# Interpretation of Gradable Adjectives and Negation in French-Speaking Children

Sophie Moracchini, Oana Lungu, Hamida Demirdache

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Sophie Moracchini, Oana Lungu, Hamida Demirdache. Interpretation of Gradable Adjectives and Negation in French-Speaking Children. 2024. hal-05006362

HAL Id: hal-05006362

https://hal.science/hal-05006362v1

Preprint submitted on 26 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Interpretation of Gradable Adjectives and Negation in French-Speaking Children

SynSem 2024, Nantes
# Theoretical background
# Gradable adjectives

* Gradable adjectives represent functions that result in the ordering of objects according to a scale (e.g., of *height*, *width*).

* Scales:

* Composed of degrees (e.g., degrees of height; Cresswell, 1976; Kennedy, 1999)

* Order objects without appeal to degree semantics (Klein, 1991).

* Negation interacts with gradable adjectives to form opposites:

* Contrary opposition: both predicates cannot be true at the same time, but both can be false (e.g., *tall* and *short*).

* Contradictory opposition: the falsity of one predicate entails the truth of the other (e.g., *tall* and *not tall*).
Contextual information

* Knowing the meaning of gradable adjectives like *tall* or *big* does not alone indicate how these words should be applied to objects/individuals in the world.

(2) Bill is tall.

a. Bill is a basketball player

b. Bill is a jockey

o What is the comparison class?

o What is the standard of comparison?

* Positive adjectival constructions specify positions in the ordering with respect to a standard of comparison.
# The menagerie

* Polarity relations on the scale

* Contrary opposition: A+/A-

* Contradictory opposition: A+/Not A+

* Gap

* Strengthening phenomena

* Not A+

* Not A-

* Multiple Negations in the adjectival domain

* Double negation

* Duplex negation
Contrary Opposition

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
Contrary Opposition

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Contrary Opposition

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
# Gap

Mes chiens préférés ne sont ni grands ni petits.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
# Gap

Mes chiens préférés ne sont ni grands ni petits.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
A+

Mes chiens préférés sont grands.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Mes chiens préférés sont petits.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
Contradictory Opposition

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
A+

Mes chiens préférés sont grands.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
# Not A+

Mes chiens préférés ne sont pas grands.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
Summary

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
# The menagerie

* Polarity relations on the scale

o A+/A-

o Gap

* Strengthening phenomena

o Not A+

o Not A-

* Multiple Negations in the adjectival domain

o Double negation

o Duplex negation
# Negative strengthening

1. a. Rooms **not large**, but not small either.
   b. My bedroom is **not large**. Because I don't like small rooms, I spend little time in it.

* In (1a.), *not large* is weaker than *small*.

* In (1b.), *not large* can be replaced by *short* without any change of meaning.

Strengthening asymmetry between members of a pair of antonyms:

* Positive members (A+) license more inferences than negative members (A-).
  (Horn 1989, and experimental evidence in Ruytenbeek et al. 2017; Gotzner & Mazzarella 2021)

* Morphological negative antonyms (*not unhappy*) license more inferences than lexical antonyms (*not sad*).
  (Ruytenbeek et al. 2017)
# Negative strengthening

Logic Interpretation

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Strengthened
Interpretation

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
# Negative strengthening

Logic Interpretation

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Strengthened
Interpretation

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>
Negative strengthening

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Strengthened
Interpretation
# Not A+

Mes chiens préférés ne sont pas grands.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
# Not A+

Mes chiens préférés ne sont pas grands.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>
# Not A-

Mes chiens préférés ne sont pas petits.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>
# Not A-

Mes chiens préférés ne sont pas petits.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>
# The menagerie

* Polarity relations on the scale

* A+/A-

* Not A+/A+

* Gap

* Strengthening phenomena

* Not A+

* Not A-

* Multiple Negations in the adjectival domain

* Double negation

* Duplex negation
Double Negation

* English has two structures of double negation, adverbial and the combination of adverbial and prefixal negation

(1) a. John is **not not** happy (Double Negation)

b. John is **not unhappy** (Duplex Negation)

* Experimental data from both English and Hebrew suggest that adults accept forms like (1a).

(Tessler & Francke 2018, Shabanov & Shetreet 2022)
# Not not A+

My preferred dog types are small and medium.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>
# Interpretation patterns

<table><tr><td>Logical patterns</td><td>Pas grands<br><img src="image_pas_grands.png" alt="Pas grands: 3 dogs, one chihuahua, one golden retriever, one doberman, one terrier"></td><td>Pas petits<br><img src="image_pas_petits.png" alt="Pas petits: 2 dogs, one chihuahua, one golden retriever, one terrier"></td></tr><tr><td>Strengthened patterns</td><td>Petits - Pas grands<br><img src="image_pets_grands.png" alt="Petits - Pas grands: 2 dogs, one chihuahua, one golden retriever, one terrier"></td><td>Pas petits - Pas pas Grands<br><img src="image_pets_pets_grands.png" alt="Pas petits - Pas pas Grands: 2 dogs, one chihuahua, one golden retriever, one terrier"></td></tr><tr><td>GAP</td><td>Ni grands ni petits<br><img src="image_gap.png" alt="GAP: 3 dogs"></td><td></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>
# Interpretation patterns

<table><tr><td>Logical patterns</td><td>Not big<br><img src="image1.png" alt="Three dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, and a large dog. The medium dog is in a yellow box."></td><td>Not small<br><img src="image2.png" alt="Four dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, a large dog, and a very large dog. The medium dog is in a red box."></td></tr><tr><td>Strengthened patterns</td><td>Small - not big<br><img src="image3.png" alt="Three dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, and a large dog. The medium dog is in a green box."></td><td>Not small - not big<br><img src="image4.png" alt="Four dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, a large dog, and a very large dog. The medium dog is in a blue box."></td></tr><tr><td>GAP</td><td colspan="2">Neither big nor small<br><img src="image5.png" alt="Five dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, a large dog, a very large dog, and a very very large dog. The medium dog is in a purple box."></td></tr></table>
# Potential challenges for young learners

* How does children's comprehension of antonyms and negated antonyms develop with age?
# Potential challenges for young learners

* How does children's comprehension of antonyms and negated antonyms develop with age?

* Q1: Do kids distinguish between contrary opposition and contradiction opposition?

* Q2: Are kids sensitive to the pragmatics of Not A+/Not A-?
# Potential challenges for young learners

* How does children's comprehension of antonyms and negated antonyms develop with age?

* Q1: Do kids distinguish between contrary opposition and contradiction opposition?

* Q2: Are kids sensitive to the pragmatics of Not A+/Not A-?
# Potential challenges for young learners

* How does children's comprehension of antonyms and negated antonyms develop with age?

* Q1: Do kids distinguish between contrary opposition and contradiction opposition?

* Q2: Are kids sensitive to the pragmatics of Not A+/Not A-?

* Does multiple negation affect the comprehension of antonymic adjectives?
# Potential challenges for young learners

* How does children's comprehension of antonyms and negated antonyms develop with age?

* Q1: Do kids distinguish between contrary opposition and contradiction opposition?

* Q2: Are kids sensitive to the pragmatics of Not A+/Not A-?

* Does multiple negation affect the comprehension of antonymic adjectives?

* Q3: In double negation environments ("pas pas grand")?

* Q4: In duplex negation environments ("pas petit")?
# Experiments
Overview of the experiments

• Picture selection task:

○ Neutral

o Denial

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>
# Overview of the experiments

* Picture selection task:

* Neutral

* Denial

* Statistical analysis revealed **no significant effect of context**
  (*p-value = 0.24*)

* All groups' performances were **aggregated** due to the lack of context-specific differences.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

> Eh bien en fait,
> mes préférés
> ne sont PAS
> petits. Trouve-
> les!

> Voici des
> chiens. Je
> parie que tes
> préférés sont
> petits.

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>
Overview of the experiments

* Picture selection task:

* Neutral

* Denial

* Test sentences

**SINGLE NEGATION**

¬A+: Mes préférés ne sont pas grands.

A- : Mes préférés sont petits.

**DOUBLE NEGATION**

¬¬A+: Mes préférés ne sont pas pas grands.

¬A- : Mes préférés ne sont pas petits.

**NEITHER NOR**

Mes préférés ne sont ni grands ni petits.

Total 5 conditions
# Overview of the experiments

* Picture selection task:

* Neutral

* Denial

* Long/short

* Riche/poor

* Wide/narrow

* Old/young

* Heavy/light

* Big/small

* Test sentences

* Pairs of gradable antonyms
Overview of the experiments

* Picture selection task:

* Neutral

* Denial

* Test sentences

* Pairs of gradable antonyms

* Long/short

* Rich/poor

* Wide/narrow

* Old/young

* Heavy/light

* Big/small

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>
# Overview of the experiments

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

* Picture selection task:

* Neutral

* Denial

* Test sentences

* Pairs of gradable antonyms

* Comprehension checks using non-gradable properties (Fillers)

* Instructions with a cover story followed by a short training (4 items) and the task

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Recruited</th><th>Included</th><th>Med Age</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Adults</strong></td><td>71</td><td>71</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td><strong>G2 [5.5 - 6.5]</strong></td><td>30</td><td>25</td><td>6.3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>G1 [4.5 - 5.5]</strong></td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td>5.3</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Overview of the experiments

* Picture selection task:

* Neutral

* Denial

* Test sentences

* Pairs of gradable antonyms

* Comprehension checks using non-gradable properties (Fillers)

* Instructions with a cover story followed by a short training (4 items) and the task

* Level of chance calculated from plausible patterns
# 5 Plausible patterns

<table><tr><td>Logical responses<br/>Not POS/Not Neg</td><td>Pas grands<br/><img src="pas_grands_dog.png" alt="A dog with a yellow border, a small white dog, and a medium-sized black dog."></td><td>Pas petits<br/><img src="pas_grands_dog.png" alt="A dog with a pink border, a medium-sized black dog, and a large white dog."></td></tr><tr><td>Strengthened responses<br/>Str POS/Str Neg</td><td>Petits - Pas grands<br/><img src="petits_dogs.png" alt="Three dogs, all medium-sized, in a borderless square."></td><td>Pas petits - Pas pas Grands<br/><img src="petits_dogs.png" alt="Three dogs, all medium-sized, in a borderless square."></td></tr><tr><td>GAP</td><td>Ni grands ni petits<br/><img src="gAP_dogs.png" alt="A large black dog with a white border, and a medium-sized black dog with a black border."></td><td></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>
# 5 Plausible patterns

<table><tr><td>Réponses logiques<br/>Not POS/Not NEG</td><td>Pas grands<br/><img src="image_pas_grands.png" alt="Three dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, and a large dog"></td><td>Pas petits<br/><img src="image_pas_petits.png" alt="Three dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, and a large dog"></td></tr><tr><td>Réponses<br/>Str POS/Str Neg</td><td>Petits - Pas grands<br/><img src="image_petits_grands.png" alt="Three dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, and a large dog"></td><td>Pas petits - Pas pas Grands<br/><img src="image_pas_petits_grands.png" alt="Three dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, and a large dog"></td></tr><tr><td>GAP</td><td colspan="2">Ni grands ni petits<br/><img src="image_gap.png" alt="Three dogs: a small dog, a medium dog, and a large dog"></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>
59 Implausible patterns

Other

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

...

...
Overview of the experiments

* Picture selection task:

* Neutral

* Denial

* Test sentences

* Pairs of gradable antonyms

* Comprehension checks using non-gradable properties (Fillers)

* Instructions with a cover story followed by a short training (4 items) and the task

* Level of chance calculated from plausible patterns
  (one pattern expected = ½ chance - 20%)
# Results
Not A+ vs. A-

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

not NEG

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

not POS

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

GAP

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

Str POS

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

Str NEG

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

Other

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

* **Adults** favored the logical interpretation for “not A+” and the Strengthened interpretation for “A-”.

* **Chance levels ?**

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>
Not A+ vs. A-

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

* **Adults** favored the logical interpretation for “not A+” and the Strengthened interpretation for “A-”

* Chance levels : 40% or 20%
Not A+ vs. A-

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

* **Adults** favored the logical interpretation for “not A+” and the Strengthened interpretation for “A-”.

* **G2 and G1 groups** are not yet adult-like but well above chance levels (40% of c.prop.) in “Not A+”, and “A-” (20%).

* Do logical interpretations of A-reveal a different conceptualization of the scale? Or, do they reveal of a bias in the experiment?
Answering Q1

* **Q1: Do children distinguish between contrary opposition and contradiction opposition?**

Yes! Like adults, **Contradictory negation** (not A+) receives both a logical (not POS) and a strengthened (Str NEG) meaning.

**Contrary negation** (A-) primarily receives a strengthened (Str NEG) meaning, similar to adults, but we also observe a number of logical interpretations.
Answering Q1

* **Q1: Do children distinguish between contrary opposition and contradiction opposition?**

Yes! Like adults, **Contradictory negation** (not A+) receives both a logical (not POS) and a strengthened (Str NEG) meaning.

**Contrary negation** (A-) primarily receives a strengthened (Str NEG) meaning, similar to adults, but we also observe a number of logical interpretations.

* **Q2: Are children sensitive to the pragmatics of Not A+/Not A-?**
Not A+ vs. Not A-

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>
Not A+ vs. Not A-

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

* **Adults** did not reproduce the strengthening asymmetry of A+/A- in the scope of negation
Not A+ vs. Not A-

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

not NEG

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /></figure>

not POS

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

GAP

Str POS

Str NEG

Other

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>

* **Adults** did not reproduce the A+A- strengthening asymmetry discussed in the literature

* **Overall trend:** Adult < G2<G1

* **G1 and G2 groups** are not yet adult-like but above chance levels (40%) in both conditions.

* Children more pragmatic than Adults?
Answering Q2

* Q2: Are children sensitive to the pragmatics of Not A+/Not A-?

Maybe! When a gradable adjective is in the scope of negation they reported logical and strengthened patterns.

Is this pragmatics though? Children might be more attracted to extremes than adults.
Not not A+ vs. Not A-

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

* Overall trend: Adult < G2<G1

* G1 and G2 groups are not yet adult-like but well above chance levels (40%) in "Not A-", and they have a non-adult interpretation of "Not not A+" (below chance level 20%)
Not not A+ vs. Not A-

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

* Overall trend: Adult < G2<G1

* **G1 and G2 groups** are not yet adult-like but well above chance levels (40%) in "Not A-", and they have a non-adult interpretation of "Not not A+" (below chance level 20%).
Not not A+ vs. Not A-

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>

not NEG

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

not POS

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

GAP

Str POS

Str NEG

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>

Other

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

* **Overall trend:** Adult < G2< G1

* **G1 and G2 groups** are not yet adult-like but well above chance levels (40%) in “Not A-” b, and they have a non-adult interpretation of "Not not A+"

* **Children's interpretation** of "Not not A+" shows significant proportion of Str NEG and not POS patterns that are compatible with single negation readings:

* G1: 33% + 19% = 52%

* G2: 31% + 21% = 52%
Not A- and A- vs. Not not A+ and Not A+

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>
Not A- and A- vs. Not not A+ and Not A+

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>
Answering Q3 & Q4

* Do multiple negations affect the comprehension of antonymic adjectives?

* Q3: In double negation environments (“pas pas grand”)?

Yes - Double negation is master later than age 6. A large groups of children in G2 and G1 assigned single negation interpretations, as reflected by the selection of Not POS and Str NEG patterns

* Q4: In duplex negation environments (“pas petit”)?

Marginally. Performance on Not A- seems to align with performance A-.

* Outside the adjectival domain, children show a bias for single negation interpretations when presented with Double Negation environment. (Thornton et al. 2016)
Implications, prospects and extensions
Discussion

* When is a pattern relevant for interpretation ?

o Proportion has to be greater than chance level (20%)

o Look at individual behaviors (did participants chose the pattern consistently across items of the same category).

■ Lexical negative antonyms

In what proportion did children select the 'not POS' pattern, and is this relevant for their interpretation of negative antonyms?

■ Ni...ni condition
Not POS pattern for A-

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /><figcaption>Cumulative Proportion</figcaption></figure>

* **Not POS pattern for A-:**

* Adults: 9%

* G1: 12%

* G2: 18%

* Is not POS an expected pattern for children?
Variability in A-

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>

* Except for "young". adults performed consistently across all adjective pairs.

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>
Variability in A-

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>

* 4-year-olds had an imperfect understanding of adjectives:

* Integrating Semantics and World Knowledge
Variability in A-

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

* Except for "young". adults performed consistently across all adjective pairs

* Children's performance varied, particularly with specific adjectives.

* Children's comprehension depends on the frequency and familiarity of the adjectives in their linguistic input.
<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Small</th><th colspan="2">Light</th><th colspan="2">Short</th><th colspan="2">Poor</th><th colspan="2">Young</th><th colspan="2">Narrow</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Instrument</th><th>Dog</th><th>vehicle</th><th>book</th><th>ladder</th><th>skirt</th><th>gnomes</th><th>people</th><th>athletes</th><th>painters</th><th>doors</th><th>tunnels</th></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
Ni...ni

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /><figcaption>Cumulative Proportion</figcaption></figure>

Some kids failed with Nini but succeeded with the non-gradable Nini

1. Difficulties to calculate standards?

2. Salience effect?
Ni...ni

Cumulative Proportion

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>

GAP

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /></figure>

not POS

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /></figure>

Str POS

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /></figure>

Str NEG

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /></figure>

not NEG

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /></figure>

Other

Nboth

Adult

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /></figure>

G2

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /></figure>

G1

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /></figure>

Some kids failed with Nini but succeeded with the non-gradable Nini

1. Difficulties to calculate standards?

2. Salience effect?
Conclusion

* From age 5, children distinguish between negated (Not A+) and negative antonyms (A-).

* Children's mastery of A- may not be complete by 5 years of age. More generally, contradiction negation seems to be acquired before contrary opposition.

* Double negation constructions are not mastered by 6 years of age.

* Follow up:

* Distinguish between morphological and lexical antonymy (cf. Anna's work on Breton) (not not happy - not unhappy - sad)

* Investigate whether there a unifying explanation for single negation interpretation within the adjectival domain and in the case of negative indefinites.
Thank you!

Special thanks to Anna, Maël, David, Oana and Hamida!
# Appendix
# Context

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /><figcaption>Proportion de bonnes réponses par condition et par context</figcaption></figure>

* Statistical analysis revealed **no significant effect of context** (p-value = 0.24)

* All groups' performances were **aggregated** due to the lack of context-specific differences.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Recruited</th><th>Included</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Adults</th><td>71</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><th>G2</th><td>30</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><th>G1</th><td>30</td><td>30</td></tr></tbody></table>
Context

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /></figure>

* Statistical analysis revealed **no significant effect of context** (p-value = 0.24)

* All groups' performances were **aggregated** due to the lack of context-specific differences.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Recruited</th><th>Included</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Adults</th><td>71</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><th>G2</th><td>30</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><th>G1</th><td>30</td><td>30</td></tr></tbody></table>