Cover not available
Part of
Language Acquisition in Romance Languages
Edited by Vicenç Torrens
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 18] 2024
► pp. 212–229

Chapter 9
Quantifier comprehension in Brazilian Portuguese and the extra-object visual effect

| Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
| Rio de Janeiro State University
| Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Universal quantifiers are complex for children to comprehend, and over-exhaustive errors can occur even with adults in sentence-picture verification tasks. This paper addresses visual design factors that may explain these difficulties. We examine what we call the “single extra object attraction hypothesis” (SEOH), according to which the visual prominence of a uniquely unpaired extra object compromises attentional resources during these tasks. We manipulated the type of extra-object – single or double – in an eye-tracking experiment with adult speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. Contrary to the SEOH prediction, double objects gave rise to earlier and longer fixations than single objects. There was no difference in accuracy. We discuss the implications of these results for developmental research.
Keywords: universal quantifier, language comprehension, sentence-picture verification task, eye-tracking, extra-object visual effect, Brazilian Portuguese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Children and adults’ quantifier interpretation
  • 3.Eye-tracking and quantifier comprehension
  • 4.The eye-tracking experiment
    • Hypothesis and predictions
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Material
      • Apparatus
      • Procedure
      • Data treatment and analysis
    • Results
      • Accuracy
      • Eye movement data
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 July 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.18.09rod
References (32)
References
Aravind, A., de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Clancy, J., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Assel, M., Taylor, H. B., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T., & Valiente, C. (2017). Children’s quantification with every over time. Glossa, 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., & Sekerina, I. A. (2006). Shallow processing of universal quantification: A comparison of monolingual and bilingual adults. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 28(No. 28).Google Scholar
Corrêa, L. M., & Augusto, M. R. A. (2019). Image effects and long distance dependencies. In ExLing 2019: Proceedings of 10th International Conference of Experimental Linguistics (pp. 53–56). International Society of Experimental Linguistics. DOI logo
Corrêa, L. M., Rodrigues, E. dos S., & Augusto, M. R. A. Image processing in the tracking of DLD. In ExLing 2022: Proceedings of 13th International Conference of Experimental Linguistics (pp. 41–44). International Society of Experimental Linguistics. DOI logo
Crain, S., Thornton, R., Boster, C., Conway, L., Lillo-Martin, D., & Woodams, E. (1996). Quantification without qualification. Language Acquisition, 5(2), 83–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drozd, K. F., & Loosbroek, E. V. (2006). The effect of context on children’s interpretations of universally quantified sentences. In V. van Geenhoven (Ed.), Semantics in acquisition (pp. 115–140). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escobar, L., & Torrens, V. (2008). The acquisition of universal quantifiers in Spanish. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, M. P. Larrañaga, & J. Clibbens (Eds.), First language acquisition of morphology and syntax: Perspectives across languages and learners (pp. 119–135). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, N., & Stedmon, J. (1986). How children deal with natural language quantification. In I. Kurcz, G. Shugar, & J. Danks (Eds.), Knowledge and language (pp. 21–48.). North-Holland.Google Scholar
Gavarró, A., & Escobar, M. Á. (2011). A pilot study of quantification in child Catalan. Zeitschrift Fur Katalanistik, 24(1), 213–225.Google Scholar
Geng, J. J., & Witkowski, P. (2019). Template-to-distractor distinctiveness regulates visual search efficiency. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 119–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, B. (2003). Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition, 11(4), 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouro, T., Norita, H., Nakajima, M., & Ariji, K. (2001). Children’s interpretation of universal quantifier and pragmatic interference. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), The proceedings of the Fourth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp. 61–78). Hitsuzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, J., Babyonyshev, M., Reich, J., Hart, L., & Grigorenko, E. (2007). The acquisition of universal quantifiers in Russian. In A. Belikova, L. Meroni, & M. Umeda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA) (pp. 224–232). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lopes, R. (2014). How children distribute: The acquisition of the universal quantifiers in Brazilian Portuguese. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 351–374.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R., Jincho, N., & Oishi, H. (2009). Development of executive control and language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 59–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minai, U., Jincho, N., Yamane, N., & Mazuka, R. (2012). What hinders child semantic computation: Children’s universal quantification and the development of cognitive control. Journal of Child Language, 39(5), 919–956. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W., Suzuki, T., & Yoshinaga, N. (2010). Quantifier spreading: New evidence from Japanese. Language Learning and Development, 6(2), 116–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peschel, A. O., & Orquin, J. L. (2013). A review of the findings and theories on surface size effects on visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 902. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philip, W. (1995). Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Prat-Sala, M., & Branigan, H. P. (2000). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2), 168–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhlin, N. (2007). Children’s interpretation of negative determiners as a window into Q-spreading. In A. Belikova, L. Meroni, & M. Umeda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (pp. 363–373). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved on 23 January 2024 from [URL]
Roeper, T., & E. Matthei (1974). On the acquisition of some and all. Presented at the Sixth Child Language Research Forum, Stanford University, April 1974.
Roeper, T., Strauss, U., & Pearson, B. (2004). The acquisition path of quantifiers: Two kinds of spreading (Unpublished manuscript). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sekerina, I., & Sauermann, A., (2017). Quantifier spreading in child eye movements: A case of the Russian quantifier kazhdyj ‘every’. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugisaki, K., & Isobe, M. (2001). Quantification without qualification without plausible dissent. In J.- Y. Kim & A. Werle (Eds.), The Proceedings of SULA 1 (pp. 97–100). GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, & K. M., Sedivy, J. E. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.Google Scholar
Yu, X., & Geng, J. J. (2019). The attentional template is shifted and asymmetrically sharpened by distractor context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(3), 336–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Torrens, Vicenç
2024. Introduction. In Language Acquisition in Romance Languages [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 18], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.