MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417303712 · doi:10.1093/jos/ffaf011

Children interpret some disjunctions conjunctively: Evidence from child Romanian

2025· article· en· W4417303712 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Semantics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftUniversitatea din BucureștiWestern Sydney UniversityConnaught FundMacquarie UniversityUniversität WienUniversity of TorontoSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Simple (philosophy)MarkednessStatement (logic)RomanianConfusionArtifact (error)Value (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studies show that adults interpret simple forms of disjunction (The mouse carried an apple or an orange) inclusively (The mouse carried one, possibly both) or exclusively (The mouse carried one but not both), while they generally interpret complex disjunction (e.g. either…or) exclusively (Tieu et al. 2017; Nicolae et al. 2025). Children, however, who tend to interpret simple forms of disjunction inclusively or conjunctively (The mouse carried both) (Paris 1973; Braine and Rumain 1981; Singh et al. 2016; Huang and Crain 2020; Skordos et al. 2020), reportedly interpret complex disjunctions in the same way (Tieu et al. 2017; see also Sauerland and Yatsushiro 2018). While previous studies have focused on one simple and one complex disjunction (e.g., Tieu et al. 2017; Sauerland and Yatsushiro 2018), the present study investigates multiple simple disjunctions (neutral and prosodically marked sau) and complex disjunctions (sau…sau, fie…fie) in child Romanian. We ask whether children’s conjunctive interpretation of disjunction is an experimental artifact that arises in contexts where the disjunctive statement mentions all visible objects in the display (and is thus potentially underinformative). If so, then this interpretation should disappear in contexts where the disjunctive statement is made more informative. We also ask what role prosodic and morphological markedness play in the interpretation of disjunction. We conducted two Truth Value Judgment Tasks in prediction mode in order to address these questions. In Experiment 1, the visual displays contained two objects, and the disjunctive test sentences mentioned both. While adults were exclusive, children were mostly inclusive with sau-based disjunctions, but they were conjunctive and inclusive with fie…fie. In Experiment 2, the visual displays contained two additional unmentioned objects. Children were primarily inclusive with sau-based disjunctions, showing no sensitivity to prosodic/morphological markedness, but there was also evidence for conjunctive interpretations from children who oscillated between interpretations. Importantly, while children were less conjunctive with fie…fie in Experiment 2 compared to Experiment 1, a considerable number of conjunctive responses were still observed. Our findings support the view that the conjunctive interpretation, albeit not the dominant one, is nonetheless a genuine semantic/pragmatic interpretation in development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it