Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34424452›Full record

ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2021

On the Acquisition of Polarity Items: 11- to 12-Year-Olds' Comprehension of German NPIs and PPIs.

Juliane Schwab, Mingya Liu, Jutta L Mueller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Juliane SchwabInstitute of Cognitive Science, Osnabrück University, Wachsbleiche 27, 49090, Osnabrück, Germany. jschwab@uni-osnabrueck.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7899-5974
Mingya LiuDepartment of English and American Studies, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9426-3669
Jutta L MuellerDepartment of Linguistics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5463-9585

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing work on the acquisition of polarity-sensitive expressions (PSIs) suggests that children show an early sensitivity to the restricted distribution of negative polarity items (NPIs), but may be delayed in the acquisition of positive polarity items (PPIs). However, past studies primarily targeted PSIs that are highly frequent in children's language input. In this paper, we report an experimental investigation on children's comprehension of two NPIs and two PPIs in German. Based on corpus data indicating that the four tested PSIs are present in child-directed speech but rare in young children's utterances, we conducted an auditory rating task with adults and 11- to 12-year-old children. The results demonstrate that, even at 11-12 years of age, children do not yet show a completely target-like comprehension of the investigated PSIs. While they are adult-like in their responses to one of the tested NPIs, their responses did not demonstrate a categorical distinction between licensed and unlicensed PSI uses for the other tested expressions. The effect was led by a higher acceptance of sentences containing unlicensed PSIs, indicating a lack of awareness for their distributional restrictions. The results of our study pose new questions for the developmental time scale of the acquisition of polarity items.

Indexed as

ComprehensionSpeech PerceptionAdultChildChild, PreschoolHumansLanguageLanguage DevelopmentSpeechCorpus studyJudgment taskLanguage acquisitionNegationPolarity itemsSentence comprehension

Identifiers

PMID34424452
PMCPMC8660713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.