2019
DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.902
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correction: Quantifier spreading: Children misled by ostensive cues

Abstract: This article details a correction to the article É. Kiss, Katalin & Tamás Zétényi. 2017. Quantifier spreading: children misled by ostensive cues. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1). 38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.147

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some provide linguistic accounts: quantifier spreading arises when the pragmatic condition of plausible dissent is not met in the experimental task (Crain et al, 1996) or when experimenters fail to specify a clear ‘question under discussion’ (Skordas et al, 2022); children’s quantifier spreading results from distributive inferences, implicatures derived by negating domain alternatives that indefinite NPs such as a pony activate, since they give rise to free choice inferences (Denić & Chemla, 2020); children treat the quantifier as the modifier rather than the head of the QNP (Kang, 2001); children cannot interpret universal quantifiers but understand the sentence under discussion as generic with silent always (Kuznetsova et al, 2007). Others give cognitive accounts: children expand the restriction to all the entities in the picture instead of the test sentence (Aravind et al, 2017; Kang, 2001; Kiss & Zétényi, 2017); children committing spreading errors have difficulty in switching perspectives using successful cognitive control (Minai et al, 2012). These cognitive accounts hold that spreading errors stem from non-grammatical factors.…”
Section: The Acquisition Of Universal Quantifiersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some provide linguistic accounts: quantifier spreading arises when the pragmatic condition of plausible dissent is not met in the experimental task (Crain et al, 1996) or when experimenters fail to specify a clear ‘question under discussion’ (Skordas et al, 2022); children’s quantifier spreading results from distributive inferences, implicatures derived by negating domain alternatives that indefinite NPs such as a pony activate, since they give rise to free choice inferences (Denić & Chemla, 2020); children treat the quantifier as the modifier rather than the head of the QNP (Kang, 2001); children cannot interpret universal quantifiers but understand the sentence under discussion as generic with silent always (Kuznetsova et al, 2007). Others give cognitive accounts: children expand the restriction to all the entities in the picture instead of the test sentence (Aravind et al, 2017; Kang, 2001; Kiss & Zétényi, 2017); children committing spreading errors have difficulty in switching perspectives using successful cognitive control (Minai et al, 2012). These cognitive accounts hold that spreading errors stem from non-grammatical factors.…”
Section: The Acquisition Of Universal Quantifiersmentioning
confidence: 99%