No abstract

No abstract

Learners of most languages are faced with the task of acquiring words to talk about number and quantity. Much is known about the order of acquisition of number words as well as the cognitive and perceptual systems and cultural practices that shape it. Substantially less is known about the acquisition of quantifiers. Here, we consider the extent to which systems and practices that support number word acquisition can be applied to quantifier acquisition and conclude that the two domains are largely distinct in this respect. Consequently, we hypothesize that the acquisition of quantifiers is constrained by a set of factors related to each quantifier's specific meaning. We investigate competence with the expressions for "all," "none," "some," "some…not," and "most" in 31 languages, representing 11 language types, by testing 768 5-y-old children and 536 adults. We found a cross-linguistically similar order of acquisition of quantifiers, explicable in terms of four factors relating to their meaning and use. In addition, exploratory analyses reveal that languageand learner-specific factors, such as negative concord and gender, are significant predictors of variation.language acquisition | universals | quantifiers | semantics | pragmatics N umber words and quantifiers are abstract words that denote properties of sets rather than individuals. Twoness and allness in "two/all of the black cats in the street" are not true of any individual cat, whereas blackness and catness are. Children display knowledge of number words and quantifiers around their second birthday, comparatively long after they have acquired concrete nouns (1, 2). As far as number words are concerned, a range of cognitive and perceptual systems supports their acquisition.These systems include an object-tracking system, which enables the precise representation of small quantities, and an analog magnitude system, which enables imprecise and approximate comparisons (1), SignificanceAlthough much research has been devoted to the acquisition of number words, relatively little is known about the acquisition of other expressions of quantity. We propose that the order of acquisition of quantifiers is related to features inherent to the meaning of each term. Four specific dimensions of the meaning and use of quantifiers are found to capture robust similarities in the order of acquisition of quantifiers in similar ways across 31 languages, representing 11 language types.

This study investigates the syntactic abilities of ten individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) (mean chronological age: 8;9 years; mean mental age: 4;8 years) and Down's syndrome (DS) (mean chronological age: 8;7 years; mean mental age: 4;6 years), matched individually on chronological age, mental age and performance IQ. The syntactic components investigated include the comprehension of passives and the production, comprehension and repetition of wh-questions. Performance is compared to ten younger typically developing (TD) controls matched individually to both experimental groups on mental age (mean chronological age: 4;4 years; mean mental age: 5;0 years). Participants were given a standardized measure of grammatical ability and non-standardized tasks exploring the comprehension of active and passive sentences, and the production, comprehension and repetition of a range of wh-question types: wh-subject, wh-object, which NP-subject and which NP-object. Participants with WS and DS performed similarly on the standardized measure of grammatical ability, as well as on the experimental tasks that tapped comprehension of passives, and production and comprehension of wh-questions. Participants with DS performed significantly more poorly than both the WS cohort and TD controls on the repetition of wh-questions. Both the WS and DS cohorts performed significantly more poorly on most of the syntactic tasks compared to the younger TD controls. Individuals with WS and DS experienced significant difficulties in tasks measuring aspects of syntactic ability and performed more poorly than mental age-matched TD controls. Implications of these findings, with regards to the debates around language "intactness" in WS, as well as the similarities and differences in language abilities in WS and DS, dependent on age and developmental stages studied, are explored.

This study develops a single elicitation method to test the acquisition of third-person pronominal objects in 5-year-olds for 16 languages. This methodology allows us to compare the acquisition of pronominals in languages that lack object clitics ("pronoun languages") with languages that employ clitics in the relevant context ("clitic languages"), thus establishing a robust cross-linguistic baseline in the domain of clitic and pronoun production for 5-year-olds. High rates of pronominal production are found in our results, indicating that children have the relevant pragmatic knowledge required to select a pronominal in the discourse setting involved in the experiment as well as the relevant morphosyntactic knowledge involved in the production of pronominals. It is legitimate to conclude from our data that a child who at age 5 is not able to produce any or few pronominals is a child at risk for language impairment. In this way, pronominal production can be taken as a developmental marker, provided that one takes into account certain crosslinguistic differences discussed in the article. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

Comparative research on aphasia and aphasia rehabilitation is challenged by the lack of comparable assessment tools across different languages. In English, a large array of tools is available, while in most other languages, the selection is more limited. Importantly, assessment tools are often simple translations and do not take into consideration specific linguistic and psycholinguistic parameters of the target languages. As a first step in meeting the needs for comparable assessment tools, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test is currently being adapted into a number of languages spoken in Europe. In this article, some key challenges encountered in the adaptation process and the solutions to ensure that the resulting assessment tools are linguistically and culturally equivalent, are proposed. Specifically, we focus on challenges and solutions related to the use of imageability, frequency, word length, spelling-to-sound regularity and sentence length and complexity as underlying properties in the selection of the testing material.

No abstract