The Quantificational Apparatus of Language: Integrating Theory, Development, and Pathology. Julien Musolino Rutgers University

Quantification Theoretical Linguistics Developmental Psychology Speech-language pathology How does quantification work? How does quantificational competence develop? What happens in the case of atypical development?

Part 1: Developmental Psychology Part 1: Theoretical Linguistics  Provide the ‘technical glue’ that is going to bind all three parts together.  Provide some general background on linguistic quantification.  Tell you why quantification is worth studying – why we should care.

 Directly apply the theoretical notions discussed in part 1 to a classic developmental puzzle. Part 2: Developmental Psychology  Present results that will lead to a reinterpretation of most previous research in that domain.  This will set the stage for part 3.

 The approach developed in part 1 and 2 naturally extends to the study of atypical development. Part 1: Developmental Psychology Part 2: Linguistic Theory Part 3: Speech-language pathology  Focus on the case of Williams Syndrome (WS).  Show that the integrative approach provides a unique way to address the central question of whether grammar is spared in WS.  To close the loop, I will show that new results on WS have implications for all three fields.

Part 1: Developmental Psychology Part 1: Theoretical Linguistics  Provide the ‘technical glue’ that is going to bind all three parts together.  Provide some general background on linguistic quantification.  Tell you why quantification is worth studying – why we should care.

Quantifiers _______________________________________________________ Some, all, two, many, every, no …  Give us the power to express generalizations about quantities of individuals.

Quantifiers _______________________________________________________ “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” Abraham Lincoln (attributed) George W. Bush

Why Study Quantification? _______________________________________________________  Core property of natural language  Extremely complex phenomenon  Causes problems until late in development

Quantifiers _______________________________________________________  Scope  C-command  Covert displacement  Logical Form

Buying candy … noteverybody

The phenomenon _______________________________________________________ (1)Every N neg VP a.‘None’ b.‘Not all’

Scope _______________________________________________________ (2 X 3) X (3 + 5)

Scope & C-command _____________________________ (2 x 3) x (3 + 5) Scope = C-command domain

Scope _______________________________________________________ (1)Every horse didn’t jump over the fence Every horse (not jump) ‘none’ Isomorphic interpretation Every horse is interpreted outside the scope of negation

Scope and covert displacement _______________________________________________________ (1)Every horse didn’t jump over the fence (Not every horse) jumped ‘not all’ Every horse is interpreted within the scope of negation Non-isomorphic interpretation

Logical Form (LF) _______________________________________________________ (1)Every N neg VP ISOMORPHIC LF = every > not NON-ISOMORPHIC LF = not > every IP Every N I’ NEGVP V’ IP I’ NEGVP Every N V’ Covert displacement

Why should we care? _______________________________________________________  Because the mapping between form and meaning is complex.  Because the grammatical operations involved are undetectable in the surface form.  How can we learn about what we can’t detect?

 Directly apply the theoretical notions discussed in part 1 to a classic developmental puzzle. Part 2: Developmental Psychology  Present results that will lead to a reinterpretation of most previous research in that domain.  This will set the stage for part 3.

Early use _______________________________________________________ ‘Because there no pictures’ (Eve, 2;1) ‘I drink all grape juice’ (Eve, 1;10) ‘Then Eve have some milk’ (Eve, 1;11) ‘Two knife out the box’ (Eve, 1;11)

_________________________________________________________ Cause problems until late Adults: YES5-year-olds: NO Is every dog on a mat? Not this one

Previous Accounts _________________________________________________________  Lack of conceptual knowledge (Inhelder & Piaget, 1964)  Lack of syntactic knowledge (Bucci, 1978; Roeper and deVilliers, 1991)  Lack of semantic knowledge (Philip 1995, Drozd & van Loosbroek, 1999)  Incomplete knowledge (Musolino, Crain and Thornton, 2000)

In sum _________________________________________________________  On most accounts, children’s ‘errors’ are taken to reflect a lack of knowledge (conceptual or linguistic)  Remarkable lack of consensus regarding the nature of the problem  Vast majority of studies have focused on one construction

Specific goals _________________________________________________________  Investigate a broader range of quantificational phenomena and show that:  Accounts based on ‘lack of knowledge’ are likely to be incorrect  The ‘errors’ that children make can be used to uncover their grammatical knowledge

Results to be presented _______________________________________________________  I won’t discuss all the details (number of subjects, age range, types of analyses) but …  Most of the data have been published  Most of the data have been replicated  Children are preschoolers (4-5 age range)

Experimental methodology _______________________________________________________ Truth Value Judgment Task Crain and Thornton, (1998)

Universally quantified subjects _______________________________________________________ (1)Every horse didn’t jump over the fence. Musolino, Crain and Thornton (2000) Linguistics

One of the stories _______________________________________________________

One of the stories _______________________________________________________

One of the stories _______________________________________________________

One of the stories _______________________________________________________

One of the stories _______________________________________________________

One of the stories _______________________________________________________

One of the stories _______________________________________________________ The end of the story “Every horse didn’t jump over the fence, am I right?”

Results (5-year-olds vs. adults) _______________________________________________________

Children’s justifications _______________________________________________________ “Every horse didn’t jump over the fence, am I right?” Child:”You’re wrong because these two horses jumped over the fence!”

Numerally quantified objects _______________________________________________________ (2) The Smurf didn’t catch two birds Lidz and Musolino (2002) Cognition a. Not (caught 2) b. 2 (not caught)

Isomorphic Condition _______________________________________________________ 2 (not caught) = FALSE Not (caught 2) = TRUE

Non-Isomorphic Condition _______________________________________________________ 2 (not caught) = TRUE Not (caught 2) = FALSE

Results: Adults _______________________________________________________ IsomorphicNon-Isomorphic

Results: Children _______________________________________________________ IsomorphicNon-Isomorphic

Children’s justifications (non-iso) _______________________________________________________ “The Smurf didn’t catch two birds, am I right?” Child:”You’re wrong, she did catch two!”

Children’s justifications (iso) _______________________________________________________ “The Smurf didn’t catch two birds, am I right?” Child:” You’re right! She only caught one”

The observation of Isomorphism _______________________________________________________ “Young children, unlike adults, have a strong tendency to interpret sentences containing quantified NPs and negation on the basis of the surface syntactic position of these elements” Musolino, Crain and Thornton (2000) Linguistics

The observation of Isomorphism _______________________________________________________ ChildrenAdults  Sentence type  Every horse didn’t jump over the fence The Smurf didn’t catch two birds  2 2 

Questions  Developmental question  Causal question  Structural question

The structural question _______________________________________________________  What underlies isomorphism?  Linear order ?  C-command ?

IP SUBJECT I’ English (SVO) _______________________________________________________ I Neg VERB OBJECT VP Subj > Neg Neg > Obj

Kannada Approximately 40 million speakers in Karnataka, south-western India.

Scope ambiguity in Kannada naanu eraDu pustaka ood-al-illa I-nom two books read-inf-neg ‘I didn't read two books.’ a. Not (read 2) b. 2 (not read) SOV

IP SUBJECT I’ Kannada (SOV) _______________________________________________________ I Neg OBJECT VERB VP

Predictions for Kannada  To the extent that Kannada children display a preference for one of the two readings: _______________________________________________________  C-command: same results as English  Linear order: opposite results from English

Results: Adults 2 (not caught) not (caught 2)

Results: English vs. Kannada EnglishKannada 2 (not)Not (2)2 (not)Not (2)

Conclusions _______________________________________________________  They differ in ways that are constrained by fundamental linguistic principles (i.e. c-command).  Children systematically differ from adults.  Children’s ‘errors’ tell us about the kinds of linguistic representations that they entertain.

Objections _______________________________________________________  Hint: complexity of displays, reverse linear order, selective focus  What else could account for the results on c-command?

The causal question _______________________________________________________  Lack of syntactic knowledge (Bucci, 1978; Roeper and deVilliers, 1991)  Lack of semantic knowledge (Philip 1995, Drozd & van Loosbroek, 1999)  Incomplete knowledge (Musolino, Crain and Thornton, 2000)

Lack of knowledge? _______________________________________________________  Children can be made to behave like adults  Adults can be made to behave like children Musolino and Lidz (2003) Language Acquisition Musolino and Lidz (2006) Linguistics

Turning children into adults _______________________________________________________ (2)Every horse jumped over the log but every horse didn’t jump over the fence (1)Every horse didn’t jump over the fence.

One of the stories _______________________________________________________ The end of the story “Every horse jumped over the log but every horse didn’t jump over the fence, am I right?”

_______________________________________________________ Results

Conclusions _______________________________________________________  Context can be manipulated so as to boost children’s ability to access non-isomorphic interpretation  Renders ‘lack of knowledge’ account implausible

Turning adults into children _______________________________________________________ (2) NP didn’t V two N What is the adult preference? Non-IsomorphicIsomorphic

Two > not = TRUE Not > two = TRUE Cookie Monster didn’t eat two slices of pizza Same material as in Lidz and Musolino (2002)

Justifications _______________________________________________________  Narrow scope: “because he only ate one slice – not two”  Wide scope: “because there are two slices that he didn’t eat”  Unclear

Results (adults, n=20) _______________________________________________________

Turning adults into children _______________________________________________________ (2) NP didn’t V two N What is the adult preference? Non-IsomorphicIsomorphic

Conclusions _______________________________________________________  In this case, children’s preference for isomorphic interpretations reflects an exaggerated preference also observable in adults

Inducing Isomorphism in adults _______________________________________________________ (2)Two frogs didn’t jump over the rock  There are two frogs that didn’t jump over the rock (two>not)  It is not the case that two frogs jumped over the rock (not>two)

Isomorphic condition _______________________________________________________ Two > not = TRUE Not > two = FALSE

Non-Isomorphic condition _______________________________________________________ Two > not = FALSE Not > two = TRUE

Results (adults, n=20) _______________________________________________________

Helping adults _______________________________________________________ (1) Two frogs didn’t jump over the rock. (2) Two frogs jumped over the fence but two frogs didn’t jump over the rock.

Two frogs jumped over the fence but two frogs didn’t jump over the rock. Two > not = FALSE Not > two = TRUE

Results (adults) _______________________________________________________

Conclusions _______________________________________________________  Remarkable continuity between the developing and the mature system  Children’s isomorphic behavior represents exaggerated preferences also observable in adults  The isomorphic effect can be induced in adults  The contextual factors that help children overcome their isomorphic tendencies have the same effects on adults

General conclusions _______________________________________________________  Systematic differences in the way children and adults interpret quantified statements.  Children’s errors can be used to uncover their grammatical knowledge.  Accounts based on ‘lack of knowledge’ are likely to be incorrect.

General conclusions _________________________________________________________  By the age of 5, children have adult-like knowledge of the grammar of quantification  However, children differ from adults in the way they implement their knowledge  Differences in processing resources deployed during language comprehension

The kindergartenpath effect (Trueswell et al. 1999) SENTENCE LF1 isomorphic LF2 non-isomorphic Children & adults Adults are better

 The approach developed in part 1 and 2 naturally extends to the study of atypical development. Part 1: Developmental Psychology Part 2: Linguistic Theory Part 3: Speech-language pathology  Focus on the case of Williams Syndrome (WS). Musolino, Landau, and Chunyo (2007), In preparation

Issue  The status of grammatical knowledge in individuals with Williams Syndrome (WS)  Spared or impaired? _______________________________________________________

Why should we care?  So WS can potentially to tell us a lot about the structure and development of the human mind.  WS suggests a potential dissociation between language and other aspects of cognition (e.g., spatial cognition). _______________________________________________________

Main claim  Knowledge of core, abstract principles of syntactic and semantic computation is spared in WS.  Implications for the relevance of WS in the debate over modularity. _______________________________________________________

Outline  Background on WS  Competing views  Apply the integrative approach  Experimental evidence  Implications _______________________________________________________

Williams Syndrome _______________________________________________________

Williams Syndrome  Rare genetic disorder (1/15,000 live births) involving a micro-deletion on chromosome 7.  Physical anomalies along with mild to more serious mental retardation (IQ average  70).  Uneven cognitive profile with areas of strength (e.g., language) in the face of serious deficits in areas such as spatial cognition, motor planning, and number. _______________________________________________________

Language in WS  “Verbal advantage over non-verbal intelligence” (Karmiloff-Smith et al., 1997)  Verbal IQ > Performance IQ  Different from individuals with similar levels of mental retardation (e.g., Down Syndrome) _______________________________________________________

Interpretations  Is grammar spared in WS?  Yes (e.g., Pinker, 1999; Clahsen & Almazan, 1998; Brock, 2006; Mervis et al., 2003; Zukowski, 2006)  No (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith, 1998; Karmiloff-Smith et al., 1997; Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith, 2003 ) _______________________________________________________  Proponents of some version of modularity

Neuroconstructivist view  Knowledge of grammar is impaired or deviant in WS.  WS individuals learn language using different cognitive mechanisms.  Explicitly rejects modularity.  Emphasis on rote learning and inability to extract underlying regularities and form linguistic generalizations. _______________________________________________________

Neuroconstructivist view - Karmiloff and Karmiloff-Smith (2001) “It has become increasingly clear, therefore, that the superficially impressive language skills of individuals with WS may be due to good auditory memory rather than an intact grammar module” (p.202-3). “We argue that the language of WS people, although good given their level of mental retardation, will not turn out to be “intact””(p.247) - Karmiloff et al. (1997) _______________________________________________________

Neuroconstructivist view “… they will tend to acquire a large number of words by rote and only weakly extract underlying regularities.” (p.257) “This suggests that if WS children go about language acquisition differently from normal children … they will end up – as they indeed do – with large vocabularies but relatively poor system building” (p. 257) - Karmiloff et al. (1997) _______________________________________________________

Goals  Focusing on knowledge of core syntactic and semantic principles.  Apply the integrative approach to test the predictions of these two opposing views.  Using an experimental technique (the TVJT) which has a proven track record in uncovering such knowledge. _______________________________________________________  Looking at quantificational phenomena.

The phenomenon  The interaction of negation and disjunction … NOT … OR … _______________________________________________________

The phenomenon (1)John had a beer or a glass of wine. (2)*  John had a beer and John had a glass of wine. (3)John didn’t have a beer or a glass of wine. (4)  John didn’t have a beer and John didn’t have a glass of wine. _______________________________________________________

De Morgan’s laws  (P  Q)  (  P)  (  Q) Not (beer or wine)  (not beer) and (not wine) “The negation of the disjunction of two propositions is logically equivalent to the conjunction of their negations” _______________________________________________________

The phenomenon  The interpretation of negation and disjunction is governed by De Morgan’s laws of propositional logic  But only when disjunction occurs in the scope of negation _______________________________________________________

Scope condition C-command Precede only Inclusive (Neither) Exclusive (Either) (5) The man who got a pay raise didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot. (6) The man who didn’t get a pay raise bought a BMW or a Peugeot. _______________________________________________________

Knowledge to be tested  (a) Syntax: scope/c-command  (b) Semantics: entailment relations and De Morgan’s laws of propositional logic  (c) The relationship between (a) and (b) … NOT … OR … _______________________________________________________

Predictions  Spared grammar view: knowledge of scope, c- command, entailment relations and De Morgan’s laws should be spared.  Neuroconstructivist view: knowledge of scope, c- command, entailment relations and De Morgan’s laws should be impaired. _______________________________________________________

Experiment

The idea C-command Precede Neither Either The man who got a pay raise didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot. The man who didn’t get a pay raise bought a BMW or a Peugeot. _______________________________________________________

4 control conditions The man [who got a pay raise] didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot. Control 1 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 _______________________________________________________

The man who got a pay raise didn’t buy a BMW or a Peugeot C-command FALSE

The man who didn’t get a pay raise bought a BMW or a Peugeot Precede True

Participants (3 groups)  12 individuals with WS (M age = 16;4, Range = 11;10 to 21;11) (M IQ = 63; SD = 4.19)  12 Mental Age controls (M = 6;1, Range = 5;2 to 7;8) (M IQ = 118; SD = 2.44)  12 adults (all college undergraduates) _______________________________________________________

Design Conditions: 2 experimental and 4 control - Precede vs. C-command (experimental)  3 (groups) x 6 (conditions) Groups = WS, MA, Adults - Or, negation, relative clauses, De Morgan’s law (controls) _______________________________________________________

Methodology  Truth Value Judgment Task - Short, animated vignettes presented on a computer monitor with pre-recorded narration. - Statements about what happened are heard at the end of each vignette. - Participants have to decide whether the statements are true or false. _______________________________________________________

Results

Control conditions (proportion of correct responses) - No main effect of group, condition, or interaction (All p values >.1)

Interim conclusions  Participants experienced no difficulty with the task.  WS and MA have knowledge of the meaning of components that make up the experimental items (or, negation, relative clauses, De Morgan).  WS do not differ from MA. _______________________________________________________

Experimental conditions (proportion of correct responses) - Main effect of group (p. 4) **

Interim conclusions  Both WS and MA have knowledge of c- command and De Morgan’s laws.  MA are slightly better at implementing their knowledge. _______________________________________________________

Implementation  No differences between the two groups on each of the components when considered in isolation.  Cumulative difficulty of these interacting components is more taxing for WS than MA.  Presumably due to differences in processing resources between the two groups. _______________________________________________________

Implementation  Is level performance on experimental conditions related to level of performance on control conditions (correlational analysis)?  YES for both WS and MA (r ≥.7) _______________________________________________________

Implementation  What is the precise nature of these correlations (regression analysis)?  For both WS and MA, performance on negation was a significant predictor of overall performance (accounting for 46% and 64% of the variance, respectively)  Makes sense given what is known about processing difficulties associated with negation (e.g., Horn, 1989) _______________________________________________________

Implementation  No qualitative difference in the way WS and MA implement their knowledge.  If we are on the right track:  Results comparing WS to 4-year-olds suggest that this is indeed the case.  WS performance should be similar to that of younger, typically developing children. _______________________________________________________

WS vs. MA (proportion correct responses)

WS vs. 4-year-olds (proportion correct responses)

Conclusions  Results are compatible with the spared grammar view.  Knowledge of core, and very abstract principles of syntactic and semantic computation is preserved, or intact, in the WS population (scope, c- command, entailment relations, De Morgan’s laws) _______________________________________________________

Conclusions  Empirical challenge  Theoretical challenge  Our results directly contradict the claim that knowledge of grammar is not intact in WS.  How is knowledge of c-command, etc. acquired if the cognitive mechanisms involved are different from those used by typically developing children ?  Challenge for the neuroconstructivist view. _______________________________________________________

Conclusions  The study of typical and atypical development must proceed hand and hand, with each area informing the other. _______________________________________________________

If everything I said wasn’t clear, it is because I didn’t tell you everything …