Effects of Individual Differences and Prosodic Focus on the Interpretation of Quantity Scalar Terms in Mandarin-Speaking 3- to 8-Year-Olds.

  • Published In: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 2025, v. 68, n. 3. P. 895 1 of 3

  • Database: Academic Search Ultimate 2 of 3

  • Authored By: Yuhan Jiang; Ting Wang 3 of 3

Abstract

Purpose: This study focuses on examining how individual differences, including biological, linguistic, and cognitive traits, and prosodic focus affect the computation biases and reaction time (RT) associated with quantity scalar terms in Mandarin-speaking children aged 3--8 years. Method: The participants of this study were 27 Mandarin-speaking children aged 3--8 years. They completed a computer-based sentence evaluation task, and their receptive vocabulary, nonverbal IQ, and theory of mind (ToM) skills were assessed. Additionally, parents provided insights into their children's executive functions, including working memory, planning, regulation, and inhibition abilities, through a questionnaire reflecting daily performance. Results: Mandarin-speaking 3- to 8-year-olds showed pervasive quantifier semantic biases versus bimodally distributed ad hoc semantic/pragmatic biases. Their quantifier pragmatic bias increased with age, working memory, and planning abilities but decreased with first-order ToM. In contrast, their ad hoc pragmatic bias improved with second-order ToM, working memory, planning, and inhibition abilities but decreased with age and receptive vocabulary. Prosodic focus reduced the number of hesitators and minimized the RT differences between hesitators and pragmatic/semantic responders. Conclusions: Children show a higher overall pragmatic bias in ad hoc compared to quantifier scalar terms, alongside notable individual differences. Quantifier and ad hoc scalar terms appear to have different initial interpretations, with the former leaning toward a semantic interpretation and the latter toward a pragmatic one. Prosodic focus reduced hesitation and encouraged further processing, although it did not significantly alter interpretation biases. Future studies should employ larger sample sizes and implicit measures to further explore these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Additional Information

  • Source:Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. 2025/03, Vol. 68, Issue 3, p895
  • Document Type:Article
  • Subject Area:Education
  • Publication Date:2025
  • ISSN:1092-4388
  • DOI:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00468
  • Accession Number:183476498
  • Copyright Statement:Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Looking to go deeper into this topic? Look for more articles on EBSCOhost.