REVISITING CHILDREN’S UNDERSTANDING OF INVERSE SCOPE *
Nilüfer Gültekin-Şener
University of Connecticut

1. Introduction
This paper investigates children’s ability to access inverse scope interpretation inquantified sentences. Previous works have argued that 4 and 5 year old children differ fromadults in the way they interpret sentences containing scope bearing elements (Musolino 1998,
Musolino, Crain and Thornton 2000). In particular, these studies show that children display astrong preference for the isomorphic reading of the sentences in which two scope bearing
elements co-occur; an effect dubbed isomorphism. Musolino et al. (2000) suggest thatchildren at the age of 4-5 cannot access certain interpretations available in the adult grammar.
Musolino & Gualmini (2004) and Musolino and Lidz (2006) present a series of experiments
whose results challenge this conclusion. They show that under certain manipulations, 5 year
olds can access the same range of interpretations that are found in the adult system. In
particular, Musolino and Lidz (2006) test negated sentences containing a universal quantifierand show that a preceding affirmative statement facilitates children’s interpretation of inverse
scope in these sentences. However, Musolino & Gualmini (2004) independently test
sentences with existential quantifiers and report that children cannot access inverse scope
reading even in the presence of a preceding affirmative statement. These conflicting results
point to a possible problem for the claim that contextual manipulation is key to children’saccess to inverse scope. The studies mentioned above investigate children’s understanding of
inverse scope in negated sentences. In this study, I do not appeal to negated sentences as
testing items.
Primarily, I present results from an experiment in which children’s abilities in accessing
the inverse scope interpretation is tested in three different sentence types: sentences with
Prepositional Phrases, there-expletive constructions, and sentences with Actional Verbs. Our
main finding is that it is possible for 4-5 year olds to access the inverse scope reading in thesesentence types.
This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, I outline the general findings of the* I would like to thank the following people for their contribution to the experiments: Jeff Bernath,
Diane Lillo Martin, Karen O’Brien, Ana Bastos, Natalia Rakhlin, Jean Crawford, and the Universityof Connecticut Children Development Center staff, parents and children. I benefited a lot from theconstructive feedback from the faculty at the University of Connecticut: William Snyder, Yael Sharvit,
Jonathan Bobaljik and especially Diane Lillo-Martin in the preparation of this paper. The original
paper was written in 2007. I would like to also thank Diane Lillo-Martin for her very helpfulcomments during the revision of the paper for this volume. All errors are solely mine.
Nanzan Linguistics 7, 1-22
©2011 Nilüfer Gültekin-Şener

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011previous studies on children’s inverse scope interpretations. In section 3, I introduce theexperimental settings and the methodology we used in our actual experiment of children’s
understanding of the inverse scope. Section 4 of the paper presents a discussion of the results
we gained from the experiment and its implications for our understanding of children’s ability
to access inverse scope. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Background
It has been reported that children respond non-adult like in experiments that test theirknowledge of universal quantification (Phillip 1995, Roeper and de Villiers 1991, among
others). Children at the age of 4-6 respond to a question such as “Is every boy riding a pony?”by saying “No” to the pictures where there are boy-pony pairs and an extra unridden pony.
This phenomenon, which is known as symmetrical response, gave rise to a line of study inwhich children’s knowledge of quantification is investigated. Phillip (1995) suggests thatchildren have a semantic representation of the universal quantifier every that is different fromthat of adults’. In particular, Phillip proposes that in children’s grammar a universal quantifier
such as every is treated as an adverb that quantifies over an event variable, rather than an
individual variable, and this is the reason why children give the so-called symmetricresponses. Children’s semantic representation for a universally quantified sentence such as“Every boy is riding a pony” is as follows, according to Phillip (1995):“All minimal events in which either a pony or a boy (or both) is a participant are events inwhich a boy is riding a pony”.
Crain et al. (1996) challenge this proposal, and show through a series of experiments thatwhat is referred to as children’s symmetry requirement is overcome under different types ofexperimental settings, and that young children are in principle adult-like in their interpretationof quantifiers such as every. Crain et al. (1996) use a Truth Value Judgment task where apragmatic relevance condition is satisfied. They claim that this pragmatic feature of theirexperimental design (called the condition of plausible dissent) is necessary to set up acircumstance that reveals children’s adult-like knowledge of universal quantifiers as it
introduces a ground for a possible outcome for the action at stake. If children are asked toassess whether a statement is true or false it should be clear to them why it is true or false.
The condition on plausible dissent refers to those cases when the expected adult answer is“No”. The experiments Crain et al. (1996) ran that satisfies this condition. They show thatsatisfying this condition significantly improves children’s adult-like responses to sentenceswith the universal quantifier every. All the studies briefly represented here test the universal
quantifier in the wide scope position. Rakhlin (2004) tests children’s interpretation of thequantifier every in the narrow scope position. She observes that when the target sentences
contain the quantifier every in the narrow scope position, half of the entire group of children
she tested accepted the inverse scope reading, while the other half rejected it. Her results
mainly indicate that it is possible for children at the young age to interpret the universal
quantifier every in the adult way. Furthermore, Rakhlin (2004) suggests that it is the wide-2-

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

scope indefinite that yields distinct responses among the children in the group she tested,because children interpret wide scope indefinites as ambiguous between a singleton and amultiple set reading. Rakhlin suggests that it is this ambiguity that yields children’soccasional failure as they cannot fix the domain restriction of the quantifier.
Independently of the issue of whether or not children require symmetry whileinterpreting every, a significant number of studies have focused on children’s interpretation ofscope in sentences where two quantifiers interact. These studies have led to a variety of
results: Lidz and Musolino (2006), for instance, report that children acquiring Kannada cannot
access the inverse scope reading of the sentences containing an existential and negation evenin the cases where this reading is the only reading available in adult grammar.1 Krämer (2000)
tests the interaction between the existential quantifier and negation and reports that Dutch
children allow inverse scope interpretation even when it is not available in adult grammar.2
Sano (2003) reports that Japanese children don’t know that inverse scope interpretation is
impossible in a canonical SOV sentence in Japanese.3

1

More precisely, the accusative marked indefinite object results in specific interpretation thatnecessarily yields wide scope reading of the object in Kannada. Even in this environment, where theonly possible adult interpretation of the sentence is the wide scope existential (non-isomorphic readingwith respect to negation) children cannot access the non-isomorphic reading. It might be the case thatthe accusative marked object and the singleton indefinite have different semantic natures. In thisrespect we may want to reconsider their findings.
2

She tested the following Dutch sentence:(i)

Een meisje is niet aan het dansenagirl
is not PROGRESSIVE-dance‘A girl is not dancing.’(ii) ∃x[girl (x) & ¬[dance (x)]](iii) * ¬∃x[girl (x) & dance (x)]Notice that the only reading possible for adults is the isomorphic reading. Dutch children allow thereading in (iii) where the indefinite takes scope under negation.
3

Sano (2003) tests the following sentence from Japanese and reports that young Japanese-speaking
children do not know that sentences with the canonical SOV order cannot have inverse scope inJapanese.
(i)Dareka-ga
dono
someone-Nom every

neko mo tukamaeta.
catcaught‘Someone caught every cat’-3-

(Canonical SOV)

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

Below I present the cross-linguistic picture at hand:4
Table 1EnglishInverse scope access∀ > Neg / Neg > ∀Musolino and Lidz (2006)(without manipulation: NO)(with manipulation: YES)

∃ > Neg / Neg > ∃Musolino & Gualmini (2004)(without manipulation: NO)(with manipulation: NO)∃>∀/∀ >∃

Rakhlin (2004)(without manipulation:
50% of the children YES)

Kannada∃acc > Neg / *Neg > ∃acc
Lidz and Musolino (2006)
JapaneseNO

YES∃ > ∀/ *∀ > ∃Sano (2003)
Dutch∃ > Neg / *Neg > ∃YESKrämer (2000)

Notice that the studies reported above do not uniformly consider the same type of quantifier,and the scopal possibilities are different in each language. What is prominent however, is that
there are conflicting results on children’s ability to access inverse reading. Except for Sano’s(2003) work on Japanese, and Rakhlin’s (2004) on English, studies investigating children’sinterpretation of inverse scope looked at children’s interpretation of sentences where theuniversal quantifier interacts with negation. Below, I briefly go over the findings of thestudies by Musolino (1998) and Musolino et al. (2000).
Musolino et al. (2000) test the following sentence where both ∀ > NEG (none) and NEG> ∀ (not all) readings are possible:(1)

Every horse didn’t jump over the fence.

They report that children cannot access the inverse reading where negation scopes over theuniversal (i.e. NEG > ∀). In order to test whether certain manipulations enhance children’saccess to inverse reading, they use a preceding affirmative statement for the sentence in (1) asshown below:
4

The readings I marked in boldface correspond to the non-isomorphic readings in the relevant
languages. The ‘*’ mark indicates that those readings are not available in the adult grammar of therelevant languages.

-4-Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)(1’) Every horse jumped over the log but every horse didn’t jump over the fence.
They observe that children perform significantly better in accessing the inverse reading whenpresented with (1’), hence they suggest that manipulations such as the one in (1’) where apreceding affirmative statement is introduced makes it easier for children to access inverse
reading of the sentence in (1). In a study on the role of partitivity in child language, Musolino& Gualmini (2004) test sentences such as (2), where negation interact with an existential
quantifier:(2)

The smurf didn’t catch two birds.

They report that children cannot access the inverse reading in sentences in which theexistential takes scope over negation: the inverse scope (i.e. ∃ > NEG) in (2). They also
appeal to the same type of manipulation used in (1’) to test the following sentence:(2’) The smurf caught all the cats but she didn’t catch two birds.
Their results indicate however that children cannot access the inverse reading (i.e. ∃ > NEG)
even though the preceding affirmative statement familiarizes them with the domain ofquantification. Notice that a preceding affirmative statement does not help for children’saccess to inverse scope when the existential quantifier is over (a c-commanding) NEG. The
fact that children can access the inverse reading of the sentence in (1’), but not the one in (2’)
suggests that the preceding statement cannot be the sole facilitator of the inverse scope
reading, as otherwise we would expect similar success from children in their access to inverse
scope in each experiment.
It has been noted in the literature that scope relations can be affected by contrastive focus(see Krifka (1998), Irurtzun & Exteberria (2005) among others for further information on thispoint). I suggest that what is at stake in the above discussed sentences is a similar
phenomenon. The preceding statement creates the facilitation effect of contrastive focus,
which then yields the inverse scope reading. More precisely, in sentence (1), contrasting anegated sentence with an affirmative one, enforces NEG to scope over the subject universal
NP (where the latter c-commands the former on the surface) and this yields the inverse
reading. In other words, contrasting NEG yields wide scope interpretation of the NEG, which
was the targeted inverse reading (NEG > ∀) for the sentence in (1’). Notice that the claim that
contrastive focus, rather than the preceding affirmative statement per se facilitates the inverse
scope interpretation receives support from the results of Musolino and Gualmini’s (2004)
experiment in which children’s understanding of inverse scope in sentences in which aninteraction of negation and the existential quantifiers was tested. The fact that children cannot
access the inverse scope reading in (2’) is rather expected, once we make the assumption that
contrastive focus affects scope relations. Consider the sentence in (2’), which I repeat below
as (3):-5-

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(3)

The smurf caught all the cats but she didn’t catch two birds.
Surface reading: NEG > ∃Inverse reading: ∃ > NEG

Initially, examine the second conjunct: the existential quantifier is c-commanded by
NEG on the surface. In sentence (3), there is a contrast between the two conjuncts, inparticular a contrast between catch vs. not catch. The first conjunct (i.e. the affirmative
statement) creates a contrastive focus effect on NEG. I suggest that it is this contrast thatyields the interpretation of wide scope NEG. While in sentence (1’) wide scope NEG (i.e.
NEG > ∀) is the targeted inverse scope reading, in sentence (2’), the targeted inverse readingis the one where the existential scopes over NEG (i.e. ∃ > NEG). The inverse reading in (3)does not correspond to a reading where NEG takes wide scope, which is the outcome when
the sentence involves a preceding statement that creates a contrastive focus effect. Hence
there is no reason to expect the preceding affirmative statement to facilitate the inverse
reading for children in this case. In other words, because of the wide scope NEG
interpretation yielded by the contrast that the preceding affirmative statement introduces, theinverse reading where existential scopes over NEG is not obtained in (3). This, I suggest, isthe reason why children’s performances were different in the experiments under discussion.
To illustrate this in more detail, the contrast between jump vs. not jump in sentence (1’) yields
the following interpretation:(i)

It is not the case that all the horses jumped over the fence (i.e. not all horses jumped
over the fence).

Also the contrast between catch vs. not catch yields the interpretation illustrated below:(ii)

It is not the case that the smurf caught two birds.

The targeted interpretation in sentence (3) however, is the one where the existential takes
scope over the NEG, which results in the following interpretation:(iii) Two birds are such that the smurf didn’t catch them.
Thus, the inverse scope readings of the original sentence (i.e. Two birds are such that thesmurf didn’t catch them) does not overlap with the reading created after the involvement of
the preceding statement, because contrastive focus yielded the wide scope negationinterpretation (i.e. It is not the case that the smurf caught two birds). This distinction then isreflected in children’s performance as well.
The conflicting results of the above reported experiments suggest that claiming thatchildren’s success in accessing inverse reading is contingent on the facilitation effect of thepresence of a preceding statement is misleading. If indeed it were the case, we would expect
to gain the same results in both sentence types (i.e. sentences (1) and (2)) above, yet we do
not.

-6-

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

Given the discrepancy between the findings reported in Musolino and Gualmini (2004)
and Musolino and Lidz (2006), and the cross-linguistic reports on children’s success on
inverse scope access presented in Table 1 above, I appeal to a new experiment in attempt tounderstand the nature of children’s access to inverse scope. Unlike what has been tested in theexperiments reported so far, I focus here on quantified sentences that do not involve negation.
I also investigate whether or not different types of sentence structures play a role in children’saccess to inverse scope.
Recall that the Strong version of the Continuity Hypothesis states that the principles andparameters of UG constitute a description of the initial state and apply in real time course oflanguage acquisition. From the onset of language acquisition all principles of UG areavailable to the child (see Pinker 1984, Poeppel & Wexler 1993). Accordingly, I state thefollowing working hypothesis:
Hypothesis
The acquisition of mechanisms that make inverse scope interpretation accessible forchildren is not delayed.
2.1. Motivating the testing material
Rakhlin (2004) claims that the apparent symmetry requirements children exhibit are dueto the wide scope universal, and that the reason why children seemed to fail in accessing theinverse scope in sentences involving existential and universal quantifiers can be accounted forunder the assumption that the wide scope indefinite is ambiguous between the singleton andthe multiple set. Since our intention is to test whether or not children possess the mechanismsthat are required to access the inverse reading in quantified sentences, I set out to investigate
children’s success in different sentence types. Apart from the reasons I presented so far forthis preference, one other motivation for considering distinct sentence structures in whichquantifiers interact comes from Milsark’s (1974) generalization. Milsark (1974) suggests thatNPs that cannot appear in there-expletive constructions as in (5) are strong and those that can
as in (4) are weak:
(4)

(5)

a.

There are (some / two / few / many) cats in the garden.

b.

There is a cat in the garden.

a. ?? There are (the / these / most / all the / my / John’s) cats playing in the garden.
b. ?? There is (the / that / every / each / my / John’s) cat playing in the garden.

Strong NPs are not compatible with there-expletive constructions, thus the subject of a thereexpletive sentence is a weak noun phrase (i.e. an indefinite noun phrase).
In a pilot study that I had conducted with undergraduate students at the University ofConnecticut, I observed that whether or not having the existential quantifier as the structurally-7-

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011higher element in the sentence or embedded in under an expletive construction seems to makea distinction for the interpretation of wide scope universal every. Consider the sentences in (6)and (7) in this respect:(6)

A boy is in front of every building.5(7)

There is a boy in front of every building.

The sentences in (6) and (7) may formally have two possible interpretations due to theinteraction of the quantifiers:∃ > ∀:∃x[boy (x) & ∀y[building (y)  in front of (x,y)]]∀ > ∃:∀y[building (y)  ∃x[boy (x) & in front of (x,y)]]Recall however, that the sentence in (7) is a there-expletive construction, so the status of its
subject is different from the subject in (6), namely that its subject is interpreted necessarily as
weak. This then may bring up the question of whether or not there is any interpretive
difference (semantic or pragmatic, that is) between (6) and (7) even though formally both (6)and (7) may receive both of the interpretations illustrated above. In order to understandwhether there is such an interpretive distinction, I investigated the interpretation of (6) and (7)and asked the native speakers of English whether they notice any difference between thesentences in (6) and (7) in their compatibility with the contexts below:
Context 1

Context 2

I gave a questionnaire to 7 (under)graduate students at the University of Connecticut Schoolof Education, Writing Center. The sentences I tested were the ones in (6) and (7) and thepictures given are those illustrated above in Context1 and Context 2. The questionnaire posed
the following question for the sentences in (6) and (7), respectively: ‘Would you use thesentence in (6) to convey the meaning denoted by the picture in Context 1, Context 2, both or
5

The structure I assume throughout this study for the sentences such as (6) A boy is in front of every
building and (11) There is a dwarf on top of every book is that the existential subject c-commands the
prepositional phrase that contains the universal quantifier. Therefore, the former scopes over the latter.
This implies that in sentences in which the universal quantifier contained within the prepositional
phrase that takes scope over the existential subject must involve the quantifier raising operation.

-8-

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

neither?’ The same question is also asked for the sentence in (7) in the same contexts. The
results from this preliminary investigation showed that 6 out of the 7 subjects preferred thepicture in Context 2 to convey the meaning of the sentence in (7). The judgments of theinformants varied, however for the sentence in (6). One thing that is clear is that native
speakers of English (at least the ones in this small sample) dominantly chose the picture inContext 2 to convey the meaning of the sentence in (7), whereas they did not exhibit such astrong preference towards either of the contexts illustrated with the pictures for the sentencein (6). This result may be taken to suggest that there are pragmatic restrictions towards
interpreting the weak quantifier in sentences such as (7). The interpretation of the existential
quantifier as an indefinite noun phrase leads to the strong tendency towards interpreting thesentence in its surface scope reading, whereas in the case of sentences such as (6) no suchpreference is relevant towards either scope readings (i.e. the surface or the inverse scope
readings).
Interpreting the results of the pilot study as an indication of a preference tendency among
the native speakers of English motivated the testing of whether or not the structuraldifferences between quantified sentences with and without there-expletives would be
effective in children’s access to inverse scope reading.6 I also considered sentences thatinvolve both a universal and an existential quantifier, and a prepositional phrase in which theuniversal quantifier every is introduced. This is used as a variation for understanding whether
or not structure plays a role in children’s access to inverse scope interpretation. The third
condition I tested is a replication of Rakhlin’s (2004) experiment in which sentences
involving Actional verbs were tested as a base line case for understanding whether or not
children are symmetry-biased. This condition was intended as a baseline comparison toprevious studies.
The three conditions of the current study and the target sentences are as follows:
There-expletive condition:
Sample target sentence(8)

There is a dwarf on top of every book.
Context: three books, four dwarfs. Each book has a dwarf on it, and the fourth dwarf
stands out.
book —
book —
book —
Book —

dwarf
dwarf
dwarf
dwarf

6

Our actual tests did not involve the pictures in Contexts 1 and 2, as I did not intend to understandwhether it was specifically these picture settings that would create an effect in children’s access toinverse reading.

-9-Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

Picture 1

Prepositional Phrase condition:
Sample sentence(9)

A bottle is in front of every girl.
Context: three girls, four bottles. Each girl has a bottle in front of her, and the fourthbottle stands out.
girl — bottle
girl — bottle
girl — bottle
Girl — bottle

Picture 2- 10 -

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

Actional Verb condition:
Sample sentence(10) A dinosaur fixed every plane.
Context:

three dinosaurs, three planes and Grover. Each dinosaur fixes a plane and Grover
does not.

dinosaurdinosaurdinosaur
Dinos
au

—
—
—
—

plane
plane
plane
GroverPicture 3

Since the last condition, namely the Actional Verb condition is used as a replication of
Rakhlin’s (2004) experiment, it is important to illustrate Rakhlin’s testing sentences.
Target sentence:Context:

A girl tasted every cookie

three girls taste different cookies and the boy intends to but then he does not. The
condition can be illustrated as follows:
girl
girl
girl
boy

—
—
—
—

cookiecookiecookieIf children’s errors resulted from the lack of symmetry, since in the above condition thesymmetry requirement is satisfied by the three matching characters and objects singling out
the fourth one, we would expect children not to make any errors in this condition. Rakhlin(2004) observed, however, that even if the symmetry condition was satisfied, some children
still made spreading errors. Thus, I used this test as a baseline and I used Conditions 1 and 2
so as to apply to the standard method for testing quantification. Note that all the testing items
whose samples I illustrated above for each condition looks for the inverse scope True reading(i.e. target ‘Yes’ contexts).

- 11 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

3. Experiment 1- Adults
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Subjects
17 adults who are undergraduate students at the University of Connecticut participated in
the experiment. 2 subjects who were non-native speakers of English were excluded as well as
one subject who couldn’t complete the experiment. The data from the remaining 14 subjects
are reported here.
3.1.2. Procedure
We tested adults using the Truth Value Judgment Task methodology (TVJT) (Crain andThornton, 1998). The task involves two experimenters. One experimenter tells a story. The
other experimenter plays the role of a puppet, which has a problem in paying attention to thestories told. A story involving characters and objects is introduced and the puppet is asked totell one thing about the story. The puppet utters a sentence, which is in fact a target sentence
for the experiment. Subjects are asked to tell whether the puppet was right in his response ornot. In Experiment 1, adults were tested in two sessions in a classroom setting and they were
given a score sheet and asked to indicate their responses to the puppet’s statements on thescore sheet they were given.
3.1.3. Materials
In Condition 1, native speakers of English were tested on their interpretation of sentences
like the following:(11) There is a dwarf on top of every book.
In the story corresponding to (11), there are four dwarfs and three books. The dwarfs think thebooks are very special. They think they can make a person smart if s/he stands on them. They
decide that each one of them stands on top of a book to get smart. One of the dwarfs whowanted to stand on top of a book as his friends did then remembers that his teacher told himthat they can only get smart if they read books rather than standing on them. So he didn’t
stand on top of a book. One of the dwarfs stood on the science book, the second one on the art
book, and the last one stood on the English book. At the end of the story the puppet described
the situation using the sentence in (12):- 12 -

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)(12) Experimenter: Hootie, can you tell us one thing about what’s going on?
Hootie (the puppet): There is a dwarf on top of every book.
Setting:book — dwarf
book — dwarf
book — dwarf
book — dwarf
Expected response: ‘Yes’
Notice that in the context of the story just described, the sentence in (12) is true on the inverse
scope reading (i.e. Every book is such that there is a dwarf on top of it). If subjects access theinverse scope interpretation of (12), we expect them to accept the puppet’s statement. By
contrast (12) is false on surface scope reading (i.e. A dwarf is such that he is on top of everybook), so if subjects interpret the sentence in its isomorphic reading we expect them to reject
the puppet’s statement.
The test items for Conditions 2 and 3 were constructed in a similar way. The number of
items tested per condition is 8. There were 4 original ‘Yes’ response target items, and 4
control ‘No’ response sentences. 1 out of the 4 target ‘Yes’ sentences for the there-expletive
condition was not taken into consideration as adults responded unexpectedly low in thisparticular sentence.7 The complete sets of test sentences used in target YES cases is given intables (2), (3) and (4) below:- The non-isomorphic ‘Yes’ sentences
Puppet’s statements on test stories in Condition 1:
Table 2
Test story 1‘There is a girl behind every donut.’

Test story 2‘There is a dwarf on top of every book.’

Test story 3‘There is a cup in front of every policeman.’

Test story 4‘There is a cake next to every animal.’

7

This decision was made as all other three target there-expletive sentences as well as the ‘No’ controls
for there-expletives were performed overridingly accurate by the adults. The reason why adults haddifficulty in this particular sentence might be due to the fact that the sentence in question was theinitial testing item of the entire experiment and that the subjects did not understand the task accurately.
Since this decision was made for adults’ data, this sentence was taken out from the children’s data too.

- 13 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

Puppet’s statements on test stories in Condition 2:
Table 3
Test story 1‘A bottle is in front of every girl.’

Test story 2‘A hat is next to every troll.’

Test story 3‘A child is on top of every stone.’

Test story 4‘A pear is behind every truck.’

Puppet’s statements on test stories in Condition 3:
Table 4
Test story 1‘A chicken tasted every cookie.’

Test story 2‘A dinosaur fixed every plane.’

Test story 3‘A troll kissed every lizard.’

Test story 4‘A child milked every cow.’

In addition to the four test stories (i.e. target ‘Yes’ sentences), adults also heard 4 control
stories (i.e. target ‘No’ sentences) for each condition. Unlike the test items, the statements
made by the puppet on the control items were false under the given story. On the false items
the stories showed that only two of the three characters referred to by the ‘every NP’ were
engaged in the relevant action.
The list of statements on control (‘No’) stories in both conditions are given in Table 5,
Table 6 and Table 7 below:- The non-isomorphic ‘No’ sentences
Puppet’s statements on control stories Condition 1:
Table 5Control story 1‘There is a dwarf in front of every dog house.’

Control story 2‘There is a boy next to every horse.’

Control story 3‘There is a boy behind every skate board.’

Control story 4‘There is a bird on top of every bucket.’- 14 -

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

Puppet’s statements on control stories Condition 2:
Table 6
Control story 1‘A boy is behind every girl.’

Control story 2‘A man is next to every horse.’

Control story 3‘A guy is in front of every plane.’Control story 4‘A dinosaur is on top of every truck.’

Puppet’s statements on control stories Condition 3:
Table 7
Control story 1‘A boy fed every snake.’Control story 2‘A giraffe lifted every road sign.’

Control story 3‘A lion opened every package.’Control story 4‘A dinosaur fixed every car.’3.1.4. Results
The results from Experiment 1 show that adults perform near ceiling in all of the above
conditions. More precisely, they overridingly accept inverse scope interpretation in thesentences provided. Also no significant difference is observed with respect to adult’s access tothe inverse reading across conditions. Graph 1 illustrates the correct response rates acrossconditions:
Graph 1

- 15 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

3.2. Experiment 2 - Children
The second experiment tested children’s interpretation of inverse scope in the same
conditions that adults were subjected to, namely there-expletive condition, Prepositional
Phrase condition and Actional Verb condition (see experiment 1 for the testing items).
3.2.1. Method
3.2.2. Subjects
The participants were 11 children: 5 preschoolers and 6 kindergarteners at the Child
Development Laboratories at the University of Connecticut. One preschooler could not pass
the task in the training session, and one preschooler was not cooperative in the game, so they
were taken out of the experiment. Children who were tested were at the ages between 4;0 and
5;4 (m: 5.0).
3.2.3. Procedure
The Truth Value Judgment Task methodology (TVJT) (Crain and Thornton, 1998) wasused for children as well. The only difference between the experiment with adults and theexperiment with children was that children were asked to give judgments on the puppet’s
statements, which had been both written down in a score sheet by the experimenter andrecorded on a voice recorder. Children were asked to feed the puppet with his treats (eitherwith a slice of bread when he fails to answer correctly or with grapes when he answers
correctly as grapes are the puppet’s best treat). The advantage of this task is that it makes it
easier for the children to see the possible outcome since the plausible dissent is satisfied inthese tasks and children would never feel as if they were being tested, since the design of theexperiment creates the impression that the puppet is the one who is being tested.
3.2.4. Materials
The testing materials are the same as the one in experiment 1.
3.2.5. Procedure
Before the actual experiment was introduced, we trained children individually in a 20minute session in a quiet research room and we tested them in three 20 minute sessions for theactual experiment.
3.2.6. Results
For each of the three conditions in the study, children’s responses to both the ‘Yes’ items
and the ‘No’ items were coded as ‘Correct’ or ‘Incorrect’, and then combined into a single
data set. This data set was compared against chance performance (i.e. 50% correct) by meansof a single-sample t-test. The accuracy rate for the combined items for all conditions are- 16 -

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

shown below:
Condition 1 (There-expletive condition):t (3.857) = 71, p < .001

Condition 2 (PP-condition):t (5.278) = 71, p < .0001

Condition 3 (Actional Verb condition):t (7.575) = 71, p < .0001

The performance was significantly better than chance in all of the conditions. In a separate
analysis, the proportion of YES responses to the puppet’s statements were used as adependent measure and were entered into an analysis of variance namely, one-way repeatedmeasures ANOVA. The analysis revealed a significant effect of sentence types on the rate ofacceptance of inverse scope reading (one-way repeated measures ANOVA, F (2,16) = 7.154,
p = .006).
Table 8 below illustrates the summary of the ANOVA:
Table 8Source

SS

Df

MS

F

P

Treatment

4502.2963

22251.1482

7.15350.006034

Error

5035.0371

16

314.6898

Ss/BI

22064.7407

8

Total
31602.0741 26
Ss/BI = Subjects or Blocks depending on the design.
Applicable only to correlated-samples ANOVA.

Graph 2 illustrates the results across conditions:- 17 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

Graph 2The proportion of ‘Yes’ responses to the puppet’s statements for children was different in thethree conditions.
The TUKEY HSD test was applied to see whether there is any difference between themean percentage of children’s access to inverse scope reading across pairs of conditions. The
analysis suggests that the difference between children’s access to inverse reading in thereexpletive condition and the Prepositional Phrase condition was non-significant. Also thedifference between Prepositional Phrase condition and the Actional Verb condition was nonsignificant. The TUKEY HSD test shows, however, that there was a significant difference
between children’s performance in there-expletive condition and the Actional verb condition:p < .01.
Notice that children’s acceptance of ‘Yes’ items in the there-expletive condition was
only about 50%, on average. One might suspect that children were simply guessing randomly.
Yet, the results of the single-sample t-test on the combined ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ items speak
against this interpretation. The ‘No’ items took the following form:(13) There is a dwarf in front of every dog house.
dwarf
dwarf
baby girl
dwarf

—
—
—
—

dog house
dog house
dog house

This situation made the test sentence false on both the inverse-scope and the surface-scopeinterpretations. In contrast, the ‘Yes’ items were false on the surface-scope interpretation, butwere true on the inverse-scope interpretation. The statistical significance of the single-sample
t-test, therefore indicates that children were sensitive (specifically) to whether the inversescope reading was true or false.

- 18 -

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

4. Discussion
My main goal in this study has been to investigate the question of whether or not
children are adult-like in their understanding of inverse scope. Following the strong continuity
hypothesis, which states that from the onset of language acquisition all principles of UG areavailable to the child, I hypothesized that the acquisition of the mechanisms that make itpossible for children to access the inverse scope reading should not be delayed. Despite thefact that there have been claims about children’s isomorphism bias, the findings presented in
the present paper show that children are able to access inverse scope reading.
I suggest that describing what is at issue for children in accessing the inverse scope
reading as the facilitation effect of the preceding affirmative statement is misleading. I submit,
instead, that the contrast between the affirmative statement vs. the negated statement is whatyields the performance raise in children’s access to inverse reading.8 Consider the sentences
tested in Musolino & Gualmini (2004) and Musolino & Lidz (2006) below once again:(14) Every horse did not jump over the fence.
Inverse reading: NEG > ∀ (i.e. not all horses jumped over the fence)
This sentence is manipulated by a preceding affirmative statement that yields the contrast
between jump vs. not jump, hence we get the following:(14’) Every horse jumped over log, but every horse did not jump over the fence.
Inverse reading: NEG > ∀ (i.e. not all horses jumped over the fence)
Consider also the sentence in (15):(15) The smurf did not catch two birds.
Inverse reading: ∃ > NEG (i.e. two birds are such that the smurf did not catch them)This sentence is manipulated by a preceding affirmative statement, which highlights thecontrast between catch vs. not catch, hence we get the following:(15’) The smurf caught all the cats, but she did not catch two birds.
Inverse reading: NEG > ∃ (i.e. it is not the case that the smurf caught two birds)

8

Notice that the invalidity of the argument that a preceding statement is necessary for children toaccess the inverse reading does not exclude the fact that children demand pragmatic support inexperimental settings. One major point that deserves attention is the nature of the Truth Value
Judgment Task (Crain et al. 1996, 1998) I used in this study. This task differ from no-context studies
using pictures in that a pragmatic condition, namely the condition on plausible dissent by which a
possible alternative outcome is introduced to children is satisfied. Thus, if this condition is satisfied, it
is not necessary to further manipulate the context with a preceding statement.

- 19 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

When the inverse reading in the second conjunct corresponded to the inverse scope
reading after manipulation by the contrast, children performed significantly better in sentence(14’), whereas when the inverse reading did not correspond to the inverse scope reading after
manipulation by the contrast, children could not perform as good in the sentence (15’). Thus,
some other problem must be causing the difficulty. It may be possible to attribute children’sdifficulties in interpreting sentences such as the one in (15’) even in the presence of apreceding statement, not to the inverse scope access in general, but possibly to having
difficulties in interpreting negation. In fact, Lidz (2007), citing Wason (1973), also argues forchildren’s problems with negation. He suggests, however that children’s problem withnegation is a parsing problem, a possibility that may also account for why children in theabove reported studies were not equally successful. Therefore, I take this to imply that what
seemed to be children’s deficiency in accessing the inverse reading is not in fact a deficiency
in activating the mechanisms that are necessary to interpret inverse scope.
Testing children’s ability to access inverse scope reading in structurally different types ofsentences was important as we intended to understand whether children manage to activate
the mechanisms that make the inverse scope reading possible in distinct grammaticalstructures. The testing materials we used in this study involved inverse reading true sentencesin different sentence structures. Thus, if indeed it were the case that children are in some ways
deficient in their grammar, they would have difficulties in accessing the inverse scope
reading. In the Prepositional Phrase condition, the universal quantifier every is inside theprepositional phrase, in the there-expletive condition, the universal quantifier appears inside
the prepositional phrase and the subject position is occupied by the there-expletive, and in the
Actional verb condition, every appears as the complement of the VP. In the pilot study I
illustrated in section 2, native speakers showed distinct interpretive tendencies for theinterpretation of inverse scope in sentences with and without there expletives. I interpret thistendency to be suggestive and speculate that despite the fact that the semantic representationsof the inverse scope in the sentence types we tested are uniform, it is possible that eachsentence type may be restricted by distinct pragmatic conditions, and this may be related totheir syntactic organizations. If this is true, then children’s access to inverse scope in eachsentence type points out that they can manage to deal with these differences in accessing theinverse scope interpretation.
The reason for the statistically significant difference between children’s performance in
the Actional Verb condition and the there-expletive condition, following Rakhlin’s (2004)
account, I suggest is the following: As opposed to the wide scope indefinite in the subject
position in the Actional Verb condition, the wide scope indefinite in a there-expletive
sentence is interpreted as weak, and this facilitates the singleton set reading on the existential
quantifier a. It is possible that children are biased towards the surface scope true reading since
this reading is the one compatible with the singleton set reading of the indefinite, and in the
inverse scope reading it is false truth conditionally. Even though this may be a plausible
explanation for the observed performance difference, I will leave this explanation at that for
the time being, as a detailed analysis of this is beyond the limitations of the current study. As- 20 -

Revisiting Children’s Understanding of Inverse Scope (N. Gültekin-Şener)

for the statistically significant results in access to inverse reading in the Prepositional Phrase
condition, a possibility is that due to the presence of Prepositional Phrase, a locational
information is introduced and this helps children to figure out the domain of quantificationand this leads them to perform better in the inverse scope reading, as the preposition phrase
mainly determines the domain of quantification of every that appears inside it.
Finally, compared to the study by Rakhlin (2004), we had greater acceptance rates in the
Actional Verb condition. The reason for this result, I contend, is the following: In Condition 3(Actional Verb condition), children perform better, because having these settings, namely
Conditions 1-2 and 3 in contrast, in the course of the experiment might have resulted in apriming effect for children towards a better understanding of the inverse scope reading in
Condition 3.
5. Conclusion
The goal of this paper has been to understand children’s capabilities of activating themechanisms in accessing inverse scope reading. The main finding of the present study is that
English acquiring children between the ages of 4-5 can successfully deal with scope
phenomena. Our findings suggest that under well-defined conditions (such as the condition onplausible dissent satisfied) children can access inverse scope reading. Once other intervening
factors such as the interpretation of negation is averted, it can be shown that children canaccess inverse reading without further requirement for contextual manipulation that isreported to be necessary for accessing inverse scope interpretation for what the literaturereports as Isomorphism-biased children. The fact that children can access inverse scope
reading in the sentence types used in this study significantly above the chance levels suggeststhat they have access to the linguistic mechanisms that underlie scope interpretation. This
result presents a counter argument (at least partly) to the claim that children are Isomorphismbiased in their interpretation of quantified sentences unless a further contextual manipulation(in Musolino and Lidz (2006) and Musolino & Gualmini’s (2004) terms) is introduced.

References
Brooks, P.J. and I. Sekerina (2005) “Shortcuts to Quantifier Interpretation in Children and Adults,”
Language Acquisition 13, 177-206.
Crain, S., R. Thornton, C. Boster, L. Conway, D. Lillo-Martin, and E. Woodams (1996)“Quantification without qualification,” Language Acquisition 5, 83-153.
Crain, S. and R. Thornton (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Research on the
Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Etxeberria, U. and A. Irurtzun (2004) “Focus on the Scope of Quantifiers,” In A. Irurtzun and U.
Etxeberria, eds., Selected Proceedings of 1st WoSS, Vitoria, ASJU.
Krämer, I. (1998) “Children’s interpretations of object noun phrases: Evidence from the scope ofnegation,” In R. van Bezooijen and R. Kager, eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 1998, 163174.

- 21 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

Krifka, M. (1998) “Scope-inversion under the rise-fall contour in German,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 75112.
Lidz, J. (2007) “Towards a Theory of LF Parsing: Evidence from Priming and Learning,” Talk givenin the Colloquium Series at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, April 27, 2007.
Milsark, G. (1974) Existential Sentences in English, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Milsark, G. (1977) “Towards an explanation of certain peculiarities in the existential construction in
English,” Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-30.
Musolino, J. (1998) Universal Grammar and the acquisition of semantic knowledge: an experimental
investigation of quantifier-negation interaction in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Maryland.
Musolino, J., S. Crain and R. Thornton (2000) “Navigating Negative Quantificational Space,”
Linguistics, 38, 1-32.
Musolino, J. and J. Lidz (2006) “Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification?”
Linguistics 44, 817-852.
Musolino, J. and A. Gualmini (2004) “The Role of Partitivity in Child Language,” Language
Acquisition 12, 97-107.
Phillip, W. (1995) Event Quantification in the Acquisition of Universal Quantification, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Pinker, S. (1984) Language Learnability and Language Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Poeppel, D. and K. Wexler (1993) “The Full Competence Hypothesis of Clause Structure in Early
German,” Language 69, 1-33.
Rakhlin. N. (2004) “A New Approach to Quantifier-Spreading,” In V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A. J.
Rodríguez and B. Schmeiser, eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics, Cascadilla Press, 635-648.
Roeper, T. and J. de Villiers (1991) “The emergence of bound variable structures.” In T. Maxfield and
B. Plunket, eds., UMOP: Papers in the Acquisition of WH, 267-282.
Sano, T. (2003) “Scope Relations of QP’s and Scrambling in the Acquisition of Japanese.” In
Jacqueline van Kampen and Sergio Baauw, eds., Proceedings of GALA 2003 (Generative
Approaches to Language Acquisition), Volume 2, LOT Occasional Series 3.

- 22 -