Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers
Edited by Barbara H. Partee, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, and approved June 20, 2016 (received for review February 18, 2016)
Significance
Although much research has been devoted to the acquisition of number words, relatively little is known about the acquisition of other expressions of quantity. We propose that the order of acquisition of quantifiers is related to features inherent to the meaning of each term. Four specific dimensions of the meaning and use of quantifiers are found to capture robust similarities in the order of acquisition of quantifiers in similar ways across 31 languages, representing 11 language types.
Abstract
Learners of most languages are faced with the task of acquiring words to talk about number and quantity. Much is known about the order of acquisition of number words as well as the cognitive and perceptual systems and cultural practices that shape it. Substantially less is known about the acquisition of quantifiers. Here, we consider the extent to which systems and practices that support number word acquisition can be applied to quantifier acquisition and conclude that the two domains are largely distinct in this respect. Consequently, we hypothesize that the acquisition of quantifiers is constrained by a set of factors related to each quantifier’s specific meaning. We investigate competence with the expressions for “all,” “none,” “some,” “some…not,” and “most” in 31 languages, representing 11 language types, by testing 768 5-y-old children and 536 adults. We found a cross-linguistically similar order of acquisition of quantifiers, explicable in terms of four factors relating to their meaning and use. In addition, exploratory analyses reveal that language- and learner-specific factors, such as negative concord and gender, are significant predictors of variation.
Sign up for PNAS alerts.
Get alerts for new articles, or get an alert when an article is cited.
Number words and quantifiers are abstract words that denote properties of sets rather than individuals. Twoness and allness in “two/all of the black cats in the street” are not true of any individual cat, whereas blackness and catness are. Children display knowledge of number words and quantifiers around their second birthday, comparatively long after they have acquired concrete nouns (1, 2). As far as number words are concerned, a range of cognitive and perceptual systems supports their acquisition. These systems include an object-tracking system, which enables the precise representation of small quantities, and an analog magnitude system, which enables imprecise and approximate comparisons (1), as well as general principles of word learning (3). The role of language in the acquisition of number is manifold: it can be viewed as a system of labels for expressing numerical concepts (4), a system that allows the combination of information from diverse sources (5), or a provider of cues for acquisition (6–8). For example, children learning languages that distinguish between singular and plural or between singular, dual, and plural morphology learn the meaning of “one” and “two” earlier than children learning languages that do not (9, 10). There are also cultural practices, such as the verbal count list, the recital of number words in a fixed order (“one, two, three, …”), and finger or other body part counting routines, that are widely practiced across many languages (11, 12). These systems and practices converge toward a universal order of acquisition, starting with “one” and proceeding in line with increasing cardinality. The order itself is stable and not affected by differences between languages as regards the specific timing of the acquisition of each number word (9, 10, 13).
Quantifiers (e.g., “none,” “some,” and “all”) too are properties of (or relations between) sets. The onset of the acquisition of quantifiers coincides with the acquisition of number words, and some systems are likely to be implicated in the acquisition of both (principles of word learning and the role of language as a system of labels among others) (3). However, what about the order of acquisition of quantifiers? Is it fixed, like that of number words, or does it vary? Which systems constrain it? The perceptual object-tracking system that supports the acquisition of numbers is largely neutral to the order of acquisition of quantifiers. A set of five and a set of ten individual objects could both be referred to as “some,” “most,” or “all” in different contexts. Moreover, there is no known routinized practice for quantifiers, such as the verbal count line or body part counting for numbers. Even if there were to be a “verbal quantifier line,” which quantifiers would it include and in which order? The choice is not trivial (e.g., consider “none,” “many,” “not all,” and “fewer than half”), and there are multiple intuitively plausible orderings. If we were to suppose that, just as numbers are acquired in order of increasing cardinality, quantifiers are learned as a function of their increased proportion of overlap between two sets, we would predict that “a few” and “some” would be acquired from a very early age and that “most” and “all” would be acquired last. However, the evidence from corpora (14) and experiments (15, 16) reveals that, although many 2-y-old children have acquired “all,” even some 7-y-old children are not fully competent with “most.”
Overall, a simple parallelism between the order of acquisition of numbers and that of quantifiers is not fruitful and furthermore does not make sense of the available evidence. Although the acquisition of number words and quantifiers is supported by some shared systems, there are constraints in the order of acquisition of numbers that are not as relevant for quantifiers (such as a verbal routine). Moreover, there may well be constraints in the order of acquisition of quantifiers that do not extend to numerals.
In this paper, we hypothesize that a major constraint in the order of acquisition of quantifiers comes from the meaning of each term. Unlike number words, which have meanings that vary as a function of cardinality alone, the meanings of quantifiers are varied and rich. Specific features among these word meanings are likely to play a role in their acquisition. To give substance to this distinction, consider statements such as “all/none of the students are playing football.” “All” is a positive and monotone increasing quantifier that licenses inferences to supersets (e.g., “all of the students are playing a sport”), whereas “none” is a negative and monotone decreasing quantifier that licenses inferences to subsets (e.g., “none of the students are playing football in the rain”). We will shortly describe this distinction formally to argue later that it is one of the features of meaning to play a role in acquiring quantifiers in a fixed order across languages. Of course, some languages could offer specific cues to support acquisition. For instance, they may offer additional cues that a quantifier is negative by marking negation twice (once on the quantifier itself and once with a negative particle on the verb phrase), a phenomenon known as negative concord (as in French “aucun des élèves ne jouent au football”). In what follows, we turn to aspects of quantifier meaning and use that we argue are relevant to their order of acquisition.
Cross-Linguistic Similarities and Differences
Quantifiers predicate properties of members of sets. For example, the meanings of the English quantifiers “all” and “some” are traditionally taken to correspond to set theoretical logical concepts (17). Under this view, the truth conditions of many quantified sentences are given as relations between sets as shown below, where “iff” is if and only if, ∩ is the intersection of two sets, − is their difference, and ∅ is the empty set.
i)
“All of the As are Bs” is true iff A ∩ B = A.
ii)
“Some of the As are Bs” is true iff A ∩ B ≠ ∅.
iii)
“None of the As are Bs” is true iff A ∩ B = ∅.
iv)
“Most of the As are Bs” is true iff |A ∩ B| > |A – B|.
v)
“Some of the As are not Bs” is true iff A − B ≠ ∅.
Quantified sentences have systematic entailment properties. If the sentences in i, ii, and iv are true, then it is guaranteed that, for any set B′, which is a superset of B, the corresponding sentence is also true (e.g., if it is true that “all/some/most of the students are playing football,” then it is guaranteed that “all/some/most of the students are playing a sport”). Quantifiers that guarantee inferences from sets to supersets in this way are known as monotone increasing. Conversely, if the sentences in iii and iv are true, then it is guaranteed that, for any set B′, which is a subset of B, the corresponding sentence is also true. Quantifiers with this property are monotone decreasing.
Typological research in semantics suggests that many human languages contain these quantifiers and others and that the entailment properties of these quantifiers exhibit similarities (18). These similarities extend to considerations of quantifier use, such as the need to be informative. For instance, speakers should not describe a situation in which all students are playing football by saying “some students are playing football.” Under the definition in ii, this description would be (strictly speaking) true, but the speaker would be underinformative and potentially inviting the listener to draw additional conversational inferences. These word choices rely on norms of human rational behavior (19) and cost–benefit optimization in information exchange (20, 21). The existence of such norms is widely reported in the world’s languages (22, 23).
Language-specific factors are also evident among quantifiers (contributions are in the work in ref. 24). In the following section, we specify four developmental patterns that follow from cross-linguistic similarities. We then outline some of the language-specific factors that may affect acquisition. We focus on the set of four quantifiers that are the English equivalents of “all,” “some,” “some…not,” and “none.” These quantifiers are the basis of Aristotle’s theory of syllogisms, and they have held a special status in Western thought for more than two millennia (25). For reasons mentioned below, we also include “most.”
Developmental Generalizations
Focusing on single languages, previous studies in the processing of quantifiers (14–16, 26, 27) have made several generalizations that could be expected to have cross-linguistic relevance for the order of acquisition of quantifiers. Here, we hypothesize that these generalizations have the status of cross-linguistically applicable constraints (Discussion). Constraint 1 concerns monotonicity, which we defined above. According to this constraint, children will be more successful at comprehending monotone increasing compared with monotone decreasing quantifiers (26, 28, 29). For this study, we would expect children to show greater competence with “all” compared with “none” and “some” compared with “some are not.”
Constraint 2 (totality) is that children are more successful at acquiring quantifiers that attribute a property to all or none of the members of a set than they are at acquiring those that attribute a property to only a part of the set (30, 31). In our dataset, this constraint will facilitate the acquisition of totality quantifiers “all” and “none” compared with partiality quantifiers “some” and “some…not.”
Monotonicity and totality are independent properties. They will sometimes align to render a quantifier particularly easy or difficult for children and sometimes diverge and compete. We predict that “all,” which is a monotone increasing and totality quantifier, will be the easiest of four Aristotelian quantifiers, whereas “some…not,” a monotone decreasing and partiality quantifier, will be the hardest. The acquisition of “none” and “some” is a matter of the relative strength of the two constraints. If the advantage bestowed by totality outweighs the disadvantage of monotone decreasing, “none” will be easier than “some” and vice versa.
Constraint 3 (complexity) is that children are more successful at comprehending “some” than “most.” To understand “most of the As are Bs,” children need to be able to restrict the domain of quantification to some relevant set of As in the universe of discourse and then, compare the cardinalities of the set of As that are Bs with those of the set of As that are not Bs (32). However, “some As are Bs” is simpler, because in this case, children do not need to restrict the quantifier to a specific set of entities or compare cardinalities. They can simply treat “some students like football” as logically equivalent to “there is at least one entity that is both a student and likes football” (33).
Finally, constraint 4 (“informativeness”) is that children will be stricter toward violations of truth than toward violations of pragmatic felicity. That is, children do not reject utterances that are underinformative (e.g., saying “some” when “all” is true) to the same extent as utterances that violate truth (e.g., saying “some” when “none” is true) or the same extent as adults (27, 32, 33). We, therefore, expect that children will accept underinformative utterances more often than false ones, regardless of the language that they speak. In our dataset, this constraint predicts that children are more likely to reject a false statement with “some,” “some…not,” and “most” than an underinformative one (and at rates that are distinguishable from those in adults).
These predictions are summarized below (>> implies higher performance, and / indicates no prediction).
i)
Constraints 1 and 2: “all” >> “none”/“some” >> “some…not.”
ii)
Constraint 3: “some” >> “most.”
iii)
Constraint 4: false >> underinformative for “some,” “some…not,” and “most.”
In addition to these four factors that may affect the acquisition of quantification in similar ways across languages, language-specific properties may have an important role as well. The explicit presence of a partitive marker (such as “of the” in English) may positively affect children’s performance with underinformative utterances (27) by drawing attention to the divisibility of the reference set. Syntactically, negative concord may be a significant predictor, with the presence of two negative markers highlighting the fact that the utterance contains a negative quantifier. Finally, a range of nonlinguistic factors may also be important predictors of children’s performance. These potential predictors include biological factors, such as gender and age, and social factors, such as socioeconomic and educational status (e.g., whether children are enrolled in formal schooling at the time of testing).
Experiment
As part of a larger project known as the European Cooperation in Science and Technology Action A33 (Acknowledgments), the empirical investigation focused on the comprehension of quantified sentences by 768 children (mean age = 5.5 y old; age range = 5.00–5.11 y old; 398 of them were female) and 536 adult participants (all adults were over 18 y of age; 293 adults were female; because of experimenter error, the gender of 46 adults was not recorded). The participants spoke 1 of 31 languages: Basque, Cantonese (Yue) Chinese, Catalan, Croatian, Cypriot Greek, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Lithuanian, Malay (Kuala Lumpur variety), Maltese, Mandarin Chinese, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, and Urdu. This sample contains representatives of 15 language genera (Baltic, Chinese, Finnic, Germanic, Greek, Indic, Japonic, Karto-Zan, Korean, Malayo-Sumbawan, Romance, Semitic, Slavic, Southern Dravidian, and Turkic). These languages belong to 11 language types [8 of the main language families in the world (Afro-Asiatic, Altaic, Austronesian, Dravidian, Indo-European, Kartvelian, Sino-Tibetan, and Uralic/Finno-Ugric] as well as 3 language isolates (Basque, Japonic, and Korean)] (classified according to the work in ref. 34). Details of the languages’ properties are given in Table S1. In the main part of the task, participants were presented with five boxes and five objects. Between zero and five of the objects were inside the boxes for any test item. Participants then heard a description containing one of five quantifiers and had to judge if the description was right or wrong for the visual display. Details of the test procedure are presented in Methods.
Table S1.
| Language genetics | Typological factors | Participants: attending school? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Language | Family | Genus | Negative concord | Partitive “some” | Partitive “most” | |
| Basque | Basque | Basque | No | No | No | Yes |
| Cantonese (Yue) | Sino-Tibetan | Chinese | No | No | No | No |
| Catalan | Indo-European | Romance | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Croatian | Indo-European | Slavic | Yes | No | No | No |
| Cypriot Greek | Indo-European | Greek | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Danish | Indo-European | Germanic | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Dutch | Indo-European | Germanic | No | No | No | No |
| English | Indo-European | Germanic | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Estonian | Uralic/Finno-Ugric | Finnic | Yes | No | No | No |
| Finnish | Uralic/Finno-Ugric | Finnic | Yes | No | No | No |
| French | Indo-European | Romance | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Georgian | Kartvelian | Karto-Zan | Yes | No | No | No |
| German | Indo-European | Germanic | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Greek (modern) | Indo-European | Greek | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Hebrew (modern) | Afro-Asiatic | Semitic | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Italian | Indo-European | Romance | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Japanese | Japanese | Japanese | No | No | No | No |
| Korean | Korean | Korean | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Lithuanian | Indo-European | Baltic | Yes | No | No | No |
| Malay | Austronesian | Malayo-Sumbawan | No | No | No | No |
| Maltese | Afro-Asiatic | Semitic | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Mandarin | Sino-Tibetan | Chinese | No | No | No | No |
| Norwegian | Indo-European | Germanic | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Polish | Indo-European | Slavic | Yes | No | No | No |
| Russian | Indo-European | Slavic | Yes | No | No | No |
| Serbian | Indo-European | Slavic | Yes | No | No | No |
| Slovak | Indo-European | Slavic | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Spanish | Indo-European | Romance | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tamil | Dravidian | Southern Dravidian | Yes | No | No | No |
| Turkish | Altaic | Turkic | Yes | No | No | No |
| Urdu | Indo-European | Indic | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Results
The results for child and adult participants per language are presented in Tables S2 and S3. Across all languages and expressions, adult responses were, on average, 99% correct in the true or false conditions. These ceiling adult data validate the task as a test of competence with quantification and are not discussed further; 84% of adult responses to underinformative items were rejections, and this less than perfect consistency accords with previous literature (32) and is discussed in the context of constraint 4.
Table S2.
| Language | Participants F | Age | “All” | “None” | “Some” | “Most” | “Some…not” | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | F | Minimum | Maximum | Average | True | False | True | False | True | False | UI | True | False | UI | True | False | UI | |
| Basque | 21 | 11 | 60 | 70 | 65.1 | 96.8 | 95.2 | 87.3 | 92.1 | 90.5 | 100 | 60.3 | 92.1 | 66.7 | 35.7 | 79.4 | 88.9 | 61.9 |
| Cantonese (Yue) | 25 | 14 | 61 | 71 | 67.8 | 98.7 | 93.3 | 90.7 | 94.7 | 37.3 | 96.0 | 13.3 | 34.7 | 84.0 | 11.3 | 26.7 | 96.0 | 9.3 |
| Catalan | 20 | 8 | 60 | 66 | 62.9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 78.3 | 100 | 80 | 51.7 | 78.3 | 34.2 | 95 | 93.3 | 69.2 |
| Croatian | 24 | 12 | 60 | 66 | 63.4 | 100 | 95.8 | 58.3 | 88.9 | 76.4 | 93.1 | 47.9 | 69.4 | 48.6 | 31.9 | 65.3 | 73.6 | 77.8 |
| Cypriot Greek | 24 | 11 | 61 | 71 | 66 | 100 | 87.5 | 88.9 | 81.9 | 86.1 | 84.7 | 61.1 | 93.1 | 75 | 28.5 | 73.6 | 76.4 | 59.7 |
| Danish | 25 | 12 | 60 | 71 | 65.5 | 97.3 | 93.3 | 93.3 | 93.3 | 92 | 97.3 | 78 | 93.3 | 44 | 62.7 | 77.3 | 93.3 | 68 |
| Dutch | 22 | 14 | 60 | 67 | 63.5 | 100 | 98.5 | 92.4 | 100 | 77.3 | 98.5 | 58.3 | 84.8 | 69.7 | 37.1 | 59.1 | 87.9 | 55.3 |
| English | 17 | 4 | 61 | 71 | 65.2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96.1 | 100 | 80.4 | 100 | 49 | 67.6 | 96.1 | 100 | 77.5 |
| Estonian | 26 | 12 | 60 | 71 | 64.5 | 100 | 96.2 | 92.3 | 96.2 | 76.9 | 98.7 | 53.8 | 78.2 | 46.2 | 36.5 | 60.3 | 91 | 46.2 |
| Finnish | 21 | 13 | 61 | 68 | 64.6 | 100 | 98.4 | 98.4 | 95.2 | 82.5 | 100 | 69.8 | 81 | 31.7 | 67.5 | 57.1 | 96.8 | 62.7 |
| French | 15 | 9 | 61 | 71 | 66.9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 97.8 | 100 | 80 | 84.4 | 31.1 | 62.2 | 86.7 | 100 | 76.7 |
| Georgian | 25 | 13 | 61 | 71 | 66.7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 73.3 | 85.3 | 100 | 70.0 | 100 | 100 | 76.0 |
| German | 31 | 16 | 60 | 71 | 64.4 | 100 | 96.8 | 95.7 | 94.6 | 73.1 | 98.9 | 65.6 | 86 | 71 | 45.2 | 67.7 | 93.5 | 67.2 |
| Greek | 20 | 11 | 60 | 67 | 63.5 | 96.7 | 95 | 80 | 96.7 | 66.7 | 96.7 | 45.8 | 76.7 | 73.3 | 25.8 | 70 | 76.7 | 70.8 |
| Hebrew | 38 | 24 | 61 | 71 | 66.4 | 100 | 94.7 | 78.1 | 84.2 | 82.5 | 93.9 | 62.7 | 75.4 | 64.9 | 34.6 | 71.1 | 68.4 | 72.8 |
| Italian | 19 | 9 | 62 | 70 | 67.1 | 100 | 87.7 | 91.2 | 91.2 | 84.2 | 100 | 62.3 | 56.1 | 56.1 | 22.8 | 70.2 | 84.2 | 78.1 |
| Japanese | 17 | 8 | 60 | 71 | 64.8 | 98.0 | 98.0 | 88.2 | 100 | 54.9 | 100 | 49.0 | 52.9 | 66.7 | 32.4 | 45.1 | 100 | 47.1 |
| Korean | 25 | 12 | 62 | 71 | 66.8 | 97.3 | 80.0 | 97.3 | 81.3 | 90.7 | 98.7 | 15.3 | 70.7 | 26.7 | 9.3 | 37.3 | 93.3 | 9.3 |
| Lithuanian | 26 | 14 | 60 | 65 | 62.2 | 100 | 87.2 | 78.2 | 79.5 | 91 | 91 | 54.5 | 61.5 | 75.6 | 7.1 | 83.3 | 76.9 | 64.1 |
| Malay | 26 | 11 | 61 | 72 | 67.0 | 91.0 | 57.7 | 43.6 | 61.5 | 66.7 | 83.3 | 13.5 | 64.1 | 56.4 | 14.7 | 52.6 | 43.6 | 55.1 |
| Maltese | 24 | 9 | 61 | 65 | 63.1 | 98.6 | 79.2 | 47.2 | 70.8 | 88.9 | 97.2 | 29.2 | 77.8 | 43.1 | 29.9 | 54.2 | 56.9 | 72.2 |
| Mandarin | 34 | 21 | 60 | 71 | 65.3 | 90.2 | 67.6 | 59.8 | 73.5 | 63.7 | 77.5 | 33.8 | 51.0 | 67.6 | 22.2 | 57.8 | 58.8 | 66.7 |
| Norwegian | 23 | 11 | 60 | 70 | 63.9 | 97.1 | 84.1 | 97.1 | 81.2 | 89.9 | 89.9 | 53.6 | 95.7 | 44.9 | 53.6 | 76.8 | 69.6 | 54.3 |
| Polish | 47 | 26 | 60 | 71 | 66.3 | 100 | 98.6 | 97.2 | 99.3 | 95 | 95.7 | 76.6 | 85.8 | 58.2 | 59.2 | 86.5 | 96.5 | 75.9 |
| Russian | 26 | 14 | 60 | 67 | 63.1 | 96.2 | 98.7 | 92.3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 91 | 92.3 | 93.6 | 14.1 | 87.2 | 98.7 | 96.8 |
| Serbian | 34 | 18 | 60 | 71 | 64 | 99 | 91.2 | 89.2 | 95.1 | 71.6 | 99 | 45.1 | 53.9 | 55.9 | 14.7 | 67.6 | 89.2 | 47.1 |
| Slovak | 25 | 11 | 62 | 71 | 66.4 | 100 | 100 | 97.3 | 98.7 | 80 | 100 | 68.7 | 81.3 | 45.3 | 59.3 | 70.7 | 93.3 | 69.3 |
| Spanish | 21 | 12 | 60 | 71 | 64.8 | 100 | 92.1 | 90.5 | 90.5 | 87.3 | 95.2 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 58.7 | 15.1 | 84.1 | 90.5 | 61.1 |
| Tamil | 24 | 16 | 61 | 71 | 66.0 | 73.6 | 47.2 | 40.3 | 55.6 | 54.2 | 65.3 | 40.3 | 65.3 | 45.8 | 34.0 | 48.6 | 51.4 | 63.2 |
| Turkish | 18 | 9 | 62 | 70 | 66.1 | 96.3 | 94.4 | 77.8 | 98.1 | 57.4 | 94.4 | 71.3 | 50 | 81.5 | 24.1 | 35.2 | 92.6 | 64.8 |
| Urdu | 25 | 13 | 62 | 70 | 65.6 | 100 | 100 | 82.7 | 98.7 | 98.7 | 96 | 30.7 | 82.7 | 68 | 9.3 | 89.3 | 81.3 | 42 |
| Average | 97.7 | 88.8 | 84.4 | 88.0 | 80.8 | 92.9 | 54.6 | 72.9 | 60.8 | 35.7 | 69.4 | 82.6 | 61.4 | |||||
Percentage correct performance is by condition. Ages are in months. UI, underinformative (percentage of rejections).
Table S3.
| Language | Participants F | “All” | “None” | “Some” | “Most” | “Some…not” | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | F | True | False | True | False | True | False | UI | True | False | UI | True | False | UI | |
| Basque | 7 | 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 95.2 | 81 | 100 | 97.6 |
| Cantonese (Yue) | 10 | 9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 100 |
| Catalan | 20 | 17 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 100 | 90 | 100 | 73.3 | 100 | 100 | 69.2 | 98.3 | 91.7 | 78.3 |
| Croatian | 10 | 7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 100 | 98.3 | 83.3 | 100 | 98.3 |
| Cypriot Greek | 21 | 10 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96.8 | 96.8 | 96.8 | 94.4 | 100 | 98.4 | 90.5 | 95.2 | 98.4 | 94.4 |
| Danish | 10 | 5 | 100 | 96.7 | 96.7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 68.3 | 96.7 | 100 | 71.7 | 93.3 | 100 | 68.3 |
| Dutch | 8 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 62.5 | 100 | 95.8 | 52.1 | 95.8 | 100 | 66.7 |
| English | 17 | 10 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99 |
| Estonian | 21 | 14 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.2 | 100 | 100 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 100 | 92.9 |
| Finnish | 21 | 13 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 91.3 | 100 | 95.2 | 91.3 | 96.8 | 100 | 89.7 |
| French | 20 | 10 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 98.3 | 100 | 97.5 | 98.3 | 98.3 | 95 | 88.3 | 100 | 95 |
| Georgian | 14 | N/A | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 98.8 | 95.2 | 100 | 100 |
| German | 24 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 95.8 | 100 | 77.8 | 100 | 100 | 68.8 | 87.5 | 100 | 76.4 |
| Greek | 10 | 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 76.7 |
| Hebrew | 44 | 33 | 98.5 | 100 | 97.7 | 100 | 97.7 | 100 | 91.3 | 92.4 | 98.5 | 86.4 | 89.4 | 99.2 | 86.7 |
| Italian | 11 | 8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 90.9 | 100 | 100 | 81.8 | 100 | 100 | 95.5 |
| Japanese | 32 | N/A | 100 | 99.0 | 97.9 | 100 | 97.9 | 100 | 46.4 | 100 | 99.0 | 54.7 | 97.9 | 97.9 | 53.6 |
| Korean | 10 | 7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 71.7 | 100 | 100 | 78.3 | 96.7 | 100 | 71.7 |
| Lithuanian | 23 | 13 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 97.1 | 100 | 100 | 97.8 | 100 | 100 | 95.7 |
| Malay | 10 | 5 | 100 | 96.7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 48.3 | 93.3 | 83.3 | 23.3 | 96.7 | 100 | 53.3 |
| Maltese | 24 | 9 | 100 | 100 | 91.7 | 97.2 | 100 | 100 | 77.1 | 100 | 91.7 | 88.9 | 100 | 98.6 | 81.9 |
| Mandarin | 10 | 6 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 96.7 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 100 | 93.3 | 93.3 | 83.3 | 100 | 90.0 |
| Norwegian | 25 | 18 | 100 | 100 | 96 | 98.7 | 100 | 100 | 81.3 | 100 | 100 | 81.3 | 98.7 | 98.7 | 84 |
| Polish | 21 | 14 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 85.7 | 100 | 100 | 81 | 98.4 | 100 | 84.9 |
| Russian | 26 | 14 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Serbian | 25 | 25 | 98.7 | 96 | 65.3 | 98.7 | 100 | 98.7 | 54.7 | 97.3 | 97.3 | 60.7 | 100 | 98.7 | 55.3 |
| Slovak | 25 | 14 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.3 | 100 | 100 | 97.3 | 97.3 | 100 | 93.3 |
| Spanish | 6 | 6 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 94.4 | 100 | 80.6 | 88.9 | 100 | 97.2 | 100 | 100 | 91.7 |
| Tamil | 10 | 9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 100 | 93.3 | 91.7 | 93.3 | 90.0 | 78.3 | 96.7 | 96.7 | 93.3 |
| Turkish | 11 | 6 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 95.5 | 100 | 93.9 | 93.9 | 100 | 100 | 95.5 |
| Urdu | 10 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Average | 99.8 | 99.6 | 97.3 | 99.5 | 98.9 | 99.7 | 85.0 | 98.7 | 98.1 | 83.7 | 95.8 | 99.1 | 84.9 | ||
Percentage correct performance is by condition. N/A, not applicable; UI, underinformative (percentage of rejections).
Across all languages and expressions, child responses were, on average, 82% correct in the true or false conditions, and 51% of responses in underinformative conditions were rejections. Starting with constraint 1 (monotonicity), we first report child performance with each of the monotone increasing quantifiers in the dataset (“all” and “some”) compared with the performance with each of the monotone decreasing quantifiers (“none” and “some…not”). Performance with “all” was numerically higher than that with “none”—the monotone decreasing quantifier that is matched with “all” for totality—in 29 of 31 languages. The exception was Korean (we consider exceptions those languages in which the numerical difference was the opposite of the one expected), while there was no numerical difference in English. Turning to “all” and “some…not”—the monotone decreasing expression that is not matched to “all” for totality—children performed better with “all” in 30 of 31 languages, with no differences in Georgian.
In 28 of 31 languages, children performed better with monotone increasing “some” compared with “some…not,” the monotone decreasing quantifier that is matched for totality (Catalan was an exception, with no difference in English and Georgian). Children performed better with “some” than with “none” in 15 of 31 languages (the exceptions being Cantonese, Catalan, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Japanese, Polish, Serbian, Slovak, and Turkish; no differences in Cypriot Greek and Georgian).
Overall, when keeping the setting of totality constant (that is, comparing the two totality quantifiers, “all” and “none,” with each other and comparing the two partiality quantifiers, “some” to “some…not,” with each other), the monotone increasing quantifiers give rise to better performance than the corresponding monotone decreasing ones in 27 of 31 languages (Catalan, English, Georgian, and Korean being exceptions).
Turning to totality, performance with “all” was higher than that with “some” (which is the quantifier with the same setting of monotonicity) in 26 of 31 languages (with Korean, Malay, Maltese, and Russian as exceptions and no differences in Georgian). Children performed higher with “all” than with “some…not” (which is the quantifier with a different value for monotonicity) in 30 of 31 languages, with no differences in Georgian.
Performance with “none” was higher than with “some…not,” which is matched for monotonicity, in 29 of 31 languages (with Tamil as the exception and no differences in Georgian) and higher with “none” than with “some,” which has a different setting for monotonicity, in 14 of 31 languages.
Overall, when keeping monotonicity stable, totality quantifiers “all” and “none” give rise to better performance than the corresponding partiality ones (“some” and “some…not,” respectively) in 25 of 31 languages (Georgian, Korean, Malay, Maltese, Russian, and Tamil being exceptions). Visual inspection of Table 1 shows that the order predicted by constraints 1 and 2 is, indeed, upheld, with “all” being the easiest quantifier for 5-y-old children across the languages in our sample and “some…not” being the hardest. The two constraints have relatively equal weight, with no consistent order of acquisition between “some” and “none.”
Table 1.
| Quantifier | “All” >> | “Some” >> | “None” >> | “Some…not” >> |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Languages (of 31) | ||||
| “All” | — | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| “Some” | 26 | — | 14 | 3 |
| “None” | 29 | 15 | — | 2 |
| “Some…not” | 30 | 28 | 29 | — |
| Language types (of 11) | ||||
| “All” | — | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| “Some” | 7 | — | 5 | 1 |
| “None” | 10 | 5 | — | 1 |
| “Some…not” | 10 | 10 | 9 | — |
Multivariate analyses were also performed. The analyses revealed main effects of language, monotonicity, and totality along with higher performance when the correct answer was rejection. A small effect of gender (boys outperforming girls) was also obtained, but we found no significant effect of age (Table S4).
Table S4.
| Variable | Estimate | SE | χ2 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantifier (monotone increasing/decreasing) | 0.310 | 0.021 | 208.8 | <0.001 |
| Quantifier (totality/partiality) | 0.390 | 0.022 | 325.2 | <0.001 |
| Age (mo) | −0.004 | 0.0075 | 0.3 | 0.583 |
| Gender (male/female) | 0.0496 | 0.0214 | 5.34 | 0.0208 |
| Response type (accept/reject) | 0.317 | 0.0215 | 218.46 | <0.001 |
| Language | — | — | 3,773.6 | <0.001 |
Logistic mixed model of effects of quantifier type for “all,” “none,” “some,” and “some…not” (monotone increasing/decreasing and totality/partiality) by language. Language was encoded as 31 levels of a separate variable (df = 30); Cantonese was coded as zero. Estimates range from −2.95 (English) to 2.42 (Japanese); 24 languages exhibit P < 0.05, of which 8 have positive coefficient estimates. Significant preferences are shown for monotone increasing over monotone decreasing and totality over partiality quantifiers as well as rejections over acceptances. Performance is higher for male participants. There is no significant effect of age.
We also conducted parallel analyses using language genus (n = 15) and language type (n = 11; family or isolate) in place of individual languages along with analyses without any language variable at all. The analyses returned a significant effect of language genus and type, but in all cases, model comparison using the Akaike Information Criterion (35) revealed that the inclusion of any one of the language variables resulted in the model being overfitted compared with a model with no language variables (hence, that the inclusion of language, genus, or type in the model was not statistically justified). Likewise, models positing an interaction of monotonicity or totality with the language variables were overfitted. Therefore, the data are most appropriately modeled by positing effects of monotonicity and totality but no effect of language, regardless of whether at the level of each individual language, genus, or type. Put another way, children were more successful with the acquisition of quantifiers in some languages compared with others, but the main effects on the order of acquisition that we hypothesized (monotonicity and totality) were upheld in the dataset, regardless of the specific language (or language genus or type) that the children were learning.
Turning to constraint 3, the hypothesis that “some” would be mastered earlier than “most” on account of its semantic simplicity was borne out numerically in all 31 languages in our sample. The effect of complexity was corroborated through multivariate analyses as with constraints 1 and 2. Model comparison indicated that models that included language, genus, or type (or an interaction of complexity by language, genus, or type) were overfitted by comparison with models that did not. A small effect of gender (boys outperforming girls) was obtained, but there was no significant effect of age. Details are in Table S5.
Table S5.
| Variable | Estimate | SE | χ2 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantifier complexity | 0.356 | 0.029 | 149.5 | <0.001 |
| Age (mo) | 0.0018 | 0.009 | 0.04 | 0.841 |
| Gender (male/female) | 0.0631 | 0.026 | 5.97 | 0.015 |
| Response type (accept/reject) | 0.320 | 0.026 | 154.8 | <0.001 |
| Language | — | — | 1,120.4 | <0.001 |
Logistic mixed model of effects of quantifier complexity (“some” vs. “most”) by language. Language was encoded as 31 levels of a separate variable (df = 30); Cantonese was coded as zero. Estimates range from −2.32 (Russian) to 1.81 (Japanese); 19 languages exhibit P < 0.05, of which 6 have positive coefficient estimates. There is a significant preference for simple over complex quantifiers. There is a preference for acceptances over rejections. Performance is higher for male participants but does not vary significantly with age in this analysis.
Finally, we consider constraint 4 (underinformative uses of “some,” “most,” and “some…not”). Compared with the false statements with the same expression, children rejected underinformative uses less often in all 31 languages. Looking at each expression on its own, underinformative “some” was rejected less often than false “some” in every language. This preference held for “some…not” in 25 of 31 languages (the exceptions being Croatian, Hebrew, Malay, Maltese, Mandarin, and Tamil) and “most” in 24 of 31 languages (the exceptions being Danish, English, Finnish, French, Norwegian, Polish, and Slovak) (Table 2).
Table 2.
| “Some” | “Some…not” | “Most” | All three | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Languages (of 31) | ||||
| False >> UI | 31 | 25 | 24 | 31 |
| Language types (of 11) | ||||
| False >> UI | 11 | 8 | 10 | 11 |
UI, underinformative.
For constraint 4, we also discuss the adult data, because the adults rejected underinformative statements more frequently than children did (84% compared with 51%, respectively); however, they did not reach the ceiling. Looking at all three quantifiers, adults rejected underinformative uses less often than false ones in 28 of 31 languages. Cantonese was an exception because of two erroneous responses among false statements and ceiling performance in the underinformative conditions. Russian and Urdu showed no differences, with both false and rejected underinformative conditions being at the ceiling in both languages. Furthermore, constraint 4 held in 25 of 31 languages for the case of “some” (with Basque, Croatian, Cantonese, Georgian, Russian, and Urdu showing no differences), 27 of 31 languages for “some…not” (with Cantonese as an exception and Georgian, Russian, and Urdu showing no differences), and 25 of 31 for “most” (with Cantonese as an exception and English, Mandarin, Russian, Turkish, and Urdu showing no differences). Therefore, not only do the child data support constraint 4, the adult data do as well.
We performed multivariate analyses for each of the quantifiers “some,” “some…not,” and “most” for the child data. In each case, highly significant main effects of language and informativeness were shown, with underinformative statements being rejected less often than false ones. No effects of gender or age were obtained (Table S6). Model comparison again suggested that models including language, genus, or type or their interactions with informativeness were overfitted.
Table S6.
| Variable | Estimate | SE | χ2 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Some” | ||||
| Informativeness | −0.374 | 0.031 | 145.4 | <0.001 |
| Age (mo) | 0.0046 | 0.0099 | 0.22 | 0.641 |
| Gender (male/female) | 0.031 | 0.028 | 1.19 | 0.275 |
| Language | — | — | 762.2 | <0.001 |
| “Most” | ||||
| Informativeness | −0.198 | 0.027 | 54.9 | <0.001 |
| Age (mo) | 0.0043 | 0.0089 | 0.23 | 0.632 |
| Gender (male/female) | 0.0024 | 0.026 | 0.01 | 0.924 |
| Language | — | — | 482.2 | <0.001 |
| “Some…not” | ||||
| Informativeness | −0.226 | 0.297 | 58.1 | <0.001 |
| Age (mo) | 0.015 | 0.0097 | 2.28 | 0.131 |
| Gender (male/female) | 0.031 | 0.028 | 1.26 | 0.262 |
| Language | — | — | 774.3 | <0.001 |
Logistic mixed model of effects of informativeness by language for “some,” “most,” and “some…not.” Language was encoded as 31 levels of a separate variable (df = 30); Urdu was coded as zero. For “some,” estimates range from −2.21 (Russian) to 2.41 (Georgian); 21 languages have P < 0.05, of which 10 have positive coefficients. For “most,” estimates range from −1.81 (Korean) to 1.33 (Georgian); 15 have P < 0.05, of which 7 have positive coefficients. For “some…not,” estimates range from −2.46 (Russian) to 2.40 (Georgian); 18 have P < 0.05, of which 7 have positive coefficients. Informativeness is significantly preferred throughout, and there is no significant effect of gender or age.
The analyses for constraints 1–4 for the child data can be supplemented by comparisons with what would be expected if performances were guided by chance. Everything else being equal, 27 of 31 languages accorded with monotonicity (Catalan, English, Georgian, and Korean being exceptions), 25 of 31 languages accorded with totality (Georgian, Korean, Malay, Maltese, Russian, and Tamil being exceptions), and all 31 accorded with complexity and informativeness for all quantifiers. Each of these patterns is more consistent than if the distribution was random (P < 0.01 by the sign test) (Figs. S1 and S2).
Fig. S1.
Fig. S2.
Having shown our effects of interest and further documented that there is variability between languages, we then explored whether this latter variability is explicable by other linguistic factors or features of the learners in our sample. Exploratory analyses suggest that attending formal school at the time of testing was a significant facilitating factor (P < 0.001) along with learning languages that use negative concord (P < 0.001) and learning expressions with a partitive marker in the case of “some” (P < 0.05). Because our language sample is not balanced with respect to these properties, we do not draw firm conclusions here.
Discussion
The descriptive reports and the statistical modeling analyses suggest that our hypothesized constraints 1–4 are valid generalizations about the order of acquisition of quantifiers across the languages in our sample. These constraints were posited on the basis of generalizations made in previous research in single languages (14–16, 26, 27), and these findings confirm their relevance to acquisition more widely. However, additional research is required to elucidate their nature and produce theoretical models from which they would follow. For example, constraint 1 (monotonicity) is closely related to negation (29) in that all negative quantifiers are monotone decreasing but not vice versa. Because both monotone decreasing expressions in our sample (“none” and “some…not”) contain negation, additional work could reveal whether the effects that we obtained here are because of monotonicity, negation, or both.
With regards to the exceptions in our sample, an important question is whether there was systematicity among the languages that did not conform to the hypothesized constraints. Two observations suggest that this is not the case. First, no language or language type violated more than one constraint, except Georgian, which violated two. Second, in Georgian (as well as in other languages), the violations were evidenced in cases of ceiling performance.
This observation leads to the issue of generalizability of the patterns in other languages and for other quantifiers. Our sample consists of representatives of 11 language types. Although there is an overrepresentation of Indo-European languages in our sample, the diversity of distinct language types in our sample is squarely within the range used for state of the art comparative linguistic (24) and psycholinguistic research (22). Of course, extrapolating from patterns observed in this sample to universal patterns should always be done with caution and as a working hypothesis only.
Similar considerations apply when extrapolating to quantifiers not tested here. For example, many languages have more than one universal quantifier, including the English equivalent of an each quantifier that is used for distributive quantification (ref. 36 reports eight different universal quantifiers in Malagasy that differ on the dimension of “distributivity”). The prediction is that the effects that we obtained here should hold as long as the appropriate considerations are taken into account. Turning to the case of each, monotonicity and totality should facilitate its acquisition across different languages, but distributivity itself may be an additional important—facilitating or hindering—factor.
In terms of explaining the cross-linguistic variation, where the acquisition of quantifiers was more successful in some languages compared with others, exploratory analyses found that language-specific features, such as using negative concord and partitive markers, had a facilitating effect. We hypothesize that negative concord may serve to better highlight that a quantifier is negative and additionally, highlight the contrast between negative and positive quantifiers. Partitives highlight that these expressions are related to parts of sets. Cross-linguistic variation may also be caused by linguistic factors that we did not model in our analyses (e.g., agreement, the number of competing expressions, and the overlap of their meaning). Clearly, additional research on this topic is needed.
Exploratory analyses also revealed an effect of attending school at time of testing. We do not believe that the effect is related to explicit instruction about quantifiers, because all of the teachers and caregivers of the children who we recruited reported that quantifiers were not part of the curriculum or any extracurricular activity. Instead, we hypothesize that attending school raises the children’s readiness for activities of the kind that we administered. We also found that age was not a significant predictor of success. We believe that this was because of the restricted age range that was part of the selection criteria (5.00–5.11 y old).
Our analyses also found a gender effect, whereby boys in this study outperformed girls in the acquisition of the true or false meaning of the quantifiers (Tables S4 and S5), but there were no differences when it came to informativeness (Table S6). Linguistic skills are generally more advanced among girls than among boys (37, 38). An investigation of over 13,000 children in 10 European linguistic communities suggests that these advantages are robust across different languages (38), although the level of overall linguistic attainment differed. Research on gender and mathematical competence suggests that there are widespread similarities between boys and girls (39). Nevertheless, a specific and small advantage is reported for boys for mathematical reasoning, perhaps reflecting higher aptitude with logical and set theoretical concepts (39). Conversely, an advantage specific to arithmetic is reported for girls, which seems to be attributable to the girls’ higher verbal skills that are implicated in arithmetical processing (40).
To the extent that these gender differences are robust, the language of quantification brings them into competition. Girls in our sample may have benefitted from an overall advantage in language skills as well as in arithmetic and counting, whereas boys may have benefitted from an advantage with set theoretical concepts, with the latter being more critical for the specific task than the former. We should note that our analyses for gender effects were exploratory and that future studies should take into account several potentially confounding factors (40).
Before we conclude, we need to address an alternative interpretation of the findings. That is, perhaps the patterns obtained here reflect competence with counting and checking the objects that need to be verified as belonging to a set (rather than competence with the meaning of a quantifier). We can reject this interpretation for two reasons. First, counting and verifying sets with up to five members, the maximum required in this task, were parts of the selection criteria (Methods). Moreover, increased demands on counting and verification complexity do not make correct predictions in this dataset. To take but one example, consider “none” and “some…not.” When “some…not” is true (that is, when two of five objects are in the boxes) in a random selection checking procedure given five objects, “some…not” requires checking the position of 1.5 objects, on average, against the boxes. When false (that is, five of five objects are in the boxes), “some…not” requires checking the position of five objects. For “none,” this requirement is five objects when “none” is true (and five of five objects are outside the boxes) and two objects when “none” is false (when two of five objects are in the boxes). In sum, to give the correct response to “some…not” in true and false conditions, participants need to check 6.5 objects, on average, against the boxes, and for “none,” they need to check seven objects. If it were the case that counting and verification complexity were primarily responsible for performance, “some…not” should be easier than “none.” At the very least, there should be no major difference. However, “none” is easier than “some…not” in 29 of 31 languages and 9 of 11 types as predicted by constraint 2 (totality). Of course, verification and counting are important components of success with tasks like our task, and additional research could identify their role for younger children to determine which specific verification strategy is implemented for each quantifier (26, 41).
Conclusion
In this paper, we investigated the order of acquisition of five common quantifiers and hypothesized four cross-linguistic constraints on their acquisition based on considerations of their meaning and use. A cross-linguistically similar order of acquisition emerged in a sample of 31 languages. This order accorded with the constraints that we posited, supporting the claim that they are potential universals in the acquisition of quantification. This claim is in line with recent proposals favoring the existence of extensive cross-linguistic similarities in language meaning and use (22, 42). However, we also found that language-specific features, such as whether a language uses negative concord, have a significant effect on the learners’ performance along with social and biological factors.
Methods
Tables S2 and S3 show details of child and adult participants per language. The actual quantifiers used in each language were selected by researchers who were native speakers of that language. Where more than one lexical item was available, the choice was guided by considering which item would be most familiar to children. Where possible, this decision was informed by investigating corpora of child-directed speech; in other cases, researchers consulted colleagues and/or school teachers. Table S7 shows materials and glosses.
Table S7.
| Language | “All” | “None” | “Some” | “Some…not” | “Most” |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | All of the apples are in the boxes | None of the apples are in the boxes | Some of the apples are in the boxes | Some of the apples are not in the boxes | Most of the apples are in the boxes |
| Basque | Sagar guztiak kutxetan daude | Sagar bat ere ez dago kutxetan | Sagar batzuk kutxetan daude | Sagar batzuk ez daude kutxetan | Sagar gehienak kutxetan daude |
| Apple all-pl. box-pl-in are-3pl. | Apple one either not is-3sg. box-pl-in | Apple some-pl. box-pl-in are-3pl. | Apple some-pl. not are-3pl. box-pl-in | Apple most-pl. box-pl-in are-3pl. | |
| Cantonese (Yue) | Só yáuh pìhng gwó dōu haí (saai) dī háp léuih mihn | Mou yāt go pìhng gwó haí dī háp léuih mihn | Yáuh dī pìhng gwó haí dī háp léuih mihn | Yáuh dī pìhng gwó m haí dī háp léuih mihn | Daaih bouh fahn pìhng gwó haí dī háp léuih mihn |
| All apple also in quantifying-particle classifier-pl. boxes place-word | No one classifier apple in classifier-pl. boxes place-word | Have classifier-pl. apple in classifier-pl. boxes place-word | Have classifier-pl. apple not in classifier-pl. boxes place-word | A large part apple in classifier-pl. boxes place-word | |
| Catalan | Totes les pomes són a les capses | Cap de les pomes no és a les capses | Unes quantes pomes són a les capses | Unes quantes pomes no són a les capses | La majoria de les pomes són a les capses |
| All-fem.pl. the-fem.pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | None of the-fem.pl. apples-pl. not is-3sg. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | IndefArt-fem.pl. some-fem.pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | IndefArt-fem.pl. some-fem.pl. not are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | The-fem. majority of the-fem.pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | |
| Croatian | Sve jabuke su u kutijama. | Niti jedna jabuka nije u kutijama. | Neke jabuke su u kutijama. | Neke jabuke nisu u kutijama. | Većina jabuka je u kutijama. |
| All-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. are-3pl. in-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | Not one-fem.sg. apple-fem.sg. not is-3sg. in-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | Some-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. are-3pl. in-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | Some-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. not are-3pl. in-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | Most-fem.sg. apples-fem.pl. are-3pl. in-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | |
| Danish | Alle æblerne er i kasserne | Ingen af æblerne er i kasserne | Nogle af æblerne er i kasserne | Nogle af æblerne er ikke i kasserne | De fleste af æblerne er i kasserne |
| All-neut.pl. apples-.pl.-the are-3pl. in boxes-pl.-the | None of apples-pl.-the are-3pl. in boxes-pl.-the | Some-neut.pl. of apples-pl.-the are-3pl. in boxes-pl.-the | Some-neu.pl. of apples-pl.-the are-3pl. not in boxes-pl.-the | They-pron.3pl. most-pl. of apples-pl.-the are-3pl. in boxes-pl.-the | |
| Dutch | Alle appels liggen in de dozen | Geen appel ligt in de dozen | Sommige appels liggen in de dozen | Sommige appels liggen niet in de dozen | De meeste appels liggen in de dozen |
| All apples-pl. lie-pl. in the boxes-pl. | None apple-sg. lies-3sg. in the boxes-pl. | Some apples-pl. lie-pl. in the boxes-pl. | Some apples-pl. lie-pl. not in the boxes-pl. | The most apples-pl. lie-pl. in the boxes-pl. | |
| Estonian | Kõik õunad on kastides | Ükski õun ei ole kastides | Mõned õunad on kastides | Mõned õunad ei ole kastides | Enamik õunu on kastides |
| All apples-pl. be-3 boxes-pl. | None apple-sg. not be-3.neg. boxes-pl. | Some-pl. apples-pl. be-3 boxes-pl. | Some-pl. apples-pl. not be-3.neg. boxes-pl. | Most apples-pl. be-3 boxes-pl. | |
| Finnish | Kaikki omenat ovat laatikoissa | Yhtään omenaa ei ole laatikoissa | Jotkut omenoista ovat laatikoissa | Jotkut omenoista eivät ole laatikoissa | Useimmat omenoista ovat laatikoissa |
| All-pl. the apples-pl. are-3pl. in the boxes-pl. | None-sg.(neg.) the apples not are-neg.3sg. in the boxes-pl. | Some-pl. of the apples-pl. are-3pl. in the boxes-pl. | Some-pl of the apples-pl. not are-neg.3pl. in the boxes-pl. | Most-pl. of the apples-pl. are-3pl. in the boxes-pl. | |
| French | Toutes les pommes sont dans les boîtes | Aucune pomme n'est dans les boîtes | Quelques pommes sont dans les boîtes | Quelques pommes ne sont pas dans les boîtes | La plupart des pommes sont dans les boîtes |
| All-fem.pl. the-pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | None-fem. apple-sg. not(1) is-3sg. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | Some-pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | Some-pl. apples-pl. not(1) are-3pl. not(2) in the-pl. boxes-pl. | The-fem. most of-the apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | |
| Georgian | kvela vashli kutebshia | arts erti vashli ar aris kutebshi | zogi vashli aris kutebshi | zogi vashli ar aris kutebshi | umetesoba vashlebisa aris kutebshi |
| All-nom.neut.sing. apple-nom.neut.sing. boxes-in-dat.neut.pl.-is-3sg. | None-nom.neut.sing. apple-nom.neut.sing. not is-3sg. boxes-in-nom.neut.pl. | Some-nom.neut.sing. apple-nom.neut.sing. is-3sg. boxes-in-dat.neut.pl. | Some-nom.neut.sing. apple-nom.neut.sing. not is-3sg. boxes-in-dat.neut.pl. | Most-nom.neut.pl. apple-gen.neut.pl. is-3sg. boxes-in-dat.neut.pl. | |
| German | Alle Äpfel sind in den Kästen. | Keiner von den Äpfeln ist in den Kästen. | Ein paar von den Äpfeln sind in den Kästen. | Ein paar von den Äpfeln sind nicht in den Kästen. | Die meisten von den Äpfeln sind in den Kästen. |
| All apples-pl are-3pl. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | None-masc. of the-pl. apples-pl. is-3sg. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | A few of the-pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | A few of the-pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. not in the-pl. boxes-pl. | The-pl. most-pl. of the-pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-pl. boxes-pl. | |
| (Standard) Greek | Ola ta mila ine mesa sta kutja | Kanena apo ta mila den ine mesa sta kutja | Merika apo ta mila ine mesa sta kutja | Merika apo ta mila den ine mesa sta kutja | Ta perisotera mila ine mesa sta kutja |
| All-neuter.pl. the-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. are-3pl. in to-the-neuter.pl. boxes-neuter.pl. | None-neuter.pl. of the-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. not is-3sg. in to-the-neuter.pl. boxes-neuter.pl. | Some-neuter.pl. of the-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. are-3pl. in to-the-neuter.pl. boxes-neuter.pl. | Some-neuter.pl. of the-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. not are-3pl. in to-the-neuter.pl. boxes-neuter.pl. | The-neuter.pl. most-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. are-3pl. in to-the-neuter.pl. boxes-neuter.pl. | |
| Hebrew | kol ha-tapuxim be-tox ha-misgarot | af exad me-ha-tapuxim lo be-tox ha-misgarot | xelek me-ha-tapuxim be-tox ha-misgarot | xelek me-ha-tapuxim lo be-tox ha-misgarot | rov ha-tapuxim be-tox ha-misgarot |
| All of the-apples-masc.pl. inside the-frames-fem.pl. | No one of-the-apples-masc.pl. not inside the-frames-fem.pl. | Some of-the-apples-masc.pl. inside the-frames-fem.pl. | Some of-the-apples-masc.pl. not inside the-frames-fem.pl. | Most the-apples-masc.pl. inside the-frames.fem.pl. | |
| Italian | Tutte le mele sono nelle scatole | Nessuna delle mele è nelle scatole | Alcune delle mele sono nelle scatole | Alcune delle mele non sono nelle scatole | la maggior parte delle mele sono nelle scatole |
| All-fem.pl the-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. are-3pl. in-the-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | None-fem.sg. of-the-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl is-3sg. in-the-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | Some-fem.pl. of-the-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl are-3pl. in-the-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | Some-fem.pl. of-the-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. not are-3pl. in-the-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | The-fem.sg. most-fem.sg. part-fem.sg. of-the-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. are-3pl. in-the-fem.pl. boxes-fem.pl. | |
| Japanese | Ringo-ga zembu hako-ni haitte-iru-yo | Ringo-ga hitotumo hako-ni haitte-i-nai-yo | Ringo-ga ikutuka hako-ni haitte-iru-yo | Ringo-ga ikutuka hako-ni haitte-i-nai-yo | Ringo-ga hotondo hako-ni haitte-iru-yo |
| Apple-nom. all box-loc. is-inside-progressive.affirmation | Apple-nom. none box-loc. is-inside-progressive.neg.affirmation | Apple-nom. some box-loc. is-inside-progressive.affirmation | Apple-nom. some box-loc. is-inside-progressive.neg.affirmation | Apple-nom. most box-loc. is-inside-progressive.affirmation | |
| Korean | modeun sagwa-ga sangja an-e iss-eoyo | modeun sagwa-ga sangja an-e it-ji anh-ayo | myeotgae-ui sagwa-ga sangja an-e iss-eoyo | myeotgae-ui sagwa-ga sangja an-e it-ji anh-ayo | daebubun-ui sagwa-ga sangja an-e iss-eoyo |
| all apple-nom. box in-loc. is-dec.(nar.) | all apple-nom. box in-loc. is-neg. not-dec.(nar.) | some-partitive apple-nom. box in-loc. is-dec.(nar.) | some-partitive apple-nom. box in-loc. is-neg. not-dec.(nar.) | most-partitive apple-nom. box in-loc. is-dec.(nar.) | |
| Lithuanian | Visi obuoliai yra dėžėse | Nė vieno obuolio nėra dėžėje | Kai kurie obuoliai yra dėžėse | Kai kurių obuolių nėra dėžėse | Dauguma obuolių yra dėžėse |
| All-masc.pl apples-masc.pl. are-3 boxes-fem.pl. | None-masc.sg. apple-masc.sg. are-not-3 box-fem.sg. | Some-masc.pl. apples-masc.pl. are-3 boxes-fem.pl. | Some-masc.pl. apples-masc.pl. are-not-3 boxes-fem.pl. | Most-fem.sg. apples-masc.pl. are-3 boxes-fem.pl. | |
| Malay | Semua epal ada dalam kotak | Tidak ada epal dalam kotak | Beberapa epal ada dalam kotak | Beberapa epal tidak ada dalam kotak | Banyak epal ada dalam kotak |
| All-nom.neut.pl. apples-acc.neut.pl. have-vb.neut.pl. in-acc.neut. boxes-acc.neut.pl. | Not-have-vb.sg. apple-acc.neut.sg. in-acc.neut. boxes-acc.neut.pl. | Some-nom.neut.pl. apples-acc.neut.pl. have-vb.neut.pl. in-acc.neut. boxes-acc.neut.pl. | Some-nom.neut.pl. apples-acc.neut.pl. not-have-vb.neut.pl. in-acc.neut. boxes-acc.neut.pl. | Most-nom.neut.pl. apples-acc.neut.pl. have-vb.neut.pl. in-acc.neut. boxes-acc.neut.pl. | |
| Maltese | It-tuffieħ kollu qiegħed fil-kaxex | l-ebda tuffieħa m'hi fil-kaxex | Xi tuffieħ qiegħed fil-kaxex | Xi tuffieħ mhux qiegħed fil-kaxex | Kważi t-tuffieħ kollu qiegħed fil-kaxex |
| The-apples-collective.masc.sg. all-masc.sg. located-pres.part.masc.sg. in the-boxes | The-none apple-fem.sg. not in the-boxes | Some apples-collective.masc.sg. located-pres.part.masc.sg. in the-boxes | Some apples-collective.masc.sg. not located-pres.part.masc.sg. in the-boxes | Almost the-apples-collective.masc.sg. all-masc.sg. located-pres.part.masc.sg. in the-boxes | |
| Mandarin | Quán bù píng guǒ dōu zài xiāng zi lǐ miàn | Méi yǒu píng guǒ zài xiāng zi lǐ miàn | Yǒu yì xiē píng guǒ zài xiāng zi lǐ miàn | Yǒu yì xiē píng guǒ bù zài xiāng zi lǐ miàn | Dà bù fèn píng guǒ dōu zài xiāng zi lǐ miàn |
| All apple(s) are-already-in box(es) inside | Not-have apple(s) in box(es) inside | Have some apple(s) in box(es) inside | Have some apple(s) not in box(es) inside | Most apple(s) are-already-in box(es) inside | |
| Norwegian | Alle eplene er i boksene | Ingen av eplene er i boksene | Noen av eplene er i boksene | Noen av eplene er ikke i boksene | De fleste av eplene er i boksene |
| All-neuter.pl. apple-neuter-the-pl. are in box-masc.-the-pl. | None-neuter.pl. of apple-neuter-the-pl. are. in boxes-masc.-the-pl. | Some-neuter.pl. of apples-neuter-the-pl. are. in boxes-masc.-the-pl. | Some-neuter.pl. of apple-neuter-the-pl. are not in boxes-masc.-the-pl. | The-pl. most-neuter.pl. of apples-neuter-the-pl. are in boxes-masc.-the-pl. | |
| Polish | Wszystkie jabłka są w okienkach | Żadne jabłko nie jest w okienku | Niektóre jabłka są w okienkach | Niektóre jabłka nie są w okienkach | Większość jabłek jest w okienkach |
| All-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. are-3pl. in boxes-neuter.pl. | None-neuter.pl. apple-neuter.sing. not is-3sg. in boxes-neuter.sg. | Some-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. are-3pl. in boxes-neuter.pl. | Some-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. not are-3pl. in boxes-neuter.pl. | Most-fem.pl. apples-neuter.pl. is-3sg. in boxes-neuter.pl. | |
| Russian | Vse jabloki v kvadratikah | Ni odnogo jabloka net v kvadratikah | Nekotoryje jabloki v kvadratikah | Nekotoryje jabloki ne v kvadratikah | Bol’šinstvo jablok v kvadratikah |
| All-pl. apples-neuter.pl. in boxes-masc.pl. | No one-sg. apple-neuter.sg. not-is-3sg. in boxes-masc.pl. | Some-pl. apples-neuter.pl. in boxes-masc.pl. | Some-pl. apples-neuter.pl. not in boxes-masc.pl. | Most-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. in boxes-masc.pl. | |
| Serbian | Sve jabuke su u kutijama | Nijedna jabuka nije u kutiji | Neke jabuke su u kutijama | Neke jabuke nisu u kutijama | Većina jabuka je u kutijama |
| All-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. are-3pl. in boxes-fem.pl. | None-fem.sg. apple-fem.sg. not-is-3sg. in box-fem.sg. | Some-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. are-3pl. in boxes-fem.pl. | Some-fem.pl. apples-fem.pl. not-are-3pl. in boxes-fem.pl. | Most-fem.sg. apples-fem.pl. is-3sg. in boxes-fem.pl. | |
| Slovak | Všetky jablká sú v okienkach | Žiadne z jabĺk nie sú v okienkach | Niekol'ké z jabĺk sú v okienkach | Niekol'ké z jabĺk nie sú v okienkach | Väčšina z jabĺk je v okienkach |
| All-neuter.pl. apples-neuter.pl. are-3pl. in boxes-neuter.pl. | None-neuter.pl. of apples-neuter.pl. not are-3pl. in boxes-neuter.pl. | Some-neuter.pl. of apples-neuter.pl. are-3pl. in boxes-neuter.pl. | Some-neuter.pl. of apples-neuter.pl. not are-3pl. in boxes-neuter.pl. | Most-fem.sg. of apples-neuter.pl. is-3sg in the boxes-neuter.pl. | |
| Spanish | Todas las manzanas están en las cajas | Ninguna de las manzanas está en las cajas | Algunas manzanas están en las cajas | Algunas manzanas no están en las cajas | La mayoría de las manzanas están en las cajas |
| All-fem.pl. the-fem.pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | None-fem. of the-fem.pl. apples-pl. is-3sg. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | Some-fem.pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | Some-fem.pl. apples-pl. not are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | The-fem.sg. majority-sg. of the-fem.pl. apples-pl. are-3pl. in the-fem.pl. boxes-pl. | |
| Tamil | Yellaam aapilgalum pettigalil irukkirathu | Yenthe aapilgalum pettigalil illai | Sila aapilgal pettigalil irukkirathu | Sila aapilgal pettigalil illai | Niraiye aapilgal pettigalil irukkirathu |
| All apples boxes are | No apples boxes are-not | Some apples boxes are | Some apples boxes are-not | Most apples boxes are | |
| Turkish | Elmaların hepsi kutuda. | Elmaların hiçbiri kutuda değil. | Elma-lar-ın bir kısmı kutu-da. | Elmaların bir kısmı kutuda değil. | Elmaların bir çoğu kutuda. |
| Apples-pl. all-3sg.poss. box-sg. | Apple-pl. none-3sg.poss. box-sg. not | Apple-pl. a part-3sg.poss. box-sg. | Apple-pl. a part-3sg.poss. box-sg. not | Apple-pl. most-3sg.poss. box-sg. | |
| Urdu | saray saib daboon mein hein | koi saib daboon mein nahin hein | kuch saib daboon mein hein | kuch saib daboon mein nahin hein | ziada tar saib daboon mein hein |
| All apples-pl. boxes-pl. in are-3pl. | None apples-pl. boxes-pl. in. not are- 3pl. | Some apples-pl. boxes-pl. in are-3pl. | Some apples-pl. boxes-pl. in not are-3pl. | Most of apples-pl. boxes-pl. in are-3pl. |
Note that the Cypriot Greek items were identical to standard Greek but with Cypriot Greek pronunciation.
Informed consent for participation to the experiment was given by the adult participants and by the caregivers of the child participants. Children also assented to participating in the experiment. This research was approved by each researcher's institutional review board. Children were tested at nurseries or primary schools. Participants were administered the “cavegirl task,” which was designed to test the comprehension of quantified sentences (16). In this task, the cavegirl is asked to say, “How many toys are in the boxes” in visually presented situations. In each trial, the cavegirl produces a single utterance of the type, “[Quantifier] (of the) [objects] are (not) in the boxes.” Children are then asked to evaluate whether what the cavegirl said was right or wrong and if they say wrong, justify why. Two types of visual situations are used for each quantifier tested: one that renders an utterance with this quantifier true and informative and one that renders an utterance false. For “some,” “most,” and “some…not,” there is also a third type of display that renders an utterance true but pragmatically underinformative (where all of the objects are in the boxes for “some” and “most” and where none of the objects are in the boxes for “some…not”).
The task is preceded by a warmup session, where children are familiarized with the cavegirl, the task demands, and the pictures of the objects mentioned in the sentences. The first five items of the task test (the comprehension of number words one to five) ensure that children can make correct judgments about quantity when simple counting is involved. Children who did not perform correctly with all five number words did not continue with the main task. This criterion resulted in less than 5% of children not continuing. All justifications of rejections in the main task, whether correct or incorrect, mentioned a quantity-related word or deictic expression often combined with a spatial expression (e.g., “because these are out”), which suggests that children responded based on the appropriateness of the quantifier rather than some other aspect of the sentence. Ref. 16 has additional details of the task administration and a full list of items in their respective visual situations as well as sample visual displays.
Data Availability
Data deposition: The dataset is freely available at DSpace@Cambridge, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256762.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by European Cooperation in Science and Technology Action A33 “Cross-Linguistically Robust Stages of Children’s Linguistic Performance.” In addition, N.K., C.C., and I.N. were supported by the European Science Foundation Euro-XPrag Network; N.K., C.C., and N.S. were supported by the United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council XPrag-UK Network; N.K. was supported by United Kingdom British Academy Grant SG090676; A.G. was supported by Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad Project FFI2014-56968-C4-1; A.G. and K.K.G. were supported by University of Cyprus Project 8037-61017; K.J.d.L. and L.S. were supported by Danish Council for Independent Research (Humanities) Grant 09-063957; M. Vija and S.Z. were supported by Estonian Science Foundation Grant ETF7492 and Estonian Research Council Grant SF0180056s08; K.Y. and U.S. were supported by European Commission for Education and Culture Grant 135295-LLP-2007-UK-KA1SCR and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Grant 01UG0711; A.A. and J.v.K.T. were supported by a grant from the L. Meltzers Høyskolefond; E.H. and A.M. were supported by Grant 809/N-COST/2010/0 from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and National Science Centre; and D.A., M.S., and S.J. were supported by Grant ON179033 (2011-2014) from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information (PDF)
Supporting Information
- Download
- 1.58 MB
References
1
L Feigenson, S Dehaene, E Spelke, Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci 8, 307–314 (2004).
2
K Wynn, Children’s acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognit Psychol 24, 220–251 (1992).
3
J Sullivan, D Barner, Number words, quantifiers, and principles of word learning. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2, 639–645 (2011).
4
AM Leslie, R Gelman, CR Gallistel, The generative basis of natural number concepts. Trends Cogn Sci 12, 213–218 (2008).
5
ES Spelke, S Tsivkin, Language and number: A bilingual training study. Cognition 78, 45–88 (2001).
6
P Bloom, K Wynn, Linguistic cues in the acquisition of number words. J Child Lang 24, 511–533 (1997).
7
S Carey The Origin of Concepts (Oxford Univ Press, New York, 2009).
8
A Xanthos, et al., On the role of morphological richness in the early development of noun and verb inflection. First Lang 31, 461–479 (2011).
9
A Almoammer, et al., Grammatical morphology as a source of early number word meanings. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 18448–18453 (2013).
10
BW Sarnecka, VG Kamenskaya, Y Yamana, T Ogura, YB Yudovina, From grammatical number to exact numbers: Early meanings of ‘one’, ‘two’, and ‘three’ in English, Russian, and Japanese. Cognit Psychol 55, 136–168 (2007).
11
R Gelman, CR Gallistel The Child’s Understanding of Number (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978).
12
GB Saxe, Body parts as numerals: A developmental analysis of numeration among the Oksapmin in Papua New Guinea. Child Dev 52, 306–316 (1981).
13
D Barner, A Libenson, P Cheung, M Takasaki, Cross-linguistic relations between quantifiers and numerals in language acquisition: Evidence from Japanese. J Exp Child Psychol 103, 421–440 (2009).
14
C Hanlon The Development of Language and Language Researchers: Essays in Honor of Roger Brown, ed FS Kessel (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 65–78 (1988).
15
D Barner, K Chow, SJ Yang, Finding one’s meaning: A test of the relation between quantifiers and integers in language development. Cognit Psychol 58, 195–219 (2009).
16
N Katsos, CA Roqueta, RAC Estevan, C Cummins, Are children with Specific Language Impairment competent with the pragmatics and logic of quantification? Cognition 119, 43–57 (2011).
17
J Barwise, R Cooper, Generalized quantifiers in natural language. Linguist Philos 4, 159–219 (1981).
18
K von Fintel, L Matthewson, Universals in semantics. Linguist Rev 25, 139–201 (2008).
19
HP Grice Studies in the Way of Words (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA, 1975).
20
SC Levinson Presumptive Meanings (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000).
21
D Sperber, D Wilson Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Blackwell, Oxford, 1986/1995).
22
T Stivers, et al., Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 10587–10592 (2009).
23
EO Keenan Studies in Linguistic Variation, eds RW Fasold, RW Shuy (Georgetown Univ Press, Washington, DC), pp. 255–268 (1974).
24
, eds EL Keenan, D Paperno (Springer, Berlin Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language, 2012).
25
D Bonevac Logic: A History of Its Central Concepts, eds DM Gabbay, FJ Pelletier, J Woods (Elsevier, Oxford), pp. 63–126 (2012).
26
I Deschamps, G Agmon, Y Loewenstein, Y Grodzinsky, The processing of polar quantifiers, and numerosity perception. Cognition 143, 115–128 (2015).
27
N Pouscoulous, IA Noveck, G Politzer, A Bastide, A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Lang Acquis 14, 347–376 (2007).
28
B Geurts, N Katsos, C Cummins, J Moons, L Noordman, Scalar quantifiers: Logic, acquisition, and processing. Lang Cogn Process 25, 130–148 (2010).
29
LR Horn A Natural History of Negation (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989).
30
M Hackl, On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: Most versus more than half. Nat Lang Semantics 17, 63–98 (2009).
31
EL Keenan The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed S Lappin (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 41–64 (1996).
32
IA Noveck, When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78, 165–188 (2001).
33
MT Guasti, et al., Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Lang Cogn Process 20, 667–696 (2005).
34
MS Dryer, M Haspelmath, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig). Available at wals.info. Accessed October 9, 2014. (2013).
35
H Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 19, 716–723 (1974).
36
EL Keenan Quantification: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed L Matthewson (John Benjamins, Amsterdam), pp. 319–352 (2008).
37
DD Burman, T Bitan, JR Booth, Sex differences in neural processing of language among children. Neuropsychologia 46, 1349–1362 (2008).
38
M Eriksson, et al., Differences between girls and boys in emerging language skills: Evidence from 10 language communities. Br J Dev Psychol 30, 326–343 (2012).
39
JS Hyde, SM Lindberg, MC Linn, AB Ellis, CC Williams, Diversity. Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science 321, 494–495 (2008).
40
W Wei, et al., Gender differences in children’s arithmetic performance are accounted for by gender differences in language abilities. Psychol Sci 23, 320–330 (2012).
41
J Lidz, P Pietroski, T Hunter, J Halberda, Interface transparency and the psychosemantics of ‘most’. Nat Lang Semantics 19, 227–256 (2011).
42
SC Levinson, Turn-taking in human communication, origins, and implications for language processing. Trends Cogn Sci 20, 6–14 (2016).
Information & Authors
Information
Published in
Cover image: Pictured is an immunofluorescence micrograph of a murine mammary gland undergoing branching morphogenesis. Ramray Bhat et al. investigated mammary branching architecture and found that the galactoside-binding lectin galectin-1 (Gal-1; stained red) localized in the nuclei of migrating terminal end buds but exhibited extranuclear localization in ductal epithelia. The nuclear localization of Gal-1 was modulated by the extracellular glycan ligand, terminal N-acetyllactosamine (LacNAc; stained green), and the authors uncovered similar Gal-1 and LacNAc localization signatures in malignant breast epithelia. The results indicate a role for Gal-1 in mammary epithelial morphogenesis and may be relevant to breast cancer therapies. See the article by Bhat et al. on pages E4820–E4827. Image courtesy of Ramray Bhat and Mina J. Bissell.
Classifications
Data Availability
Data deposition: The dataset is freely available at DSpace@Cambridge, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256762.
Submission history
Published online: August 1, 2016
Published in issue: August 16, 2016
Keywords
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by European Cooperation in Science and Technology Action A33 “Cross-Linguistically Robust Stages of Children’s Linguistic Performance.” In addition, N.K., C.C., and I.N. were supported by the European Science Foundation Euro-XPrag Network; N.K., C.C., and N.S. were supported by the United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council XPrag-UK Network; N.K. was supported by United Kingdom British Academy Grant SG090676; A.G. was supported by Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad Project FFI2014-56968-C4-1; A.G. and K.K.G. were supported by University of Cyprus Project 8037-61017; K.J.d.L. and L.S. were supported by Danish Council for Independent Research (Humanities) Grant 09-063957; M. Vija and S.Z. were supported by Estonian Science Foundation Grant ETF7492 and Estonian Research Council Grant SF0180056s08; K.Y. and U.S. were supported by European Commission for Education and Culture Grant 135295-LLP-2007-UK-KA1SCR and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Grant 01UG0711; A.A. and J.v.K.T. were supported by a grant from the L. Meltzers Høyskolefond; E.H. and A.M. were supported by Grant 809/N-COST/2010/0 from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and National Science Centre; and D.A., M.S., and S.J. were supported by Grant ON179033 (2011-2014) from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development.
Notes
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citation statements
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite this article
113 (33) 9244-9249,
Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.
Cited by
Loading...
View Options
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
DOWNLOAD PDFLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginRecommend to a librarian
Recommend PNAS to a LibrarianPurchase options
Purchase this article to access the full text.