of donkey sentences

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since Geach (1962), much research has investigated the interpretation of donkey sentences as in (1) and (2). Sentence (3a) with the quantifier every favors a universal reading of the donkey pronoun, meaning that every farmer that owns a donkey beats all of his donkeys, as in (3b); while an existential reading of the donkey pronoun is preferred for sentence (4a) with the quantifier no, meaning that no farmer that owns a donkey beats any of his donkeys, as in (4b) This interpretational difference between (3) and (4) leads to the generalization that donkey sentences with quantifiers that are downward entailing in the nuclear scope prefer an existential interpretation of the donkey pronoun, whereas donkey sentences with quantifiers that are upward entailing in the nuclear scope favor a universal reading (Rooth 1987; Krifka 1996; Yoon 1996).

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call