Chapter published in:
Studies in Chinese and Japanese Language Acquisition: In honor of Stephen Crain
Edited by Mineharu Nakayama, Yi-ching Su and Aijun Huang
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 60] 2017
► pp. 197–219

Native and non-native comprehension of the Japanese existential quantifier nanko-ka

| University of Kansas
| Johnson County Community College
This paper discusses native and non-native speakers’ comprehension of the Japanese quantifier nanko-ka, which is viewed as an existential quantifier (cf., some in English) in Japanese. The existential quantifier is argued to be ambiguous at the semantics-pragmatics interface: at the semantic level, it means ‘at least one, possibly all’; at the pragmatic level, it is interpreted as ‘at least one, but not all’. Nanko-ka, as an existential quantifier in Japanese, is expected to exhibit this ambiguity, although there is no data that we are aware of which demonstrates that native speakers indeed access these two interpretations of nanko-ka. Thus, the first goal of the study reported in this paper is to examine native comprehension of this quantifier. As regards the acquisition of the existential quantifier, research in first language acquisition has suggested that children initially have limited access to the pragmatic interpretation of some, in comparison to adults. However, once it comes to adult second language acquisition, how adult L2 learners may cope with the ambiguity of the existential quantifier is not well-known. Given this, the second goal of the current paper is to investigate how nanko-ka is interpreted by English-speaking L2 learners of Japanese.
Published online: 24 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.60.10min
References

References

Bott, L. & Noveck, I.
2004 Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51(3): 437–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bott, L., Baily, T.M. & Grodner, D.
2012 Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language 66(1): 123–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breheney, R., Katsos, N. & Williams, J.
2006 Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100(3): 434–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R.
1998 Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Degen, J. & Tanenhaus, M.K.
2015 Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive Science 39(4): 667–710. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, A., Scarfton, S., Duckworth, A. & Handley, S.J.
2004 The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58(2): 121–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goro, T. & Minai, U.
2011 Conjunction, disjunction and negation in second language acquisition: A study of L2 English and Japanese. Poster presented at the Thirty-sixth Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Grice, P.
1989 Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University of Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, D.J., Klein, N.M., Carbary, K.M. & Tanenhaus, M.K.
2010 ’Some’, and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition 116(1): 42–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M.T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L.
2005 Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5): 667–696. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrom, P.A.
1998 Decomposing Questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hara, Y.
2006 Grammar of Knowledge Representation: Japanese Discourse Items at Interfaces. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R.
1972 On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Huang, Y.T. & Snedeker, J.
2009 Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58(3): 376–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Logic and conversation revisited: Evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(8): 1161–1172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunt III, L., Politzer-Ahles, S., Gibson, L., Minai, U. & Fiorentino, R.
2013 Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: Evidence from picture-sentence verification. Neuroscience Letters 534: 246–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katsos, N. & Cummins, C. 2010 Pragmatics: From theory to experiment and back again. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(5): 282–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katsos, N., Roqueta, C.A., Estevan, R.A. & Cummins, C.
2011 Are children with Specific Language Impairment competent with the pragmatics and logic of quantification? Cognition 119(1): 43–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S.W.
1991 Chain Scope and Quantification Structure. PhD dissertation, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
1965 Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
2000 Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
1993 Japanese numeral classifiers: A study of semantic categories and lexical organization. Language 31(4): 667–713.Google Scholar
Minai, U. & Takami, N.
2012 Semantic and pragmatic meaning of the existential quantifier some in second language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development, A.K. Biller, E.Y. Chung & A.E. Kimball (eds), 349–360. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Musolino, J. & Lidz, J.
2002 Preschool logic: Truth and felicity in the acquisition of quantification. In Proceedings of the 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development, B. Skarabela, S. Fish & A. H.-J. Do (eds), 406–416. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Noveck, I.
2001 When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78(2):165–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. & Sperber, D.
2007 The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Pragmatics [Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics], N. Burton-Roberts (ed), 184–212. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. & Musolino, J.
2003 Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86(3): 253–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. & Tantalou, N.
2004 Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition 12(1): 71–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Politzer-Ahles, S., Fiorentino, R., Jiang, X. & Zhou, X.
2013 Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification. Brain Research 1490: 134–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shimoyama, J.
2006 Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14(2): 139–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R.
2010 Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua 120(10): 2444–2462. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Takami, N.
2011 Acquisition of Semantic and Pragmatic Meaning of the Quantifier nanko-ka by Adult Learners of Japanese. MA thesis, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
White, L. & Juffs, A.
1998 Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of nonnative language acquisition: Competence and processing. In The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, S. Flynn, G. Marthohardjono & W.A. O’Neil (eds), 111–129. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Yatsushiro, K.
2009 The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 17(2): 141–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar