Wh单词已被分析为存在量词(语法逻辑中的Chierchia:极性,自由选择,和干预。牛津大学出版社,牛津,2013年;福克斯,在SauerlandU,StatevaP(eds)构成语义学中的预设和含义(语用学的帕尔格雷夫研究,语言和认知)。PalgraveMacMillan,摇床,第71-120页,2007;廖在替代和穷尽:汉语wh词的非疑问使用。哈佛大学,2010)或通用量词(Nishigauchi,in:理论和应用语言学在神户舒因2,神户舒因语言科学研究所,1999).这两个说法对儿童最初如何解释单词有不同的预测。通用帐户预测,儿童最初应将单词解释为通用量词,而存在主义账户预计儿童应该从存在主义解释开始。在两个账户之间作出裁决,本研究旨在探索学龄前儿童的wh量化语义知识。具体来说,它调查了4岁和5岁会说普通话的儿童和一个成年人对照组对“什么”一词的解释。使用真值判断任务(Crain和Thornton在通用语法研究中:语法和语义获取实验指南。麻省理工学院出版社,剑桥,1998),实验1评估了孩子们对wh单词shenme\“what\”的解释是否更接近极性敏感项目renhe\“any\”或通用量词suoyou\“all\”的含义。使用问答任务,实验2和3分别调查了儿童在两种类型的问题中是否将shenme\'what\'解释为更接近于renhe\'any\'或suoyou\'all\'的含义:是-否与粒子ma和A-not-A问题。发现儿童和成人都将shenme\“what\”解释为比suoyou\“all\”更接近于renhe\“any\”。研究结果表明,说普通话的学龄前儿童已经拥有了类似成人的wh量化语义知识:wh单词是存在的量词,而不是通用的量词。由于缺乏主要的语言输入,儿童对非疑问性单词的早期掌握似乎支持语言习得的生物语言学方法(Chomsky在句法理论方面。麻省理工学院出版社,剑桥,1965年;平克在语言学习和语言发展。哈佛大学出版社,剑桥,1984;克莱恩等人。从生物语言学的角度来看语言习得。NeurosciBiobehavRev,2016年。https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuriorev.2016.09.004)。
Wh-words have been analysed as existential quantifiers (Chierchia in Logic in grammar: polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013; Fox, in Sauerland U, Stateva P (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition). Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills, pp 71-120, 2007; Liao in Alternative and exhaustification: non-interrogative uses of Chinese wh-words. Harvard University, 2010) or universal quantifiers (Nishigauchi, in: Theoretical and applied linguistics at Kobe Shoin 2, Kobe Shoin Institute for Linguistic Sciences, 1999). These two accounts have distinct predictions on how children initially interpret wh-words. The universal account predicts that children should initially interpret wh-words as universal quantifiers, whereas the existential account anticipates that children should start out with the existential interpretation. To adjudicate between the two accounts, the present study was designed to explore pre-schoolers\' semantic knowledge of wh-quantification. Specifically, it investigated the interpretation of the wh-word shenme \'what\' with 4-and 5-year-old Mandarin-speaking children and a control group of adults. Using a Truth Value Judgment Task (Crain and Thornton in Investigations in universal grammar: a guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998), Experiment 1 evaluated whether children interpret the wh-word shenme \'what\' as closer in meaning to the polarity sensitive item renhe \'any\' or the universal quantifier suoyou \'all\' in the antecedent of ruguo \'if\' conditionals. Using a Question-Answer Task, Experiments 2 & 3 respectively investigated whether children interpret shenme \'what\' as closer in meaning to renhe \'any\' or suoyou \'all\' in two types of questions: yes-no questions with the particle ma and A-not-A questions. It was found that both children and adults interpret shenme \'what\' as closer in meaning to renhe \'any\' than suoyou \'all\'. The findings suggest that Mandarin-speaking pre-schoolers already have adult-like semantic knowledge of wh-quantification: wh-words are existential quantifiers rather than universal quantifiers. Due to the paucity of primary linguistic input, children\'s early mastery of the non-interrogative wh-words appear to support the biolinguistic approach to language acquisition (Chomsky in Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1965; Pinker in Language learnability and language development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1984; Crain et al. in Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.004 ).