{"title":"Word learning challenges explain nonadult possibility language comprehension in preschoolers.","authors":"Ailís Cournane, Anouk Dieuleveut, Chiara Repetti-Ludlow, Valentine Hacquard","doi":"10.1037/dev0002061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents two experiments testing English children's understanding of the \"force\" of modals, asking whether they understand that can expresses possibility and have_to expresses necessity. Prior studies show that children tend to over-accept necessity modals in possibility situations and argue this behavior stems from conceptual difficulties reasoning about open possibilities. However, these studies typically test modal force using epistemic modality (knowledge-based), which is less input-frequent than nonepistemic modalities (actual-world priorities or goals) and involves speaker perspective-taking. Our results with more familiar teleological (goal-oriented) modality show that preschoolers have an adult-like understanding of possibility can, but they seem to treat necessity have_to as a possibility modal, in affirmative (Experiment 1) and arguably in negative sentences (Experiment 2). We take these systematic errors to call into question conceptual accounts. We argue that younger preschoolers' difficulties with modal force are due to word-learning challenges: They treat necessity modals as possibility modals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48464,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0002061","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article presents two experiments testing English children's understanding of the "force" of modals, asking whether they understand that can expresses possibility and have_to expresses necessity. Prior studies show that children tend to over-accept necessity modals in possibility situations and argue this behavior stems from conceptual difficulties reasoning about open possibilities. However, these studies typically test modal force using epistemic modality (knowledge-based), which is less input-frequent than nonepistemic modalities (actual-world priorities or goals) and involves speaker perspective-taking. Our results with more familiar teleological (goal-oriented) modality show that preschoolers have an adult-like understanding of possibility can, but they seem to treat necessity have_to as a possibility modal, in affirmative (Experiment 1) and arguably in negative sentences (Experiment 2). We take these systematic errors to call into question conceptual accounts. We argue that younger preschoolers' difficulties with modal force are due to word-learning challenges: They treat necessity modals as possibility modals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Developmental Psychology ® publishes articles that significantly advance knowledge and theory about development across the life span. The journal focuses on seminal empirical contributions. The journal occasionally publishes exceptionally strong scholarly reviews and theoretical or methodological articles. Studies of any aspect of psychological development are appropriate, as are studies of the biological, social, and cultural factors that affect development. The journal welcomes not only laboratory-based experimental studies but studies employing other rigorous methodologies, such as ethnographies, field research, and secondary analyses of large data sets. We especially seek submissions in new areas of inquiry and submissions that will address contradictory findings or controversies in the field as well as the generalizability of extant findings in new populations. Although most articles in this journal address human development, studies of other species are appropriate if they have important implications for human development. Submissions can consist of single manuscripts, proposed sections, or short reports.