泛型是默认的吗?三个年龄组西班牙语个体的共性与共性解读研究

IF 1.5 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Learning and Development Pub Date : 2022-07-28 DOI:10.1080/15475441.2022.2071715
E. Castroviejo, José V. Hernández-Conde, Dimitra Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Marta Ponciano, Agustín Vicente
{"title":"泛型是默认的吗?三个年龄组西班牙语个体的共性与共性解读研究","authors":"E. Castroviejo, José V. Hernández-Conde, Dimitra Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Marta Ponciano, Agustín Vicente","doi":"10.1080/15475441.2022.2071715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper reports an experiment that investigates interpretive distinctions between two different expressions of generalization in Spanish. In particular, our aim was to find out when the distinction between generic statements (GS) such as Tigers have stripes and universally quantified statements (UQS) such as All tigers have stripes was acquired in Spanish-speaking children of two different age groups (4/5-year-olds and 8/9-year-olds), and then compare these results with those of adults. The starting point of this research was the semantic distinction between GS and UQS in that the former admit exceptions, unlike the latter. On the other hand, several authors have observed a Generic overgeneralization effect (GOG) consisting in allowing for UQS to be felicitous in the face of exceptions, thus proposing that this “error” stems from GS being defaults (simpler, more easily learned and processed). In the current paper we aimed to test the “Generics as Default” (GaD) hypothesis by comparing GS and UQS in three different age ranges. Our data show that, overall, the accuracy of GS is greater than the accuracy of UQS. Moreover, we also confirm a hypothesized interaction between age and NP type (GS vs UQS). Further, we present several data points that are not predicted by the GaD, including an observed decline in the accuracy of GS in the older group of children as well as in adults, and that children fail at rejecting statements that are not considered to be true generalizations.","PeriodicalId":46642,"journal":{"name":"Language Learning and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Generics Defaults? A Study on the Interpretation of Generics and Universals in 3 Age-Groups of Spanish-Speaking Individuals\",\"authors\":\"E. Castroviejo, José V. Hernández-Conde, Dimitra Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Marta Ponciano, Agustín Vicente\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15475441.2022.2071715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper reports an experiment that investigates interpretive distinctions between two different expressions of generalization in Spanish. In particular, our aim was to find out when the distinction between generic statements (GS) such as Tigers have stripes and universally quantified statements (UQS) such as All tigers have stripes was acquired in Spanish-speaking children of two different age groups (4/5-year-olds and 8/9-year-olds), and then compare these results with those of adults. The starting point of this research was the semantic distinction between GS and UQS in that the former admit exceptions, unlike the latter. On the other hand, several authors have observed a Generic overgeneralization effect (GOG) consisting in allowing for UQS to be felicitous in the face of exceptions, thus proposing that this “error” stems from GS being defaults (simpler, more easily learned and processed). In the current paper we aimed to test the “Generics as Default” (GaD) hypothesis by comparing GS and UQS in three different age ranges. Our data show that, overall, the accuracy of GS is greater than the accuracy of UQS. Moreover, we also confirm a hypothesized interaction between age and NP type (GS vs UQS). Further, we present several data points that are not predicted by the GaD, including an observed decline in the accuracy of GS in the older group of children as well as in adults, and that children fail at rejecting statements that are not considered to be true generalizations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46642,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Learning and Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Learning and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2022.2071715\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Learning and Development","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2022.2071715","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文报道了一项实验,研究了西班牙语中两种不同的概括表达之间的解释差异。特别是,我们的目的是找出在讲西班牙语的两个不同年龄组(4/5岁和8/9岁)的儿童中,什么时候获得了诸如“老虎有条纹”这样的一般陈述(GS)和诸如“所有老虎有条纹”这样的普遍量化陈述(UQS)之间的区别,然后将这些结果与成人的结果进行比较。本研究的出发点是GS和UQS之间的语义区别,因为前者承认例外,而后者则不同。另一方面,一些作者已经观察到一种通用的过度一般化效应(GOG),包括允许UQS在面对异常时表现得很好,因此提出这种“错误”源于GS是默认的(更简单,更容易学习和处理)。在本论文中,我们旨在通过比较三个不同年龄段的GS和UQS来检验“通用作为默认”(GaD)假设。我们的数据表明,总体而言,GS的精度大于UQS的精度。此外,我们还证实了年龄和NP类型(GS vs UQS)之间的假设相互作用。此外,我们还提供了一些GaD无法预测的数据点,包括观察到的年龄较大的儿童和成人的GS准确性下降,以及儿童无法拒绝不被认为是真实概括的陈述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Generics Defaults? A Study on the Interpretation of Generics and Universals in 3 Age-Groups of Spanish-Speaking Individuals
ABSTRACT This paper reports an experiment that investigates interpretive distinctions between two different expressions of generalization in Spanish. In particular, our aim was to find out when the distinction between generic statements (GS) such as Tigers have stripes and universally quantified statements (UQS) such as All tigers have stripes was acquired in Spanish-speaking children of two different age groups (4/5-year-olds and 8/9-year-olds), and then compare these results with those of adults. The starting point of this research was the semantic distinction between GS and UQS in that the former admit exceptions, unlike the latter. On the other hand, several authors have observed a Generic overgeneralization effect (GOG) consisting in allowing for UQS to be felicitous in the face of exceptions, thus proposing that this “error” stems from GS being defaults (simpler, more easily learned and processed). In the current paper we aimed to test the “Generics as Default” (GaD) hypothesis by comparing GS and UQS in three different age ranges. Our data show that, overall, the accuracy of GS is greater than the accuracy of UQS. Moreover, we also confirm a hypothesized interaction between age and NP type (GS vs UQS). Further, we present several data points that are not predicted by the GaD, including an observed decline in the accuracy of GS in the older group of children as well as in adults, and that children fail at rejecting statements that are not considered to be true generalizations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊最新文献
Acquisition of a rare variant: ne-realization in the negative utterances of French children and their caregivers Thematic Content, Not Number Matching, Drives Syntactic Bootstrapping An Online Survey of Picture Book Reading Practices with Children Between the Ages of 0 and 30 Months Children’s Speech Errors Reflect Phonotactics That They Say and Hear Russian Children and Their Relatives: What Can a Free Word Order Language Reveal About the Subject/Object Asymmetry?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1