本研究旨在探討，中文為母語之兒童對於量化相關句構之詮釋與發展。探討內容為兒童第一語言習得之過程中，對中文驢子句與光桿條件句詮釋的差異，以及影響其詮釋之因素。本研究包含兩階段的詮釋測驗：第一階段是單句測驗，觀察兒童對量化相關句構之理解差異；第二階段則是加入語境，用以了解兒童是否會因而影響其解讀。研究對象依年齡與年級共分為四組：幼兒園大班、小學二年級、四年級、成人，每組皆為十八人。
研究結果顯示，該兩種句構的詮釋隨著年齡的增長，解讀能力逐漸與成人之詮釋一致。首先，對於這兩種句構的比較，每組兒童皆能在解讀上，顯示兩種句構並無相關性，而在這兩種句構的解讀方面，越高年級越能掌握到其意涵。在驢子句裡，量化詞對解讀有深遠的影響，但各個量化詞影響語句詮釋有不同的趨勢：「每」的意涵最為明確，因此每組孩童皆能容易解讀其語句；「不是每個」對於幼兒園大班尚有難度，但小學二年級、四年級孩童已能有成人解讀能力；「有些」所表達的意涵最為模糊，實驗所收錄之孩童，在解讀上尚未完全成熟。另外，光桿條件句則是測試句構之對等性對解讀之影響，實驗結果顯示，每組皆在對等條件句上表現較佳，且皆在對等結構上和成人有相近的解讀能力；但在不對等條件句上，只有小學二年級、四年級才有和成人一樣的解讀能力。最後，探討語境的加入是否影響兒童對於此兩種句構上的解讀，實驗結果顯示，除了幼兒園大班對於語境加入並無太大差異外，其他組皆在語句之詮釋上，有著顯著的影響。國小二年級已可以詮釋在偏置語境下的驢子句，而國小四年級則可以完全解讀支持語境與偏置語境下的驢子句，及支持語境下的光桿條件句。

The present study investigated children’s first language acquisition of donkey sentences and bare conditionals in Mandarin Chinese, which are both concerned with quantification. Aiming to discover a developmental pattern of acquisition, this study explored children’s knowledge of quantification and how each construction affects their readings by testing their interpretations of the two constructions from an empirical perspective. Four issues regarding the two constructions were taken into account, which were the construction-related factor, construction-specific factors, contextual effects, and age effects. Kindergarten, Grade 2 and Grade 4 were recruited as experimental groups, and adults as a control group to compare their interpretations, each of which consisted of eighteen subjects. Every subject finished two phases of tasks, which were sentences in isolation and sentences in context. In both phases of the experiments, the subjects were asked to determine which picture best described the target sentence to test their interpretation, a universal or existential reading.
The results of this research identified a developmental pattern of the acquisition of donkey sentences and bare conditionals in Mandarin Chinese. It was found that overally, children under seven years old had difficulty interpreting quantificational sentences. First, concerning the relatedness of the two constructions, all the four groups showed a unanimous tendency in that bare conditionals were not in the same vein to donkey sentences in terms of interpretations where the latter was easier to interpret. In addition, quantifier types of donkey sentences are vital to interpretations, where the quantifier mei ‘every’ was already acquired by children as young as KS, bushi meige ‘not every’ was interpreted in an adult-like manner by Grade 2, and youxie ‘some’ could not be obtained with an adult-like interpretation by any child group. This showed that mei ‘every’ was the easiest to acquire, followed by bushi meige ‘not every’ and lastly youxie ‘some.’ Another construction-specific factor, parallelism, was identified crucial to readings where all the child groups exhibited adult-like interpretations of parallel bare conditionals, but only Grade 2 and Grade 4 could have interpretations in an adult-like manner of nonparallel ones. This indicated that nonparallel sentences were more challenging to interpret than nonparallel ones. Moreover, with respect to contextual effects, children by the stage of Grade 2 could obtain adult-like interpretations of donkey sentences in biasing context, but it was not until they were at Grade 4 could they interpret both donkey sentences and bare conditionals in supporting context with adult-like readings. As a result, contextual effects were found, and the subjects’ interpretations were greatly affected by context but in different ways to the two constructions.

Assink, Egbert, Sonja van Well, and Paul Knuijt. 2003. Age-of-acquisition effects in native speakers and second-language learners. Memory & Cognition 31.8:1218-1228.
Caramelli, Nicoletta, Annalisa Setti, and Donatella D. Maurizzi. 2004. Concrete and abstract concepts in school age children. Psychology of Language and Communication 8.2:19-34.
Champollion, Lucas. 2016. Homogeneity in donkey sentences. Proceedings of the 26th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard and Dan Burgdorf, 684–704. Austin: University of Texas.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and C.-T. James Huang. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4:121-163.
Cheung, Candice Chi Hang. 2007. The syntax and semantics of bare conditionals in Chinese. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. by Estela Puig-Waldmüller, 150-164. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Chomsky, Noam, 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
Cohen, Ariel. 2001. Relative readings of many, often, and generics. Natural Language Semantics 9.1:41-67.
Cook, Vivian, 1988. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crain, Stephen, Rosalind Thornton, Carole Boster, Laura Conway, Diane Lillo-Martin, and Elaine Woodams. 2009. Quantification without quantification. Language Acquisition 5.2:83-153.
Dekker, Paul. 2001. On if and only. Proceedings of the 11th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson and Zsofia Zvolenszky, 114-133. New York: New York University.
DeVault, David, and Matthew Stone. 2004. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING, ed. by Lothar Lemnitzer, Detmar Meurers and Erhard Hinrichs, 1247-1253. Geneva, Switzerland: University of Geneva.
Foppolo, Francesca. 2009. The puzzle of donkey anaphora resolution. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Martin Walkow and Muhammad Abdurrahman, 297-310. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts.
Gass, Susan, and Larry Selinker. 1994. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gelman, Susan, and Henry Wellman. 1991. Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition 38.3:213-244.
Gentner, Dedre, and Cecile Toupin. 1986. Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science 10.3:277-300.
Geurts, Bart. 2002. Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy 25.2:129-156.
Geurts, Bart. 2003. Quantifying kids. Language Acquisition 11:197-218.
Gopnik, Alison, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 1997. Words, thoughts and theories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gopnik, Alison. 1988. Conceptual and semantic development as theory change. Mind and Language 3:163-179.
Grosz, Patrick, Pritty Patel-Grosz, Evelina Fedorenko, and Edward Gibson. 2014. Constraints on donkey pronouns. Journal of Semantics 32.4:619-648.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Herburger, Elena.1997. Focus and weak noun phrases. Natural Language Semantics 5.1:53-78.
Herburger, Elena. 2015. Conditional perfection: The truth and the whole truth. Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Sarah D'Antonio, Mary Moroney, and Carol Rose Little, 615-635. Standford, California: Stanford University.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15.4:531-574.
Inhelder, Bärbel, and Jean Piaget. 1958. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures. New York: Basic Books.
Ireri, Anthony, Daniel Mukuni, Philomena Mathuvi, Amos Njagi, and Njagi Karugu. 2012. An overview of major biological and contextual factors in language acquisition. American Journal of Linguistics 1.3:33-39.
Kanazawa, Makoto. 1994. Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inferences in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17.2:109-158.
Katsos, Napoleon , Chris Cummins, Maria-José Ezeizabarrena, Anna Gavarró, Jelena Kuvač Kraljević, Gordana Hrzica, Kleanthes K. Grohmann, Athina Skordi, Kristine Jensen de López, Lone Sundahl, Angeliek van Hout, Bart Hollebrandse, Jessica Overweg, Myrthe Faber, Margreet van Koert, Nafsika Smith, Maigi Vija, Sirli Zupping, Sari Kunnari, Tiffany Morisseau, Manana Rusieshvili, Kazuko Yatsushiro, Anja Fengler, Spyridoula Varlokosta, Katerina Konstantzou, Shira Farby, Maria Teresa Guasti, Mirta Vernice, Reiko Okabe, Miwa Isobe, Peter Crosthwaite, Yoonjee Hong, Ingrida Balčiūnienė, Yanti Marina Ahmad Nizar, Helen Grech, Daniela Gatt, Win Nee Cheong, Arve Asbjørnsen, Janne von Koss Torkildsen, Ewa Haman, Aneta Miękisz, Natalia Gagarina, Julia Puzanova, Darinka Anđelković, Maja Savić, Smiljana Jošić, Daniela Slančová, Svetlana Kapalková, Tania Barberán, Duygu Özge, Saima Hassan, Cecilia Yuet Hung Chan, Tomoya Okubo, Heather van der Lely, Uli Sauerland, and Ira Noveck. 2016. Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences 113.33:9244–9249.
Keil, Frank C. 1989. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Krifka, Manfred. 1996. Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. Proceedings of the 6th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, SALT, ed. by Teresa Galloway and Justin Spence, 136-153. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Michael Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London & New York: Longman.
Mayberry, Rachel. 2007. When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics 28:537-549.
Miller, Scott. 1987. Developmental Research Methods. California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Ni, Weijia. 1987. Empty topics in Chinese. UConn Working Papers in Linguistics 1. Connecticut, Storrs: University of Connecticut.
Pan, Haihua, and Yan Jiang. 1997. NP interpretation and donkey sentences in Chinese. Proceedings of the Workshop on Interface Strategies in Chinese. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.
Pearson, Barbara Zurer, and Peter de Villiers. 2005. Child language acquisition: Discourse, narrative, and pragmatics. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition), ed. by Keith Brown. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Philip, William. 1995. Event Quantification in the Acquisition of Universal Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Piaget, Jean. 1936. Origins of Intelligence in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Prévost, Philippe, and Johanne Paradis (eds.) 2004. The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rooth, Mats. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation in montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, ed. by Peter Gärdenfors, 237-268. Dordrecht, Netherland: D. Reidel.
Simons, Daniel J., and Frank C. Keil. 1995. An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: The insides story. Cognition 56.2:129-163.
Tannen, Deborah. 1982. Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thuan, Tran, and Benjamin Bruening. 2013. Wh-phrases as indefinites: A Vietnamese perspective. Linguistics of Vietnamese: An International Survey, ed. by Daniel Hole and Elisabeth Löbel, 217-241. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wang, Xin. 2007. Guanyu luziju de jidian yiwen yu sikao [Some questions and reflections about donkey sentences]. Yuwen Xuekan [Journal of Language and Literature Studies] 3:69-72.
Xu, Dan (ed.) 2012. Plurality and Classifiers across Languages in China. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 2008. Quantifier acquisition: Presuppositions of “every.” Proceedings of SuB12, ed. by Atle Grønn, 663-677. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo.
Yoon, Youngeun. 1994. Weak and Strong Interpretations of Quantifiers and Definite NPs in English and Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Yoon, Youngeun. 1996. Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations. Natural Language Semantics 4.3:217-236.