Schaeken Walter, Schouten Bojoura, Dieussaert Kristien
Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Front Psychol. 2019 Feb 18;9:2763. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02763. eCollection 2018.
Experimental investigations into children's interpretation of scalar terms show that children have difficulties with scalar implicatures in tasks. In contrast with adults, they are for instance not able to derive the pragmatic interpretation that "" means "" (Noveck, 2001; Papafragou and Musolino, 2003). However, there is also substantial experimental evidence that children are not incapable of drawing scalar inferences and that they are aware of the pragmatic potential of scalar expressions. In these kinds of studies, the prime interest is to discover what conditions facilitate implicature production for children. One of the factors that seem to be difficult for children is the generation of the scalar alternative. In a Felicity Judgment Task (FJT) the alternative is given. Participants are presented with a pair of utterances and asked to choose the most felicitous description. In such a task, even 5-year-old children are reported to show a very good performance. Our study wants to build on this tradition, by using a FJT where not only "" choices are given, but also "" and "" In combination with a manipulation of the number of successes/failures in the stories, this enabled us to construct control, critical and ambiguous items. We compared the performance of 59 5-year-old children with that of 34 11-year-old children. The results indicated that performance of both age groups was clearly above chance, replicating previous findings. However, for the 5-year-old children, the critical and ambiguous items were more difficult than the control items and they also performed worse on these two types of items than the 11-year-old children. Interestingly with respect to the issue of scalar diversity, the 11-year-old children were also presented temporal items, which turned out to be more difficult than the quantitative ones.
对儿童对标量词项的理解所做的实验研究表明,儿童在任务中对标量含义存在困难。与成年人不同,例如他们无法得出“ ”意味着“ ”的语用解释(诺维克,2001年;帕帕拉格奥和穆索利诺,2003年)。然而,也有大量实验证据表明儿童并非无法进行标量推理,并且他们意识到标量表达式的语用潜力。在这类研究中,主要兴趣在于发现哪些条件有助于儿童产生含义。对儿童来说似乎困难的因素之一是标量替代项的生成。在恰当性判断任务(FJT)中,替代项是给定的。向参与者呈现一对话语,并要求他们选择最恰当的描述。据报道,在这样的任务中,即使是5岁的儿童也表现得非常出色。我们的研究想在此传统基础上进行,通过使用一种FJT,其中不仅给出“ ”选项,还给出“ ”和“ ”。结合对故事中成功/失败次数的操控,这使我们能够构建控制项、关键项和模糊项。我们将59名5岁儿童的表现与34名11岁儿童的表现进行了比较。结果表明,两个年龄组的表现都明显高于随机水平,重复了先前的研究结果。然而,对于5岁儿童来说,关键项和模糊项比控制项更难,并且他们在这两种类型的项目上的表现也比11岁儿童差。有趣的是,关于标量多样性问题,11岁儿童还被呈现了时间项目,结果发现这些项目比数量项目更难。