Next Article in Journal
Gross Motor Skills Are Associated with Symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in School-Aged Children
Next Article in Special Issue
A Comparison of Three Executive Function Batteries in a Preschool-Aged Sample
Previous Article in Journal
Macrophage Activation Syndrome in Children: Update on Diagnosis and Treatment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Executive Functioning and Language in a Pediatric Population with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Epilepsy: A Comparative Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Children’s Interpretations of Numerically Quantified Expression Ambiguities: Evidence from Quantified Noun Phrases and Bare Cardinals †

by
Marilena Mousoulidou
1 and
Kevin B. Paterson
2,*
1
Department of Psychology, Neapolis University Pafos, 8042 Paphos, Cyprus
2
Department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, The University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This is a part of PhD thesis of Marilena Mousoulidou at the University of Leicester, UK.
Children 2024, 11(7), 756; https://doi.org/10.3390/children11070756
Submission received: 8 April 2024 / Revised: 20 May 2024 / Accepted: 20 June 2024 / Published: 21 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive and Linguistic Development in Children and Adolescents)

Abstract

Abstract: Understanding how children comprehend text by forming links between sentences has been the focus of research for decades. Such research has consistently shown that children use anaphors and resolve ambiguities in a different manner than adults. The present study examined a less-studied anaphoric reference that arises when two numerically quantified expressions (e.g., “three cats… two cats…”) are used in the text. Focusing on 249 six- to eight-year-old children and 50 adults for comparison, the study employed a picture selection task across six experiments to assess interpretative preferences in ambiguous and unambiguous discourses containing numerically quantified expressions. The findings indicate a pronounced difference in interpretative strategies: unlike adults, who predominantly adopted an anaphoric subset reading, children showed a consistent preference for the non-anaphoric reading, even in contexts explicitly disambiguated towards this interpretation. This preference persisted across various experimental manipulations, highlighting challenges in text integration and comprehension among children. Contributing to the developmental trajectory of language comprehension, this study underscores the complexity of cognitive development and linguistic interpretation, revealing significant developmental differences in processing numerically quantified expressions and anaphoric references within discourse.
Keywords: children’s language comprehension; numerically quantified expressions; ambiguities; integration children’s language comprehension; numerically quantified expressions; ambiguities; integration

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mousoulidou, M.; Paterson, K.B. Children’s Interpretations of Numerically Quantified Expression Ambiguities: Evidence from Quantified Noun Phrases and Bare Cardinals. Children 2024, 11, 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11070756

AMA Style

Mousoulidou M, Paterson KB. Children’s Interpretations of Numerically Quantified Expression Ambiguities: Evidence from Quantified Noun Phrases and Bare Cardinals. Children. 2024; 11(7):756. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11070756

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mousoulidou, Marilena, and Kevin B. Paterson. 2024. "Children’s Interpretations of Numerically Quantified Expression Ambiguities: Evidence from Quantified Noun Phrases and Bare Cardinals" Children 11, no. 7: 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11070756

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop