NPI Licensing and Beyond: Children’s Knowledge of the Semantics of Any

References

• Barner, David, Neon Brooks & Alan Bale. 2011. Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inferences. Cognition 188. 87–96.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, Gresory 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53. 520–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4). 535–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chierchia, Gennaro, Stephen Crain, Maria Teresa Guasti & Rosalind Thornton. 2001. “Some” and “or”: A study on the emergence of logical form. In S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish & Thea Keith-Lucas (eds.), Proceedings of the 24^th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development [BUCLD 24], 22–44. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2011. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Crain, Stephen & Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crain, Stephen & Rosalind Thornton. 2000. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crain, Stephen & Rosalind Thornton. 2006. Acquisition of syntax and semantics. In Mathew Traxler & Morton A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 2nd edn., 1073–1110. St. Peters, Australia: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3). 353–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, Gilles. 1979. Implication reversal in a natural language. In F. Guenther & S.J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages, 289–301. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Fintel, Kai von. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson Entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(1). 97–148.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (non)veridicality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gualmini, Andrea. 2004. Some knowledge children don’t lack. Linguistics 42. 957–982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gualmini, Andrea & Stephen Crain. 2002. Why no child or adult must learn DeMorgan’s laws. In S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish & Thea Keith-Lucas (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development [BUCLD 24], 367–378. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gualmini, Andrea & Stephen Crain. 2004. Operator conditioning. In Alejna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla & Christine E. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Boston University Conference on Child Language Development [BUCLD 28], 232–243. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gualmini, Andrea, Stephen Crain, Luisa Meroni, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria Teresa Guasti. 2001. At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 11, 231–247. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Heim, Irene. 1984. A note on negative polarity and downward entailingness. In Charles Jones & Peter Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 98–107. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, Lawrence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Israel, Michael. 2011. The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales ( Cambridge Studies in Linguistics Book 127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4). 353–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25. 209–257.
   Google Scholar
• Kuczaj, Stan. 1977. The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16. 589–600.
   Google Scholar
• Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, George. 1969. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 5, 149–157. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, Shevaun. 2013. Pragmatic enrichment in language processing and development. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(3). 325–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Musolino, Julien. 1998. Universal grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Noveck, Ira. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition 78(8). 165–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Leary, Carrie & Stephen Crain. 1994. Negative polarity (a positive result) and positive polarity (a negative result). Paper presented at the 18th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD). Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Papafragou, Anna & Julien Musolino. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition 86. 253–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 117–121.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, Caroline F. & Sarah L. Fletcher. 2006. The effect of sampling on estimates of lexical specificity and error rates. Journal of Child Language 33. 859–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, Raj, Ken Wexler, Andrea Astle, Deepthi Kamawar & Danny Fox. 2015. Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: Consequences for the theory of scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, Rosalind. 1995. Referentiality and wh-movement in child English: Juvenile d-?linkuency. Language Acquisition 4(1–2). 139–175.
   Google Scholar
• Tieu, Lyn. 2010. On the tri-ambiguous status of any: The view from child language. In David Lutz & Nan Li (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 19–37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Tieu, Lyn. 2013. Logic and grammar in child language: How children acquire the semantics of polarity sensitivity. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut at Storrs dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Tieu, Lyn. 2015. Input vs. output in the acquisition of negative polarity: The curious case of any. In Pierre Larrivée & Chungmin Lee (eds.), Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives, vol. 1: Language, cognition, and mind, 327–343. Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tieu, Lyn, Jacopo Romoli, Peng Zhou & Stephen Crain. Forthcoming. Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics. doi:10.1093/jos/ffv001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren-Leubecker, Amye. 1982. Sex differences in speech to children: Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Warren-Leubecker, Amye & John Neil Bohannon. 1984. Intonation patterns in child-directed speech: Mother-father speech. Child Development 55. 1379–1385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang, Ming, Anatasia Conroy, Jeffrey Lidz & Andrea Zukowski. 2006. Children’s understanding of polarity items. Poster presented at the conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, Peng, Jacopo Romoli & Stephen Crain. 2013. Chidren’s knowledge of alternatives. In Todd Snider (ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23, 632–651. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
   Google Scholar