Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2023
Edited by Sterre Leufkens and Marco Bril
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 40] 2023
► pp. 120–136

Everything is not equal in adult and child Dutch

The scope of universal quantifiers with negation

| Utrecht University
An investigation into the production of universal quantifiers with negation in the CHILDES database of Dutch shows several scopal properties that have not been discussed before. First, it shows a crucial distinction between child and adult Dutch. A universal quantifier with scope over negation has an isomorphic interpretation in adult Dutch, but an inverse scope interpretation in child Dutch. This raises the question why children do not adopt the surface scope interpretation. Second, it indicates a possible answer to the puzzle why languages often avoid a universal quantifier under the scope of negation. I will discuss the idea that the explanation may lie in the type of reading of a quantifier, collective/distributive and specific/non-specific. It might also explain why no language has a lexicalized negated universal pronoun *neverything.
Keywords: scope, universal quantifiers, negation, adult and child Dutch, CHILDES
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Negation under the scope of a quantifier
    • 1.2A quantifier under the scope of negation
  • 2.Universal quantifiers under the scope of negation
    • 2.1A problem with PF ¬ > ∀x
    • 2.2Collective, distributive, and non-specific/specific readings of quantifiers
    • 2.3Restrictions on PF ¬ > ∀x
    • 2.4The data in adult and child Dutch
  • 3.Negation under the scope of a universal quantifier: Isomorphic interpretation
    • 3.1The data in adult and child Dutch
    • 3.2No blocking by a lexicalized neg+existential
  • 4.Negation under the scope of a universal quantifier: Inverse scope interpretation
    • 4.1The data in child Dutch and Dutch dialects
    • 4.2Why inverse scope in child Dutch?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00083.van
References (15)
References
Barbiers, Sjef, Johan van der Auwera, Hans Bennis, Eefje Boef, Gunther de Vogelaer, Margreet van der Ham. 2008. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects: Volume II (SAND). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena. 2011. The Grammar of French Quantification. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beghelli, Philippo & Tim Stowell. 1997. “Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every.” In Ways of Scope Taking ed. by Anna Szabolcski, 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Marcel den Dikken. 2012. Syntax of Dutch. Nouns and Noun Phrases Volume 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen. 2017. “Acquisition of quantifiers.” Annual Review of Linguistics 31: 291–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1999. “Blocking effects and polarity sensitivity.” In JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday ed. by Jelle Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Susan Gelman & Jon Star, 1–15. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1972. “On the semantic properties of logical operators in English.” PhD diss., UCLA.
Huijbregts, Riny. 1979. “De biologisch kern van taal.” In Verkenningen in taal ed. by Riny Huybregts & Louis des Tombe, 97–189. Instituut A.W. de Groot voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Kontinen, Juha & Jakub Szymanik. 2008. “A Remark on Collective Quantification.” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(2): 131–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2015. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd edition. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Neukom-Hermann, Anja. 2016. “Negation, quantification and scope. A corpus study of English and German all…not constructions.” PhD diss., University of Zürich.
Wijnen, Frank. 1997. “Functionele categorieën in Nederlandse kindertaal.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 31: 178–198.Google Scholar
Wouden, Ton van der. 1996. “Hoeven.” TABU 261: 164–182.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. “Sentential negation and negative concord.” PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffman & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar