Yi Ting Huang

What exactly do numbers mean

Number words are generally used to refer to the exact cardinal value of a set, but cognitive scientists disagree about their meanings. Although most psychological analyses presuppose that numbers have exact semantics (two means exactly two), many linguistic accounts propose that numbers have lower-bounded semantics (at least two), and that speakers restrict their reference through a pragmatic inference (scalar implicature). We address this debate through studies of children who are in the process of acquiring the meanings of numbers. Adults and 2- and 3-year-olds were tested in a novel paradigm that teases apart semantic and pragmatic aspects of interpretation (the covered box task). Our findings establish that when scalar implicatures are cancelled in the critical trials of this task, both adults and children consistently give exact interpretations for number words. These results, in concert with recent work on real-time processing, provide the first unambiguous evidence that number words have exact semantics.

Logic and Conversation Revisited: Evidence For a Division Between Semantic and Pragmatic Content in Real Time Language Comprehension

The distinction between semantics (linguistically encoded meaning) and pragmatics (inferences about communicative intentions) can often be unclear and counterintuitive. For example, linguistic theories argue that the meaning of some encompasses the meaning of all while the intuition that some implies not all results from an inference. We explored how online interpretation of some evolves using an eye-tracking while listening paradigm. Early eye-movements indicated that while some was initially interpreted as compatible with all, participants began excluding referents compatible with all approximately 800 ms later. These results contrast with recent evidence of immediate inferencing and highlight the presence of bottom-up semantic–pragmatic interactions which necessarily rely on initial access to lexical meanings to trigger inferences.

When Is Four Far More Than Three? Children’s Generalization of Newly Acquired Number Words

What is the relationship between children’s first number words and number concepts? We used training tasks to explore children’s interpretation of number words as they acquired the words’ meanings. Children who had mastered the meanings of only the first two or three number words were systematically provided with varied input on the next word-to-quantity mapping, and their extension of the newly trained word was assessed across a variety of test items. Children who had already mastered number words to three generalized training on four to new objects and nouns, such that their representation of the newly learned number was approximate. In contrast, children who had mastered only one and two learned to apply three reliably within a single count-noun context (e.g., three dogs), but did not generalize training to new objects labeled with different nouns (e.g., three cows). Both findings suggest that children fail to map newly learned words in their counting routine to the fully abstract concepts of natural numbers.

Cascading activation across levels of representation in children's lexical processing

Recent work in adult psycholinguistics has demonstrated that activation of semantic representations begins long before phonological processing is complete. This incremental propagation of information across multiple levels of analysis is a hallmark of adult language processing but how does this ability develop? In two experiments, we elicit measures of incremental activation of semantic representations during word recognition in children. Five-year-olds were instructed to select a target (logs) while their eye-movements were measured to a competitor (key) that was semantically related to an absent phonological associate (lock). We found that, like adults, children made increased looks to competitors relative to unrelated control items. However, unlike adults, children continued to look at the competitor even after the target word was uniquely identified and were more likely to incorrectly select this item. Altogether, these results suggest that early lexical processing involves cascading activation but less efficient resolution of competing entries.

Distinguishing the time course of lexical and discourse processes through context, coreference, and quantified expressions.

How does prior context influence lexical and discourse-level processing during real-time language comprehension? Experiment 1 examined whether the referential ambiguity introduced by a repeated, anaphoric expression had an immediate or delayed effect on lexical and discourse processing, using an eye-tracking-while-reading task. Eye movements indicated facilitated recognition of repeated expressions, suggesting that prior context can rapidly influence lexical processing. However, context effects at the discourse level affected later processing, appearing in longer regression-path durations 2 words after the anaphor and in greater rereading times of the antecedent expression. Experiments 2 and 3 explored the nature of this delay by examining the role of the preceding context in activating relevant representations. Offline and online interpretations confirmed that relevant referents were activated following the critical context. Nevertheless, their initial unavailability during comprehension suggests a robust temporal division between lexical and discourse-level processing.

Variations in the recruitment of syntactic knowledge contribute to SES differences in syntactic development.

Average differences in childrens language abilities by socioeconomic status (SES) emerge early in development and predict academic achievement. Previous research has focused on coarse-grained outcome measures such as vocabulary size, but less is known about the extent to which SES differences exist in childrens strategies for comprehension and learning. We measured childrens (N = 98) comprehension of passive sentences to investigate whether SES differences are more pronounced in overall knowledge of the construction or in more specific abilities to process sentences during real-time interpretation. SES differences in comprehension emerged when syntactic revision of passives was necessary, and disappeared when the need to revise was removed. Further, syntactic revision but not knowledge of the passive best explained the association between SES and a standardized measure of syntactic development. These results demonstrate that SES differences in syntactic development may result from how children recruit syntactic information within sentences.

Talking About SOME and ALL: What Determines the Usage of Quantity-Denoting Expressions?

ABSTRACT Reference production is often studied through single dimensions of contrast (e.g., “tall glass” when there are one or two glasses of varying height). Yet real-world communication is rarely so simple, raising questions about the factors guiding more complex referents. The current study examines decisions to mention set relations (e.g., using quantity-denoting expressions like “some of the houses” to refer to two of five houses) versus object categories only (e.g., using bare plurals like “houses”). Two experiments used vignettes to vary discourse focus on objects (prominent vs. nonprominent) and scenes to vary the set type described (subset vs. total set). Speakers were more likely to communicate set relations of prominent objects, particularly when they elicit high name agreement in the case of total sets. Speakers’ use of quantity-denoting expressions also increased listeners’ sensitivity to set relations in an object-matching task. This suggests that unlike simpler forms of modification that often decrease with greater focus, quantity-denoting expressions provide additional information about the set relations of prominent referents.