The interpretation of disjunction in VP ellipsis: The case of Mandarin Chinese

Abstract

It has long been noted that verb phrase (VP) ellipsis cancels the polarity sensitivity of the English Positive Polarity Items (PPIs). In recent work, it has been proposed that words for disjunction are governed by a parameter. On one value of the parameter, disjunction is a PPI for adult speakers of many languages including Mandarin Chinese. On the other value, disjunction is interpreted in situ. It has also been proposed that child language learners, across languages, initially interpret disjunction in situ, not as a PPI. Taken together, these proposals predict that child and adult speakers of Mandarin will assign the same interpretation to disjunction in sentences with VP ellipsis, but will assign a different interpretation in sentences without VP ellipsis. This study assessed these predictions. In sentences with a full VP, the adult participants analyzed disjunction as a PPI, but they interpreted disjunction in situ in sentences with VP ellipsis. The child participants interpreted disjunction in situ in sentences of both kinds. Together, the findings support the recent proposal that disjunction is governed by a lexical parameter, with a default setting.

Keywords

Disjunction child language polarity verb phrase ellipsis Mandarin Chinese

Introduction

Languages differ in the way disjunction words are interpreted in negative sentences. In one class of languages, adults interpret disjunction as taking scope over negation in negative sentences. In a second class of languages, adults interpret disjunction in situ in negative sentences. Following the seminal work by Szabolcsi (2004), both theoretical linguists and researchers in child language have been investigating the proposal that disjunction is governed by a lexical parameter, called the Disjunction Parameter (e.g. Crain, 2012; Giannakidou, 2011; Goro, 2004; Geçkin et al., 2016, 2017; Pagliarini et al., 2018; Shimada & Goro, 2021). According to the parametric account, disjunction words are polarity sensitive in one class of languages, but not in another class of languages. Languages where disjunction words are polarity sensitive include Hungarian, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak, Polish, Japanese, Chinese, Turkish, French, Italian, and Catalan. Languages where disjunction words are not polarity sensitive include Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, English, Korean, German, and Dutch (see Guasti, 2018; Szabolcsi, 2002).

The Disjunction Parameter has led to an intriguing prediction – that children will differ from adults in the interpretation of negative sentences with disjunction in languages where disjunction is polarity sensitive (a PPI) for adults. Using an experimental technique introduced by Goro and Akiba (2004a, 2004b), researchers have conducted experimental investigations in seven languages where adults typically interpret disjunction as taking scope over local negation in negative sentences. These languages include Japanese (Goro, 2007; Goro & Akiba, 2004a, 2004b; Shimada, 2014), Mandarin Chinese (Crain et al., 2014; Jing et al., 2005), Russian (Verbuk, 2006), Turkish (Geçkin et al., 2016), Italian (Pagliarini et al., 2018), Hungarian (Guasti, 2018), and Catalan (Pagliarini et al., 2021). In all seven languages, the majority of child participants interpreted disjunction in situ, whereas adults interpreted disjunction as taking scope over local negation. Using the same methodology, children and adults have been tested in four languages where disjunction is not a PPI for adults. These studies did not find differences between children and adults. Both child and adult participants were reported to interpret disjunction in situ in English (Crain et al., 2002, 2014; Goro et al., 2005; Gualmini & Crain, 2002, 2005), Korean (Lee, 2010), German (Geçkin et al., 2017), and Dutch (Guasti, 2018).

This study investigates another prediction of the parametric account. On this account, both the observed differences across languages and the observed differences between child and adult language are predicted to be neutralized in linguistic environments that cancel the polarity sensitivity of disjunction. In these environments, child and adult speakers of all languages are expected to interpret disjunction in situ (e.g. Crain, 2012; Crain et al., in press). We evaluate these predictions in Mandarin Chinese, which is a language in which children and adults have been reported to interpret disjunction differently in negative sentences.

This study contrasts sentences with full VPs, and sentences with verb phrase (VP) ellipsis. It has been recognized since the 1960s that the polarity sensitivity of linguistic expressions is canceled in VP ellipsis (e.g. Bresnan, 1972; Fiengo & May, 1994; Giannakidou, 1998; Hardt, 1993; Johnson, 2001; Ladusaw, 1979; Sag, 1976). It has been widely acknowledged that the polarity sensitivity of English some is canceled by VP ellipsis.¹ In seminal work, Klima (1964) pointed out that the polarity sensitivity of the English indefinite determiner some is canceled in VP ellipsis. Klima noted first that English some and any result in different interpretations in one-clause negative sentences, such as (1) and (2):²

(1) Bill didn’t agree with some of your comments.

(2) Bill didn’t agree with any of your comments.

Notice that some is interpreted as taking scope over negation in (1), which invites the inference that Bill did agree with some of the comments under consideration. This inference is impossible in (2). Despite the difference in interpretation in sentences like (1) and (2), Klima observed that some must be replaced by any in the second clause of a VP ellipsis structure like (3). The inference – that Bill did agree with some of the comments – is not permitted in the second conjunct in (3):

(3) Mary agreed with some of your comments, but Bill didn’t.

(4) . . . but Bill didn’t *<~~agree with some of your comments~~>

(5) . . . but Bill didn’t <~~agree with any of your comments~~>

As Klima observed, sentences with VP ellipsis undermine a straightforward copy-and-delete account of VP ellipsis, where the VP in the first clause is copied in the second clause, and then deleted (under identity). He noted that the second conjunct of (3), . . . but Bill didn’t, cannot be paraphrased as indicated in angle brackets in (4), where the indefinite some in the first conjunct has been copied into the second clause. Instead, the VP in the elided clause is interpreted as if it contained any, as indicated in (5).

This study applies the same line of reasoning to investigate the possibility that disjunction is a PPI in Mandarin Chinese. If so, then we expect the polarity sensitivity of Mandarin disjunction to be canceled in linguistic environments that cancel the polarity sensitivity of English some, such as in sentences that undergo VP ellipsis. This outcome would support the parametric account of the cross-linguistic variation in the interpretation of disjunction. More specifically, this study investigates whether (a) Mandarin-speaking children and adults interpret disjunction differently in sentences with full VPs, but (b) both children and adults assign the same interpretation to disjunction in sentences with VP ellipsis. The next section explains the parametric account in more detail.

The parametric account

Consider the English sentence (6):

(6) June did not eat sushi or pasta.

(7) June did not eat sushi and June did not eat pasta.

Both child and adult speakers of English interpret sentence (6) in the same way, with negation taking scope over disjunction. That is, both children and adults assign a ‘neither’ interpretation to (6), such that its meaning can be paraphrased in (7). This is referred to as the ‘conjunctive’ interpretation of disjunction, as stated in the second of de Morgan’s laws.³ Let us now look at Mandarin Chinese. Sentence (8) is the word-by-word analog to the English example (6), where the Mandarin word for negation in (8) is meiyou ‘not’ and the word for disjunction is huozhe ‘or’. For adult speakers of Mandarin, sentence (8) does not have the same ‘conjunctive’ interpretation as the English example (6). Rather, the Mandarin sentence (8) can be paraphrased by the cleft sentence in (9), where disjunction takes scope over negation in the surface syntax. Both the Mandarin sentence (8) and the English sentence (9) are true only if June did not eat sushi or did not eat pasta (or possibly ate neither one):

(8) Zhu’en meiyou chi shousi huozhe yimian.

June not eat sushi or pasta

(9) It is sushi or pasta that June did not eat.

It has been proposed that the adult Mandarin speakers interpret the disjunction word huozhe ‘or’ in (8) as taking scope over the negation word meiyou ‘not’ at the level of semantic interpretation (Crain et al., 2014; Szabolcsi, 2002, 2004). More specifically, the proposal is that the Mandarin disjunction word huozhe ‘or’ has the same basic meaning as English or, namely, inclusive-or,⁴ but Mandarin huozhe ‘or’ is a Positive Polarity Item (PPI), whereas English or is not. By definition, a PPI must take scope over (local) negation at the level of semantic interpretation, where scope assignment is determined by a structural relationship between negation and disjunction (c-command). In languages where disjunction word is not a PPI, disjunction is interpreted in situ.

Following a proposal by Szabolcsi (2002), Goro (2004) hypothesized that the different scope relations between negation and disjunction are encoded in a Disjunction Parameter. We will refer to these two values as [+PPI] and [−PPI]. On the [+PPI] value of the Disjunction Parameter, disjunction words are PPIs. By definition, PPIs take scope over negation, so disjunction words take scope over negation in some languages. In languages that adopt the [−PPI] value disjunction is interpreted in situ in these languages (e.g. Crain et al., 2002; Geçkin et al., 2016, 2017; Goro, 2007; Guasti, 2018; Jing et al., 2005; Pagliarini et al., 2018; Spector, 2014). In this way, the parametric account explains the variation in the interpretation of disjunction across languages.

The parametric account also explains the observed differences between child and adult language. Although different adult languages adopt different values of the Disjunction Parameter, children acquiring all languages are predicted to initially adopt the same value of the parameter. The source of children’s initial scope assignments is attributed to a principle of language learnability, called the semantic subset principle (e.g. Crain, 2012; Crain et al., 1994, 2016; Goro, 2007). According to the semantic subset principle, if the alternative interpretations of two scope-bearing expressions are in a superset/subset relationship,⁵ children initially adopt the subset scope assignment. In negative sentences with disjunction, the [−PPI] value of the Disjunction Parameter makes sentences true in a subset of the circumstances that are associated with the alternative [+PPI] value. If child language learners initially adopt the subset value [−PPI], as predicted by the parametric account, then children who are acquiring languages that adopt the superset [+PPI] value of the Disjunction Parameter will encounter positive evidence for parameter resetting. In languages that adopt the initial, subset value [−PPI] of the parameter, the input to children will always be consistent with the initial value of the Disjunction Parameter.

Literature review: children’s interpretation of disjunction

The finding that children and adults assign different interpretations to negative sentences with disjunction was first reported in Goro and Akiba (2004a, 2004b). The studies by Goro and Akiba adopted what Goro (2017) calls the Uncertainty Mode of the Truth Value Judgment Task. Example (10) illustrates one of the test sentences used in the Goro and Akiba (2004a, 2004b) study:

(10) Butasan-wa ninjin ka piiman-wo tabe-nakat-ta

Pig-TOP carrot or pepper-ACC eat-NEG-PAST

‘The pig didn’t eat the carrot or the pepper’.

The experiment consisted of a storybook with 12 cartoon animals, one on each page. Each animal was given the opportunity to eat two vegetables, a carrot and a green pepper. There was also a piece of cake for each animal to eat, and all of the animals ate the cake. The question was whether or not each animal would eat the vegetables. A reward system was introduced to encourage the animals to eat their vegetables. Each animal received one of three kinds of reward, based upon the number of vegetables it ate. If an animal ate both of the vegetables, it received a gold medal. If an animal ate only one of the vegetables, it received a silver medal. If an animal didn’t eat either vegetable, it received a black cross.

After the animals had all received their rewards, the food items were removed, but the rewards remained. At that point, the puppet was asked to tell the child what each of the animals had eaten, and the child’s task was to judge whether the puppet was right or wrong. This introduced uncertainty into the equation. Because the food items had been removed, the truth or falsity of the puppet’s statement had to be based on the reward it had received. If the food items remained visible, it would have been infelicitous to use disjunction to describe what the animals with a silver medal had eaten. Consider a situation in which an animal had not eaten the carrot, but had eaten the pepper. The test sentence was: The animal didn’t eat the carrot or the pepper. On the inverse scope interpretation, a paraphrase of the test sentence is The animal didn’t eat the carrot or the animal didn’t eat the pepper. In the situation, a speaker who uttered just the first of these sentences, that is, The animal didn’t eat a carrot, would have made a statement that was informationally stronger and, hence, pragmatically more felicitous, than someone who produced the test sentence.

The critical trials were the negative sentences with disjunction presented in the ‘silver medal’ condition, where the sentences were descriptions of the animals that had eaten only one of the two vegetables. A child or adult participant who analyzed the test sentences with disjunction in situ was expected to reject them in the silver medal condition. A child or adult participant who analyzed disjunction as a PPI, taking scope over negation, was expected to accept the test sentences in the silver medal condition.

Here are the main findings of the Goro and Akiba studies. Japanese-speaking adults consistently accepted test sentences like (10) in the silver medal condition. By contrast, children acquiring Japanese rejected them over 90% of the time in the silver medal condition. The findings are consistent with Goro’s prediction that children and adults would assign different scope relations to negative sentences with disjunction. A similar pattern of responses has been reported in studies of child and adult speakers of Mandarin, Russian, Turkish, Hungarian, Italian, and Catalan (e.g. Geçkin et al., 2016; Guasti, 2018; Jing et al., 2005; Pagliarini et al., 2018, 2021; Verbuk, 2006). In all of these languages, adult speakers analyze disjunction as [+PPI], whereas children appear to, at least initially, interpret disjunction in situ, that is, as [−PPI].

In another class of languages, children and adults have been found to assign a conjunctive interpretation to negative sentences with disjunction. For example, English-speaking children were found to assign the conjunctive interpretation of disjunction in simple negative sentences. The evidence comes from studies conducted by Crain et al. (2002) and Gualmini and Crain (2005), both using the Truth Value Judgment Task (Crain & Thornton, 1998). For example, in the Crain et al. (2002) study, 4- to 5-year-old English-speaking children and adults were presented with sentences like (11):

(11) The girl who stayed up late will not get a dime or a jewel.

The sentence was presented to the participants following a story in which two girls were waiting for the Tooth Fairy to come to their house. Both of the girls had just lost a tooth, and were told by their parents that the Tooth Fairy would visit them that night, leaving gifts in exchange for their tooth. One of the girls decided to stay up late to see what the Tooth Fairy looked like. The other girl fell fast asleep. At this point in the story, a puppet produced the target sentence (11). The test sentences were asserted as predictions about what would happen next in the stories. After the puppet produced the test sentence, the story continued until it ended. In the story corresponding to sentence (11), the Tooth Fairy rewarded the girl who fell asleep with both a dime and a jewel, but he only gave a jewel to the girl who stayed awake. Thus, test sentences like (11) were repeated. As in this typical scenario, the test sentences only verified the negation of one of the disjuncts, making them true on the ‘not both’ interpretation, but false on the ‘neither’ (conjunctive) interpretation. Participants were therefore expected to reject the test sentences if they assigned a conjunctive interpretation to disjunction in negative sentences. In contrast, participants were expected to accept the test sentences if they assigned a ‘not both’ interpretation, for example, in languages in which disjunction is interpreted as taking scope over negation, because disjunction is a PPI.

The English-speaking child participants in the Crain et al. (2002) study rejected test sentences like (11) 92% of the time in the experimental contexts. A control group of adult participants rejected the same sentences 100% of the time in the same contexts. The findings were taken as evidence that both English-speaking children and adults interpret disjunction as generating a conjunctive interpretation in negative sentences. This finding was replicated in subsequent studies conducted in Korean, German, and Dutch (e.g. Geçkin et al., 2017; Guasti, 2018; Lee, 2010), which are other languages in which adult assign a conjunctive (neither) interpretation to disjunction in negative sentences.

The interpretation of disjunction in VP ellipsis

In formal logic, both some and any are represented by the existential quantifier, ∃. Differences in truth conditions are explained as differences in scope relations between the existential quantifier and negation. Disjunction phrases can also be analyzed using the existential quantifier. For example, Jayaseelan (2001) remarks,

Think of the meaning of disjunction as an assertion that at least one of a given set of entities, if substituted for a variable in an open sentence, yields a true proposition. (p. 79)

For example, the interpretation of (12a) can be formally represented as (12b). In a domain of discourse with only two individuals, Bill and Mary, (12a) and (13a) convey the same information (see Crain & Khlentzos, 2010):

(12) a) Bill or Mary came.

b) ∃x: x ∈{b, m} [x came]

(13) a) Someone came.

b) ∃x [x came]

We have seen that languages differ in their interpretation of negative sentences with disjunction. We saw in the previous section, first, that both some and any have been analyzed as (allomorphic) variants of the existential quantifier and, second, that the different interpretations of negative sentences with some and any could be explained as differences in the scope relationship between the existential quantifier and negation.

The same analysis can be extended to negative sentences with disjunction. In languages where disjunction is polarity sensitive, such as Mandarin, a disjunction phrase can be analyzed as an existential quantifier that takes scope over negation, as in (14):

(14) a) Yuehan mei kanjian Bi’er huozhe Mali.

‘John didn’t see Bill or Mary’.

b) ∃x: x ∈{b, m} ¬ [John see x ]

c) John didn’t see Bill or John didn’t see Mary.

In languages where disjunction is interpreted in situ, such as English, negation takes wide scope, as in (15):

(15) a) John didn’t see Bill or Mary.

b) ¬ ∃x: x ∈{b, m} [John see x ]

c) John didn’t see Bill and John didn’t see Mary.

This study investigates the proposal that disjunction is polarity sensitive in Mandarin Chinese. If so, then the interpretation of a disjunction phrase should mirror that of English some. In sentences with VP ellipsis, negation is expected to take scope over disjunction phrases in all languages, as in (16):

(16) a) Sue saw Bill or Mary, but John didn’t.

b) . . . but John didn’t see Bill and John didn’t see Mary.

c) ¬ ∃x: x ∈{b, m} [John see x ]

Earlier we discussed the proposal that although disjunction is polarity sensitive for adult speakers of a class of languages, including Mandarin, this is not expected to be true of children acquiring Mandarin, or any other language. According to the semantic subset principle, child language learners are predicted to initially adopt the [−PPI] value of the Disjunction Parameter, which is the subset value of the parameter.

This proposal leads to two empirical predictions. The first prediction is that children acquiring languages like Mandarin will differ from adult Mandarin speakers in the interpretation they assign to the second conjunct of the Mandarin analog to sentences like (17a), where both negation and disjunction are overtly realized. For children, the second conjunct should mean that John saw neither Bill nor Mary; for adults, it should mean that it is either Bill or Mary (or possibly both) that John didn’t see:

(17) a) Sue saw Bill or Mary, but John didn’t see Bill or Mary.

b) Child: . . . but ¬ ∃x: x ∈{b, m} [John see x ]

c) Adult: . . . but ∃x: x ∈{b, m} ¬ [John see x ]

The second prediction is that children acquiring languages like Mandarin and adult Mandarin speakers will assign the same interpretation to the second conjunct of the Mandarin analog to sentences like (18a), where disjunction is elided from the VP. For both children and adults, the second conjunct should mean that John saw neither Bill nor Mary:

(18) a) Sue saw Bill or Mary, but John didn’t.

b) Child and adult: . . . but ¬ ∃x: x ∈{b, m} [John see x ]

We will evaluate these two predictions in the experiments that follow.

Experiments

Following the previous discussion, we propose two experimental hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Mandarin-speaking adults will assign a ‘not both’ interpretation to conjoined sentences with two full VPs. Adults will assign a ‘neither’ interpretation to sentences in which the VP is elided in the second conjunct.

Hypothesis 2. Mandarin-speaking children will assign the ‘neither’ interpretation to disjunction in sentences with two full VPs and to disjunction in sentences with VP ellipsis.

Participants

The child participants were 60 monolingual Mandarin-speaking children between the ages of 4;2 and 5;1, with a mean age of 4;7. The child participants attended the Beijing Municipal Committee Organ Kindergarten. The children were from families with similar educational backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and language proficiency. The 60 child participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The full VP sentences were presented to 30 child participants, who ranged in age from 4;2 to 5;1 with an average age of 4;6. The VP ellipsis sentences were presented to another group of 30 child participants, who ranged in age from 4;3 to 5;0, with an average age of 4;7. The test sentences were presented in the same experimental contexts for both groups. In addition, 40 adult native speakers of Mandarin (ranging in age from 22 to 28) formed a control group. The adult participants were recruited from Peking University or from Beijing Language and Culture University.

Materials

The experiment had two conditions. The difference between the conditions was in the test sentences, which were presented in the same experimental contexts, albeit to different participants. In one condition, the second conjunct of the test sentences combined the negation word bu ‘not’, the epistemic modal verb neng ‘can’, and a VP with an overt disjunction phrase, for example, zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe ‘catch bees or snakes’. A sample test sentence for the first condition is (19):

(19) Tubaba neng zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe, danshi tubaobao bu neng zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe.

Papa Rabbit can catch bee or snake but Baby Rabbit not can catch bee or snake

‘Papa Rabbit can catch bees or snakes, but Baby Rabbit cannot catch bees or snakes’.

In the second condition, the VP with the overt disjunction phrase is elided from the second conjunct, as illustrated in (20):

(20) Tubaba neng zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe, danshi tubaobao bu neng.

Papa Rabbit can catch bee or snake but Baby Rabbit not can

‘Papa Rabbit can catch bees or snakes, but Baby Rabbit cannot’.

As examples (19) and (20) illustrate, the content of the first conjunct was identical in both conditions. In the first conjunct, the epistemic modal verb neng ‘can’ had scope over the disjunction word huozhe ‘or’. The first conjunct therefore licensed a Free Choice ‘conjunctive’ inference, which can be paraphrased as Papa Rabbit is able to catch bees and snakes (see Tieu et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2013).

The first conjunct was followed by one of two continuations. One continuation was a negative sentence with a full VP which contained the epistemic modal verb neng ‘can’ and overt disjunction phrase. The full sentence continuation is illustrated in (21):

(21) . . . danshi tubaobao bu neng zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe.

. . . but Baby Rabbit not can catch bee or snake

‘. . . but Baby Rabbit cannot catch bees or snakes’.

Free Choice inferences are canceled when the modal verb and disjunction phrase are interpreted inside the scope of local negation (Chierchia, 2013). To illustrate, consider the English sentence, Baby Rabbit is not able to catch bees or snakes. This sentence generates a ‘neither’ interpretation; it entails that Baby Rabbit is unable to catch either bees or snakes. Notice, however, that if the disjunction phrase, bees or snakes, is assigned scope over negation, then the result is a ‘not both’ interpretation instead of a ‘neither’ interpretation. This is illustrated by the English cleft sentence, It is either bees or snakes that Baby Rabbit cannot catch. This is the negation of the Free Choice inference.

These observations about the scope of disjunction led us to predict that the child and adult participants would assign different interpretations to the test sentences with full VPs in the second conjunct. The different interpretations of (21) are summarized in (22):

(22)

Child: ‘Baby Rabbit cannot catch bees and cannot catch snakes’. ‘Neither’

Adult: ‘It is either bees or snakes that Baby Rabbit cannot catch’. ‘Not both’

A second continuation followed the first conjunct in the experiment. This continuation is illustrated in sentence (23). In this sentence, both the main verb and the disjunction phrase have been elided. In (23) only the negation marker and the epistemic modal verb remain, bu neng ‘not can’:

(23) . . . danshi tubaobao bu neng.

. . . but Baby Rabbit not can

‘. . . but Baby Rabbit cannot’.

Because the disjunction phrase has been elided in (23), we predict that it no longer takes scope over negation for adults. In responding to (23), then, both Mandarin-speaking children and adults are expected to generate a ‘conjunctive’ entailment, that is the ‘neither’ interpretation. Mandarin-speaking children and adults are expected to interpret such sentences in the same way as English-speaking children and adults, as summarized in (24):

(24)

Child: ‘Baby Rabbit cannot catch bees and cannot catch snakes’. ‘Neither’

Adult: ‘Baby Rabbit cannot catch bees and cannot catch snakes’. ‘Neither’

Procedures

The experiment used the uncertainty mode of the Truth Value Judgment Task. For a general introduction to the task, see Crain and Thornton (1998). The task typically requires two experimenters. One experimenter acts out short stories in front of each child participant and a puppet, played by the second experimenter. After each story, the puppet says what it thinks happened in the story, for example, using one of the test sentences. The child participant’s task is to tell the puppet if the sentence was an accurate description of the story. When the child participant indicates that the puppet ‘said the wrong thing’, s/he is asked to tell the puppet ‘What really happened?’.

The present study used a modified version of the Truth Value Judgment Task. The modifications were motivated by the observation that sentences with disjunction are pragmatically odd in circumstances where exactly one of the disjuncts is true. Although logically valid, the application of Disjunction Introduction (from the discovery that A, making the inference to ‘A or B’). Disjunction Introduction (a.k.a. Weakening) typically flouts conversational norms. In circumstances where the speaker discovers the truth of one NP, sentences that add a further NP in a disjunction phrase are most likely to be judged to be infelicitous, ceteris paribus. However, there are circumstances in which such sentences are felicitous. In several studies, Goro (2007, 2017) adapted the Truth Value Judgment Task to test children’s interpretation of sentences with disjunction, when only one of the disjuncts was true, and this could be investigated without flouting conversational norms. He calls this variant of the Truth Value Judgment Task the ‘uncertainty mode’. In the uncertainty mode, one experimenter acts out each story twice. Before the second telling, the experimenter precedes through the first telling of the other stories. When the experimenter returns to each story, there is no longer any record of the particular events that transpired on the first telling of the story. This experimental maneuver is instrumental in making it felicitous for the puppet to use test sentences with disjunction. It is also worth noting that, subsequent studies across several languages provide evidence that the uncertainty mode of the Truth Value Judgment Task is a valuable tool for studying children’s understanding of disjunction in negative contexts (e.g. Geçkin et al., 2016, 2017; Jing et al., 2005; Notley et al., 2016; Pagliarini et al., 2018, 2021). Since the experimental stories have an identical central theme and the final outcomes are explicitly presented by a ‘reward system’, that is, achieving certain goal(s) and getting a prize accordingly, the 4-year-olds and older who participated in previous studies barely exhibited difficulty understanding and mastering the reward rules. The child participants were also able to provide judgments on puppet’s statements, based on the interpretations they had assigned to the relevant sentences.

The experiment used a between-subjects design. Both child and adult participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (full VP or VP ellipsis). The child participants were tested individually using dynamic stories where the actions of characters were acted out in front of the child participants using toy characters and props. The stories were video-taped and presented to the adult participants.

The main session consisted of 10 stories. Each story had three animal protagonists, who were involved in some competition. Two of the three were involved in the target sentences. The Gold Medal animal corresponded to the character mentioned in the first conjunct of each target sentence. The use of disjunction was felicitous in this conjunct, due to a Free Choice inference that was licensed by the presence of a modal in combination with disjunction. The modal + disjunction combination invited the inference that the character was able to perform both of the actions mentioned in the sentence, for example, the VP, is able to catch bees or snakes, invites the inference that the protagonist is able to catch bees and is able to catch snakes.⁶

On 4 of the 10 trials the animal that was mentioned in the second conjunct of the target sentence had managed to achieve one of the goals set out in the story, and therefore was awarded a silver medal. These will be called the ‘Silver Medal Test’ trials. On the critical trials, the puppet produced a Chinese analog of sentence (25) in the full VP condition, and the puppet produced an analog of (26) in the VP ellipsis condition:

(25) Papa Rabbit can catch bees or snakes, but Baby Rabbit cannot catch bees or snakes.

(26) Papa Rabbit can catch bees or snakes, but Baby Rabbit cannot.

On our analysis, the prediction should be quite straightforward. Child participants were expected to reject (25) on the Silver Medal trials because they adopt the initial setting of the Disjunction Parameter, according to which disjunction is interpreted in situ (the subset [−PPI] value of the parameter). In contrast to child participants, adult speakers of Mandarin were expected to accept sentences like (25) in the same scenarios. For adults, the Disjunction Parameter has been reset to the [+PPI] value, on the basis of positive evidence. On this value of the parameter, disjunction takes scope over negation at the level of semantic interpretation, yielding the ‘not both’ interpretation. So, for adults, sentence (25) is true as long as Baby Rabbit either cannot catch bees or cannot catch snakes, as is the case in the context.

In the same experimental scenarios, the child and adult participants’ interpretations were expected to converge on the ‘neither’ interpretation when they were presented with sentences like (26), since Mandarin disjunction word huozhe ‘or’ was predicted to lose it positive polarity for adult Mandarin speakers when it was contained in an elided VP. Children would stick to their initial setting of the Disjunction Parameter, as the parametric account predicts, whereas the adults would switch their interpretation to the one corresponding to the plain semantics of disjunction that will be interpreted within the scope of negation.

In addition, four control trials were included in this main session. On these trials, the animal mentioned in the second conjunct had achieved neither action/goal, while the two types of test sentences remained the same. These will be called the ‘Black Cross Controls’. Again, the puppet produced the above sentences in one of the two experimental conditions (full VP or VP ellipsis). If the participants assigned disjunction wider scope than negation, the sentences would be judged to be true in this scenario. By contrast, the sentences would be false if the participants analyzed negation as taking scope over disjunction. The test and control trials were interspersed with two filler trials.

Before proceeding to the main test session, each child was required to successfully complete a training session. In the training session, the child participants were encouraged to interact with the puppet and to learn how to reward the protagonists in the stories based on what they achieved. This was used to familiarize them with the reward rules and the judgment task. The full list of training, pre-test, test, control and filler sentences is provided in the Appendixes 1 and 2.

Results

Sixty-five child participants were recruited for the study; 5 out of these 65 child participants failed to pass the criteria needed to proceed from the training session to the main session, because these child participants consistently produced ‘Yes’ responses, or they showed no interest/patience in playing the game with the puppet. Thus, five participants were excluded from further participation, and did not contribute to the analysis of the results. The other 60 child participants and 40 adult participants were included in the final analysis. These participants responded accurately over 90% of the time to pre-test and filler sentences.

As expected on the experimental hypotheses, Mandarin-speaking adult participants provided different patterns of response when they were presented with conjoined sentences with two full VPs and with sentences with VP ellipsis. In contrast, Mandarin-speaking child participants performed consistently across the two types of test sentences.

In the full VP condition, the adult participants accepted the test sentences 65% of the time (52/80) in the Silver Medal contexts, whereas the child participants rejected the sentences 83% of the time (100/120). A Mann–Whitney U test revealed a significant between-group difference (Z = 3.07, p = .02). In the Black Cross control contexts, the adult participants rejected the target sentences 63% of the time (50/80), whereas the child participants rejected them only 8% of the time (10/120).

In the VP ellipsis condition, as predicted, both the child and adult participants rejected the test sentences in the Silver Medal contexts the majority of the time. The child participants rejected them 90% of the time (108/120) and the adult participants rejected them 95% of the time (76/80). There was no significant difference between groups (Z = 1.40, p = .16). In the Black Cross condition, both groups exhibited the same response pattern. The child group accepted the test sentences 97% of the time (116/120), and the adult group accepted them 83% of the time (66/80).

A Mann–Whitney U test was also used to compare the response patterns across the two experimental conditions by group. For the child participants, the subset [−PPI] value of the Disjunction Parameter consistently led them to access the ‘neither’ interpretation. There was no significant difference in responses by the child participants across conditions: full VP condition (83%) versus VP ellipsis condition (90%) (Z = 0.48, p = .63). The adult participants exhibited distinct response patterns across the two conditions, however (35 vs 95%, Z = 3.93, p = .01). Their rejection rates for the full VP condition were significantly lower than for the VP ellipsis condition.

These findings are summarized in Figure 1. The figure states proportion of ‘No’ responses to the puppet’s statements in each condition by group.

Figure 1.

Proportion of Rejections by Child and Adult Participants.

The results indicate that the patterns of behavior displayed by the child and adult participants were exactly as predicted by the experimental hypotheses. Mandarin-speaking adult participants accepted the test sentences in the full VP condition but rejected them in the VP ellipsis condition, on the basis of that overt Mandarin disjunction phrases are a PPI for the adults. By contrast, the child participants consistently stick to the subset [−PPI] value and they rejected the test sentences in both experimental conditions.

The parametric account explained the finding that disjunction is polarity sensitive for the majority of Mandarin-speaking adults, but not for the children. This is the reason why the adult participants’ acceptance rates for the full VP sentences in critical Silver Medal trials are apparently higher than their rejection rates, whereas the child participants’ response patterns exhibit the opposite.⁷ The findings also suggest that the polarity sensitivity of a PPI like Mandarin disjunction word is no longer held when it has no phonetically realization form. This explains why the adult participants’ scope assignment with respect to negation and disjunction was reversed when they were asked to interpret phonologically ‘silent’ negated disjunctions. The semantic interpretation corresponding to the subset [−PPI] value that the child participants initially adopt is thus revealed. The adult and child participants’ interpretations converge on the ‘neither’ interpretation.

The justifications that child participants provided for their rejections reinforced the conclusion that they interpreted disjunction in situ in the test sentences, on the basis of mastering the ‘reward system’ of the judgment task. For example, typical justifications for their rejections across two experimental conditions were given in (27) and (28), respectively:⁸

(27) Puppet: Tubaba you yige jinpai, Tubaobao you yige yinpai. Tubaba neng zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe, danshi tubaobao bu neng.

‘Papa Rabbit got a gold medal, Baby Rabbit got a silver medal. Papa Rabbit can catch bees or snakes, but Baby Rabbit cannot’.

Child(4;3): Budui, ta shuo cuole. (pointing at Baby Rabbit) ta neng zhuadao yige.

‘No, what he said is wrong, (pointing at Baby Rabbit) he can catch one’.

Experimenter: Zhenbang. Ni zenme zhidao ta neng zhuadao yige?

‘Great. How did you know that he can catch one?’

Child: Ta you yige yinpai.

‘He got a silver medal’.

Experimenter: Na ni neng gaosu xiaoqingwa weishenme Tubaba dedao jinpai ma?

‘Well, can you tell Kermit why Papa Rabbit got a gold medal?’

Child: En, yinwei ta zhuale liangge.

Hmm, because he caught two.

(28) Puppet: Xiaoxiang dedao yige jinpai, Xiaozhu dedao yige yinpai. Xiaoxiang neng juqi xiangzi huozhe qiche, danshi xiaozhu buneng juqi xiangzi huozhe qiche.

‘Elephant got a gold medal, and Piggie got a silver medal. Elephant can lift the box or the car, but Piggie cannot lift the box or the car’.

Child(4;8): Bu, Xiaoqingwa buneng shuo xiaozhu shenme dou mei juqilai, ni kan, Xiaozhu you yige yinpai.

‘No. Kermit can’t say Piggie caught nothing, look, Piggie got a silver medal’.

Experimenter: Shuode zhenhao. Na xiaozhu neng juqi jige dongxi ya?

‘Excellent. Then how many object(s) can Piggie lift?’

Child: Yige.

‘One’.

Discussion

This study investigated the interpretation assigned by Mandarin-speaking children and adults to sentences with and without VP ellipsis. Across two experimental conditions, the child participants’ responses were exactly predicted by the semantic subset principle. This principle guides the children initially to adopt the subset [−PPI] value of the Disjunction Parameter. This initial setting guarantees that children avoid potential learnability problem and explains why the child participants consistently rejected the two types of test sentences on Silver Medal trials and accepted the same type of sentences on Black Cross trials. In contrast, the adult participants exhibited the distinct patterns of response when they were presented with different types of test sentences. The majority of the adult participants interpreted disjunction as taking scope over negation in sentences with full VPs, but they interpreted negation to take scope over disjunction in sentences with elided VPs.

The findings are consistent with previous literature showing that disjunction is a PPI for Mandarin-speaking adults, but not for Mandarin-speaking children. What is novel is the finding that both Mandarin-speaking adults and children come into scope alignment when they assign an interpretation to sentences when disjunction is elided under negation. In this linguistic environment, we found that both Mandarin-speaking adults and children assigned an in situ ‘neither’ interpretation to disjunction. This finding brings the interpretation of disjunction into complete alignment with other languages, such as English, that interpret disjunction in situ in simple negative sentences, without VP ellipsis. This finding is compelling evidence supporting the parametric account. Because VP ellipsis cancels polarity sensitivity, the interpretation of disjunction in sentences with VP ellipsis is expected to be the same across languages.

The findings allow us to draw several tentative conclusions. One is that the basic meaning of disjunction is invariant across languages. The different interpretations of disjunction across languages can be credited to differences in scope assignment, not to differences in lexical meaning. Once differences in scope assignment are eliminated, as it is in classical logic, inclusive-or will be generated. With the polarity sensitivity of disjunction neutralized, disjunction is assigned the same ‘neither’ interpretation as negated disjunctions are assigned in classical logic.

A remaining question concerns the patterns of responses by the adult participants to negative sentences with disjunction in the full VP condition. On the Silver Medal trials, 7 out of the 20 adults rejected the target full VP sentences. The fact that the adult participants were highly proficient in English might be a contributing factor. Alternatively, the adults might have been able to recall exactly what had taken place in the story. Therefore, the puppet’s use of statements with disjunction may have seemed infelicitous. This is an apparent limitation of the present study. As for children, further research is needed to assess children’s interpretation of other PPIs in sentences with VP ellipsis, and in other linguistic contexts which cancel polarity sensitivity. Finally, further research is needed to establish at what age children’s scope assignments converge with those of adult speakers of Mandarin.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 2

Experimental materials in the experiment

Test trials*4
Scenario and rewards	Sentences
(Rabbit family) Papa Mama Baby Both None One Gold Medal Black Cross Silver Medal	Tubaba neng zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe, danshi tubaobao bu neng <~~zhuadao mifeng huozhe xiaoshe~~>. ‘Papa Rabbit can catch bees or snakes, but Baby Rabbit cannot <~~catch bees or snakes~~>’.
White Cat Gray Cat Black Cat One Both None Silver Medal Gold Medal Black Cross	Huimao neng zhehao yifu huozhe xiaochuan, danshi Baimao buneng <~~zhehao yifu huozhe xiaochuan~~>. ‘Gray Cat can fold a paper to a jacket or to a boat, but White Cat cannot<~~fold a paper to a jacket or to a boat~~>’.
Panda Piggie Elephant None One Both Black Cross Silver Medal Gold Medal	Xiaoxiang neng juqi xiangzi huozhe qiche, danshi Xiaozhu buneng <~~juqi xiangzi huozhe qiche~~>. ‘Elephant can lift the box or the car, but Piggie cannot <~~lift the box or the car~~>’.
Winnie Tiger Piglet Both One None Gold Medal Silver Medal Black Cross	Weini neng zuocheng yuantong huozhe dangao, danshi Tiaotiaohu buneng <~~zuocheng yuantong huozhe dangao~~>. Winnie can make a cone or a cake, but Tigger cannot <~~make a cone or a cake~~>.
Control trials*4
(Elephant family) Brother Mama Sister None One Both Black Cross Silver Medal Gold Medal	Xiangjiejie neng tuidong shitou huozhe mutou, danshi Xiangdidi buneng <~~tuidong shitou huozhe mutou~~>. Sister Elephant can push the stone or the wood, but Brother Elephant cannot <~~push the stone or the wood~~>.
Horse Sheep Cow Both None One Gold Medal Black Cross Silver Medal	Xiaoma neng tiaoguo xiangzi huozhe langan, danshi Xiaoyang buneng <~~tiaoguo xiangzi huozhe langan~~>. Horse can jump over the box or the fence, but Sheep cannot <~~jump over the box or the fence~~>.
Puppy Kitten Rabbit None Both One Black Cross Gold Medal Silver Medal	Xiaomao neng zhaodao baoshi huozhe beike, danshi Xiaogou buneng <~~zhaodao baoshi huozhe beike~~>. Kitten can find a jewel or a shell, but Puppy cannot <~~find a jewel or a shell~~>.
(Bear family) Uncle Aunt Grammy One Both None Silver Medal Gold Medal Black Cross	Xiongshenshen neng zuocheng pisa huozhe tiantianquan, danshi Xiongnainai buneng <~~zuocheng pisa huozhe tiantianquan~~>. Aunt Bear can make a pizza or a donut, but Grammy Bear cannot<~~make a pizza or a donut~~>.
Filler trials*2
Piglet Eeyore Tigger Both One None Gold Medal Silver Medal Black Cross	Xiaozhu neng maidao yinliao, danshi Tiaotiaohu buneng <~~maidao yinliao~~>. Piglet can get beverage, but Tigger cannot<~~get beverage~~>.
	Yier buneng maidao yinliao. Eeyore cannot get beverage.
Buzz Lightyear Batman Superman One Both None Silver Medal Gold Medal Black Cross	Bianfuxia neng zhaidao shuiguo, danshi Basiguangnian buneng <~~zhaidao shuiguo~~>. Batman can pick fruits, but Buzz Lightyear cannot <~~pick fruits~~>.
	Chaoren neng zhaidao yizhong shuiguo. Superman can pick a fruit.

(a) The strikethrough texts in brackets indicate the experimental materials used in the full VP condition.

(b) The choice of filler sentences and the truth/falsity of the sentences were slightly different based on individual participants’ responses.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Utako Minai, Lynn Tieu, Liqun Gao, and the anonymous reviewers and editor for their insightful comments and contributions. The gratitude extends also to the children and adults who participated in the experiments, and to Principal Su and the teachers for their assistance and support in running the experiments.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Science Foundation of Beijing Language and Culture University (supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities) (18YBB07) and by Research Funds of Center for Language Education and Cooperation (20YH14C).

ORCID iDs

Na Gao

Peng Zhou

Rosalind Thornton

Notes

References

Baker

C. L.

(1970). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(2), 169–186.

Bresnan

(1972). Theory of complementation in English [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chierchia

(2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford University Press.

Crain

(2012). The emergence of meaning. Cambridge University Press.

Crain

Gardener

Gualmini

Rabbin

(2002). Children’s command of negation. In Otsu

(Ed.), The third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 71–95). Hituzi Syobo Publishing.

Crain

Goro

Notley

Zhou

(2014). A Parametric account of scope in child language. In Stavrakaki

Lalioti Konstantinopoulou

(Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 63–71). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Crain

Goro

Zhou

(in press). The theory of something. Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics.

Crain

Khlentzos

(2008). Is logic innate? Biolinguistics, 2(1), 24–56.

Crain

Khlentzos

(2010). The logic instinct. Mind & Language, 25(1), 30–65.

10.

Crain

Koring

Thornton

(2016). Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 9(4), 1–30.

11.

Crain

Conway

(1994). Learning, parsing, and modularity. In Clifton

C. J.

Frazier

Rayner

(Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 443–467). Psychology Press.

12.

Crain

Thornton

(1998). Investigation in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax. MIT Press.

13.

Fiengo

May

. (1994). Indices and identity. MIT Press.

14.

Geçkin

Crain

Thornton

(2016). The interpretation of logical connectives in Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 43(4), 784–810.

15.

Geçkin

Thornton

Crain

(2017). Children’ s interpretation of disjunction in negative sentences: A comparison of Turkish and German. Language Acquisition, 25(2), 197–212.

16.

Giannakidou

(1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. John Benjamins.

17.

Giannakidou

(2011). Negative and positive polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In Maienborn

Heusinger

K. V.

Portner

(Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1660–1712). Mouton de Gruyter.

18.

Goro

(2004). The emergence of Universal Grammar in the emergence of language: The acquisition of Japanese logical connectives and positive polarity [Master’s dissertation]. University of Maryland.

19.

Goro

(2007). Language-specific constraints on scope interpretation in first language acquisition [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.

20.

Goro

(2017). Negation uncertainty, and the truth value judgment task. In Nakayama

Y.-C.

(Eds.), Studies in Chinese and Japanese language acquisition: In honor of Stephen Crain (pp. 12–29). John Benjamins.

21.

Goro

Akiba

(2004a). The acquisition of disjunction and positive polarity in Japanese. In Chand

Kelleher

Rodriguez

A. J.

Schmeiser

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 251–264). Cascadilla Press.

22.

Goro

Akiba

(2004b). Japanese disjunction and the acquisition of positive polarity. In Otsu

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 137–162). Hituzi Shobo Publishing.

23.

Goro

Minai

Crain

(2005). Two disjunctions for the price of only one. In Brugos

Clark-Cotton

M. R. H. S.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Boston University child language development conference (pp. 228–239). Cascadilla Press.

24.

Grice

H. P.

(1975). Logic and conversation. In Core

Morgan

J. L.

(Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.

25.

Gualmini

Crain

(2002). Why no child or adult must learn de Morgan’s laws. In Skarabela

Fish

A. H.-J.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Boston University child language development conference (pp. 367–378). Cascadilla Press.

26.

Gualmini

Crain

(2005). The structure of children’s linguistic knowledge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 463–474.

27.

Guasti

M. T.

(2018, August 10). The acquisition of negated disjunction: Evidence from Italian, French, Dutch and Hungarian [Conference session]. A Keynote Speech given at CCD Language Acquisition Workshop, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

28.

Hardt

(1993). Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.

29.

Jackendoff

(1968). Some rules of semantic interpretation for English [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

30.

Jayaseelan

K. A.

(2001). Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax, 4(2), 63–93.

31.

Jenkins

(2000). Biolinguistics: Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge University Press.

32.

Jing

Crain

Hsu

C.-F.

(2005). The interpretation of focus in Chinese: Child vs. adult language. In Otsu

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 165–179). Hituzi Syobo Publishing.

33.

Johnson

(2001). What VP Ellipsis can do, what it can’t, but not why. In Baltin

Collins

(Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 439–479). Blackwell.

34.

Katzir

Singh

(2013). Hurford disjunctions: Embedded exhaustification and structural economy. In Etxeberria

Falaus

Irurtzun

Leferman

(Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18 (pp. 201–216). University of Konstanz.

35.

Klima

E. S.

(1964). Negation in English. In Fodor

J. A.

Katz

J. J.

(Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language. Prentice-Hall.

36.

Ladusaw

(1979). Negative polarity as inherent scope relations [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas.

37.

Lee

O. S.

(2010). Acquisition of Korean disjunction under negation. Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Hawai'i at Mãnoa, 41(7), 1–12.

38.

Nicolae

A. C.

(2017). Deriving the positive polarity behavior of plain disjunction. Semantics & Pragmatics, 10(5), 1–24.

39.

Notley

A. M.

Zhou

Crain

(2016). Children's interpretation of conjunction in the scope of negation in English and Mandarin: New evidence for the semantic subset maxim. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(4), 867–900.

40.

Pagliarini

Andrada

Guasti

M. T.

Crain

Gavarró

(2021). Negative sentences with disjunction in child Catalan. Language Acquisition, 28(2), 153–165.

41.

Pagliarini

Crain

Guasti

M. T.

(2018). The compositionality of logical connectives in Child Italian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 1243–1277.

42.

Sag

(1976). Deletion and logical form [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

43.

Shimada

(2014). Children’s Interpretation of Japanese Disjunctive ‘ka’: Subject-object asymmetry. In Chu

C.-Y.

Coughlin

C. E.

Lopez Prego

Minai

Tremblay

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (pp. 90–98). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

44.

Shimada

Goro

(2021). On the source of children’s conjunctive interpretation of disjunction: Scope, strengthening, or both? Language Acquisition, 28(2), 98–130.

45.

Spector

(2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics, 711(11), 1–61.

46.

Szabolcsi

(2002). Hungarian disjunctions and positive polarity. In Kenesei

Siptar

(Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian (Vol. 8, pp. 217–241). Akademiai Kiado.

47.

Szabolcsi

(2004). Positive polarity-negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(2), 409–452.

48.

Tieu

Romoli

Zhou

Crain

(2016). Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 33(2), 269–298.

49.

Verbuk

(2006). The acquisition of the Russian or. In Brainbridge

Agbayani

(Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth Western conference on linguistics (pp. 443–455). California State University.

50.

Zhou

Romoli

Crain

(2013). Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences. In Snider

(Ed.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (pp. 632–651). Cornell University.