Beyond the scope of acquisition: A novel perspective on the isomorphism effect from Broca's aphasia

Lynda Kennedy, Jacopo Romoli, Lyn Tieu, Vincenzo Moscati, Folli Raffaella

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

Children have been reported to prefer the surface scope or “isomorphic” reading of scopally ambiguous sentences (Musolino 1998, among others). Existing accounts in the literature differ with respect to the proposed source of this isomorphism effect. Some accounts are based on learnability considerations (e.g., Moscati & Crain 2014), while others invoke pragmatic and/or processing factors (e.g., Gualmini et al. 2008; Musolino & Lidz 2006). The present study investigates whether the isomorphism effect is specific to development or rather is observable in other populations with language processing limitations. We investigated the interpretation of ambiguous sentences containing “every” and negation in 4–6-year-old children, individuals with Broca’s aphasia, and neurotypical adult controls. We observed parallel performance in the children and the aphasic group, with both groups accessing more surface scope readings than inverse scope readings. This finding suggests that the preference for isomorphism may not be specific to acquisition and supports accounts that are not specifically based on learnability considerations—for example, processing accounts along the lines of Musolino & Lidz (2006).
LanguageEnglish
Pages1-9
Number of pages9
JournalLanguage Acquisition
Early online date5 Sep 2018
DOIs
StateE-pub ahead of print - 5 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

speech disorder
pragmatics
Group
interpretation
language
performance

Cite this

@article{88f40014c9494c738e9aa25ef52a7eae,
title = "Beyond the scope of acquisition: A novel perspective on the isomorphism effect from Broca's aphasia",
abstract = "Children have been reported to prefer the surface scope or “isomorphic” reading of scopally ambiguous sentences (Musolino 1998, among others). Existing accounts in the literature differ with respect to the proposed source of this isomorphism effect. Some accounts are based on learnability considerations (e.g., Moscati & Crain 2014), while others invoke pragmatic and/or processing factors (e.g., Gualmini et al. 2008; Musolino & Lidz 2006). The present study investigates whether the isomorphism effect is specific to development or rather is observable in other populations with language processing limitations. We investigated the interpretation of ambiguous sentences containing “every” and negation in 4–6-year-old children, individuals with Broca’s aphasia, and neurotypical adult controls. We observed parallel performance in the children and the aphasic group, with both groups accessing more surface scope readings than inverse scope readings. This finding suggests that the preference for isomorphism may not be specific to acquisition and supports accounts that are not specifically based on learnability considerations—for example, processing accounts along the lines of Musolino & Lidz (2006).",
author = "Lynda Kennedy and Jacopo Romoli and Lyn Tieu and Vincenzo Moscati and Folli Raffaella",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1080/10489223.2018.1502772",
pages = "1--9",

}

Beyond the scope of acquisition: A novel perspective on the isomorphism effect from Broca's aphasia. / Kennedy, Lynda; Romoli, Jacopo; Tieu, Lyn; Moscati, Vincenzo; Raffaella, Folli.

05.09.2018, p. 1-9.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Beyond the scope of acquisition: A novel perspective on the isomorphism effect from Broca's aphasia

AU - Kennedy,Lynda

AU - Romoli,Jacopo

AU - Tieu,Lyn

AU - Moscati,Vincenzo

AU - Raffaella,Folli

PY - 2018/9/5

Y1 - 2018/9/5

N2 - Children have been reported to prefer the surface scope or “isomorphic” reading of scopally ambiguous sentences (Musolino 1998, among others). Existing accounts in the literature differ with respect to the proposed source of this isomorphism effect. Some accounts are based on learnability considerations (e.g., Moscati & Crain 2014), while others invoke pragmatic and/or processing factors (e.g., Gualmini et al. 2008; Musolino & Lidz 2006). The present study investigates whether the isomorphism effect is specific to development or rather is observable in other populations with language processing limitations. We investigated the interpretation of ambiguous sentences containing “every” and negation in 4–6-year-old children, individuals with Broca’s aphasia, and neurotypical adult controls. We observed parallel performance in the children and the aphasic group, with both groups accessing more surface scope readings than inverse scope readings. This finding suggests that the preference for isomorphism may not be specific to acquisition and supports accounts that are not specifically based on learnability considerations—for example, processing accounts along the lines of Musolino & Lidz (2006).

AB - Children have been reported to prefer the surface scope or “isomorphic” reading of scopally ambiguous sentences (Musolino 1998, among others). Existing accounts in the literature differ with respect to the proposed source of this isomorphism effect. Some accounts are based on learnability considerations (e.g., Moscati & Crain 2014), while others invoke pragmatic and/or processing factors (e.g., Gualmini et al. 2008; Musolino & Lidz 2006). The present study investigates whether the isomorphism effect is specific to development or rather is observable in other populations with language processing limitations. We investigated the interpretation of ambiguous sentences containing “every” and negation in 4–6-year-old children, individuals with Broca’s aphasia, and neurotypical adult controls. We observed parallel performance in the children and the aphasic group, with both groups accessing more surface scope readings than inverse scope readings. This finding suggests that the preference for isomorphism may not be specific to acquisition and supports accounts that are not specifically based on learnability considerations—for example, processing accounts along the lines of Musolino & Lidz (2006).

U2 - 10.1080/10489223.2018.1502772

DO - 10.1080/10489223.2018.1502772

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 9

ER -