This paper offers experimental evidence concerning children's abilities to access two types of logical/lexical relations that hold among spatial prepositions. One is the sub--set relation that holds between the spatial prepositions "in"...
moreThis paper offers experimental evidence concerning children's abilities to access two types of logical/lexical relations that hold among spatial prepositions. One is the sub--set relation that holds between the spatial prepositions "in" and "at", the other is the relation of entailment that holds between "at" and "to". The findings presented in the paper suggest that two hypotheses about the semantics of these prepositions hold. First, children appear to access and consolidate these interpretations in a step--wise fashion. Second, the logical/lexical relations between these prepositions may be accessible to children only after the interpretations of the involved prepositions are also accessible, but not before. These findings suggest that children may acquire logical relations among lexical items by interpreting these relations as "emergent" properties of lexical items. These findings are also discussed with respect to two competing theories of language acquisition, the Continuity and the Construction hypotheses. It is shown that the findings are consistent with the Continuity hypothesis, while they offer evidence that challenges some of the core assumptions of the Construction hypothesis. Consider (1a), first. It is generally acknowledged that at denotes a region encompassing a landmark object and its "surrounding" regions Levinson & Meira 2003;. Therefore, if Mario is in the "internal" region of the park (i.e. "in" the park), then he will also be in the broader region that includes this specific location, or "at" the park. Therefore, the meaning of the first sentence stands in the sub--set relation, represented as "⊆", with the meaning of the second sentence. Since the two SPs at and in form the minimal pair that distinguishes these two sentences, this relation can be ascribed to the two SPs. Therefore, the sub--set relation can be conceived as a lexical relation among these two SPs, and modelled as a logical relation (Murphy 2010: ch.1--2). Consider now (1b). Intuitively, if the boy will be at the park, it is because he will have reached the park after a certain event of motion. While to in the first sentence captures this notion of directed, goal--based motion, at in the second sentence denotes the goal region that Mario will reach, after moving. As in the example (1a), since the two sentences form minimal pairs with respect to the SPs they include, the relevant semantic relation is defined over these SPs. This relation is entailment relation between to and at, since the truth of the first sentence entails the truth of the second sentence (Murphy 2010: ch.1--2). Both (1a) and ( ) show specific relations that can be generalised to other SPs as well (e.g. on and at, into and in, respectively). The semantic relations of entailment and sub--set seem to accurately account for speakers' intuitions about the meanings of spatial SPs, and the semantic/lexical relations that hold among these meanings. However, it is an empirical question on whether children can access these relations and, if they can, whether these relations guide their emergent semantic understanding of SPs. We do not know, yet, how and when children can access these relations among SPs, and what the role of these relations in their acquisition of SPs is, as distinct lexical items. In pursuing these empirical questions, we also pursue a broader empirical question on which hypothesis of language acquisition may be better suited to account for and predict our findings. In this paper we discuss two hypotheses, presented below. The first hypothesis is known as the Continuity hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that children can access lexical relations in an adult--like manner, after accessing the semantic representations of the relevant items. In our case, children would first acquire the semantic representations underlying the SPs in (1a)--(1b). Then, they would access the relations that hold among SPs, as a logical consequence of accessing the meanings of each SP involved in these lexical relations. Examples of frameworks that take this approach to the emergence and