BUCLD 37 Proceedings

To be published in 2013 by Cascadilla Press

Rights forms signed by all authors

Exploring Language and Thought Relation in Learning How

Stuff Counts
Jinjing Wang, Peggy Li, and Susan Carey

1. Introduction
1.1. Cognitive Developments in Quantification
Research has shown that infants can represent both numerical quantity and
quantity along continuous dimensions (see Feigenson, 2007 for a review). For
example, infants dishabituate to a change in number when arrays are controlled
for continuous variables such as contour length and surface area (Xu & Spelke,
2000; Xu & Arriaga, 2007). Conversely, infants can discriminate between
differences in continuous dimensions, noticing changes in area or volume
(Cordes & Brannon, 2008; vanMarle & Wynn, 2011; Hespos, Dora, Rips, &
Christie, 2012). However, the ability to apply discrete quantification to
continuous dimensions may not be available to prelinguistic infants.
Several studies have shown that infants fail to represent portions of noncohesive substances as individuals and to associate number with these portions
(Huntley-Fenner, Carey, & Solimando, 2002; Rosenberg & Carey, 2006;
Hespos, Mikklia, Rips, Chang, & Dora, 2011; Chiang & Wynn, 2000). For
example, infants tested in a violation of expectancy paradigm (Huntley-Fenner,
Solimondo, & Carey, 2002) failed to track two portions of sand poured at
distinct locations behind separated occluding screens. Infants were not surprised
by the magical disappearance of one portion of sand when the occluders were
removed. In contrast, infants succeeded in tracking the same number of
perceptually similar sand-pile-looking objects being lowered behind the
occluding screens. In a follow-up, using a simpler design without occluders,
Rosenberg and Carey (2006) asked whether infants would dishabituate when
one stationary sand pile was changed to two. Prior to habituation, infants were
offered tactile experience with a sand pile; one group was exposed to a regular
sand pile and another group to a sand-pile-looking object. Only the group
exposed to the object dishabituated. This finding again shows that infants do not
pay attention to number for non-cohesive substances, despite the fact that they
Authors: Jinjing Wang, Johns Hopkins University, jwang185@jhu.edu; Peggy Li,
Harvard University, pegs@wjh.harvard.edu; Susan Carey, Harvard University,
scarey@wjh.harvard.edu. We would like to thank Iris Lee, Yujia Li, Xiaodi Chen, Ruthe
Foushee, and Pierina Cheung for assistance in data collection.

do so for solid objects. In a more recent study, Hespos et al. (2011)

demonstrated that infants are sensitive to the changes in the total volume of two
piles of sand, but are insensitive to changes about the properties of each
individual pile of sand. Altogether, these studies suggest that infants do not treat
piles of non-cohesive substances as discrete individuals, and are quantifying
over them along a continuous dimension.
Given these findings, one might ask when this ability to treat continuous
substances as individuals emerges in childhood. Most studies on the use of
number to quantify continuous dimensions pertain to childrens understanding
of standard measures such as inches, pounds, teaspoons, and minutes to
measure length, weight, volume, and time. This body of research suggests that
children do not fully appreciate such units of measurement until ages 6 or 7
(Levin & Wilkening, 1989; Wilkening, 1980; Galperin & Georgiev, 1969). The
notion of standard units is however much more than what is required for one to
succeed on the tasks asked of infants. The individual piles that infants were
asked to track were spatially distinct from each other, while this was often not
the case in the studies on standard measures. For example, school-age children
might be given a pile of sugar and a teaspoon and asked how many teaspoons of
sugar the pile contained (Galperin & Georgiev, 1969).
We are aware of one study that assessed preschoolers ability to associate
number with pre-individuated portions of non-cohesive substances. HuntleyFenner (2001) showed that when presented with two transparent boxes, one
containing 2 glassfuls of sand and another containing 3 glassfuls of sand,
preschoolers performed worse when asked which side has more sand? than
when asked which side has more glasses?. This finding suggests that the
preschoolers ignore the function of glasses as quantificational units. In the
present study, we ask when children start to appreciate the function of containers
in quantifying continuous substances. Being able to reason about spatiotemporally separated portions of non-cohesive substances or collections of
objects as individuals may serve as a prerequisite for childrens understanding of
standard measures.
1.2. Language Developments in Measure Phrase Understanding
In the present paper, we also ask whether there is a relationship between
childrens developing ability to treat non-cohesive substances as individuals and
their linguistic abilities to understand measure phrases. More specifically,
measure phrases (two cups of sand) provide a means for talking about and
representing portions and quantities, we ask whether acquisition of such
language relates to childrens use of numbers to quantify continuous substances.
Several studies have examined childrens comprehension of subtly
contrasting measure constructions, by varying the presence or absence of closed
class words or grammatical markers (Stickney, 2007; Syrett & Schwarzschild,
2009). By four years of age, children begin to distinguish between attributive
constructions (two-pound rocks) and pseudo-partitive constructions (two

pounds of rock; Syrett, in press). By six, children distinguish between partitive

and pseudo-partitive constructions (a colorful box of the beads vs. a colorful
box of beads; Stickney, 2007). Tests with more contrastive constructions (e.g.,
two forks vs. two pieces of fork) indicate that by four, most children have
worked out the meanings of measure words such as piece and half
(Srinivasan et al., in press). Relevant to packaging substances and individuals
into a group, studies have found that 3-year-olds and some 4-year-olds have
difficulty learning nouns that refer to collections, such as family, army
(Bloom & Kelemen, 1995; Huntley-Fenner, 1995). On the basis of this prior
work, children likely acquire measure phrases especially those that package
substances around age four.
Given that children are learning measure phrase language during their
preschool years, the same period that they are reportedly failing to apply discrete
quantification to continuous quantities (Huntley-Fenner, 2001), one may wonder
about the relative contribution of language development to cognitive
development, and vice versa. For example, researchers have suggested that the
combinatorial nature of language provides us with the means to represent more
complex thoughts (Spelke, 2003). It is therefore possible that the acquisition of
measure phrases (how measure words such as cup and continuous substances
such as sand combine), leads children to the appreciation that one could treat
substances as individuals.
To explore the relationship between language and cognitive development,
we tested preschoolers in three experiments. Experiments 1 sought to explore
childrens ability to use containers in quantifying non-cohesive substances.
Experiments 2 investigated when children come to understand measure phrases.
Finally, Experiment 3 explored the relationship between childrens
understanding of measure phrases and their ability to use containers to help
quantify substances.
2.

Experiment 1 Replication of Huntley-Fenners Quantity Judgment

Study (2001)

Forty-five 3- to 5-year-olds (16 3-year-olds, M = 3;6, SD = 4 months; 12 4year-olds, M = 4;5, SD = 3.8 months; 17 5-year-olds, M = 5;5, SD = 3.1
months) participated. All children were native English-speakers, recruited either
by phone and brought into the laboratory, or recruited and tested onsite at a local
museum in the Boston area.
Children were tested individually. They were first introduced to two
characters (Mr. Elephant and Mr. Lion). On each trial, each character was
paired with a tray containing sand piles or sets of sand-filled cups (see Table 1).
Children were asked to compare who has more on four trial types (see Table 1,
A-D). On some trials they were asked, Who has more sand?, and on others
they were asked, Who has more cups? Trial type A was to establish that
children understood the question Who has more sand? using a ratio (4:1) that
even infants could discriminate (Hespos et al., 2012). The other trial types made

use of harder to discriminate ratios to see if children would improve at

discrimination when sand was presented inside cups.
Huntley-Fenner (2001) used a 3:2 ratio in his study, but his children
performed slightly above chance. In order to maximize the possibility of seeing
a benefit of packaging sand into cups, we used an even harder to discriminate
ratio, a 4:3 ratio, for the 4- and 5-year-olds. We kept Huntley-Fenners 3:2 ratio
for 3-year-olds, as some children at this age might not have worked out how
counting determines numerosities (Wynn, 1991). Trial type B therefore served
to establish that the ratio is difficult for children. Critically, trial type C in
comparison to trial type B tested whether childrens judgment of quantity would
benefit from placing the same amount of sand into cups. If so, this would
provide evidence that children can use number for quantifying non-cohesive
substances. Finally, trial type D (Who has more cups?) served to establish that
children can compare on the basis of number.
The four trial types were blocked and counterbalanced, with four trials per
block. Within each block, which character had the greater amount was
counterbalanced and randomized.
Table 1. Display and instruction for the quantity judgment task (Exps. 1 & 3).
Table shows 4 trial types (A-D) for instances where Mr. Elephant has more than Mr.
Lion. Each unit of sand consists of 3 oz, so a 4:1 ratio would be 12 oz vs. 3 oz.
Question

Exp. 1 Ratios

Exp. 3 Ratios

Who has
more sand?

4:1 (all children)

4:1 (all children)

Who has
more sand?

3:2
(3-yr-olds)

4:3
(3-yr-olds)

4:3
(4- & 5-yr-olds)

5:4
(4-yr-olds)

% Correct

D
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Who has
more sand?
Who has
more cups?

Who has more ________?

>
p < .001

A.

sand

vs.

B.

<
p = .02

=
p = .57

sand

vs.

C.

chance

sand

vs.

D.

cups

vs.

Figure 1. Results for the quantity judgment task of Exp. 1. All bars are above chance
(ps < .05), and p-values indicate the results from paired tests.

An ANOVA did not yield effects of age, or gender. The only significant
effect was trial type, displayed in Figure 1. Children performed near ceiling
when asked Who has more sand? using a 4:1 ratio (trial type A). They

performed worse when the piles had a harder discriminable ratio (trial type B),
and performance was not any better when the same amount of sand was put in
equal-sized cups (trial type C). In contrast, children performed better and nearceiling when asked Who has more cups? Experiment 1 therefore replicated
Huntley-Fenner (2001)s findings that preschoolers are not using the number of
containers to quantify non-cohesive substances, despite the fact that they know
how to compare the number of cups.
3.

Experiment 2 - Comprehension of measure phrases

Twenty-five native English-speaking children (12 3-year-olds, M = 3;5, SD

= 4.12 months; 13 4-year-olds, M = 4;4, SD = 3.48 months) from the Boston
area who had not previously participated in Experiment 1 were recruited.
Children were recruited either from local daycares or from the laboratorys
database. Eight additional native English-speaking adults served as controls.
Participants played a guessing game with a puppet Polly. On each trial,
Polly would request for something with a measure phrase (e.g., I want two cups
of sand.), and the participant would have to select amongst three boxes for the
one matching what the puppet wanted (Can you give Polly the box with two
cups of sand? She wants two cups of sand.). The tested construction was
always in the form of Number-Partitive-of-Noun. The number was either one
or two. The partitive was either cup or pile. The noun was either sand
or rice. The trials assessed whether children could coordinate the three
components of the measure phrase (i.e., number, partitive, and noun) by varying
how much the measure phrases matched the contents of the boxes.
For each test trial, the choices always consisted of two open boxes and one
closed box. Participants were told that if what the puppet wanted was not in the
open box, it would be in the closed box. Critically, one of the open boxes
contents always matched fully or partially with the measure phrase (see Table
2). Children must consider all the three components of the measure phrase to
correctly accept this box in the case of the All-Match trials or to reject this box
in the case of the various mismatch trials. For example, to reject the box for the
Coordination-Mismatch trials (see Table 2) requires understanding that not only
must the components specified by the measure phrase be visually present, but
that there exists a relationship between all components (e.g., two cups of sand
does not aptly describe a display of two cups in which one cup is filled with
sand and the other with rice even though twoness, cup, and sand are all present
in such a display).
The other open boxs content never matched the measure phrase
description in any way (e.g., if the request was for two cups of sand, the box
would contain one pile of sand). This box served as a check to see if children
would avoid open boxes whose contents did not match the measure phrase in
any way. Indeed, children rarely (< 3% of the time) selected this open box.
The position of the three boxes was randomized across test trials.
Presentation of test trials were blocked by the number in the utterance (one or

two; see Table 2), and the trials within each block was randomized. Half of
the participants were tested on the one block before the two block and vice
versa. There were in total 24 test trials.
Four practice trials prior to the test trials familiarized participants to the
idea that when what Polly wanted was not in the open boxes, it must be in the
closed box. The closed box was the correct choice for two of the trials. These
trials asked children to pick on the basis of number, color, and/or shape (e.g.,
two yellow circles). All children performed correctly on these trials. Unlike
the test trials, children were allowed to open the closed box after each trial.

% Correct

Table 2. Choice of boxes containing all or partial match and their respective
utterances for Exp. 2. Cups = upside-down trapezoid, and triangles = piles. Dark colors
= sand, and light colors = rice.
One Block
Two Block
Display
All Partitive
Noun
Display
All
Number Coordination
Utterance
Match mismatch mismatch Utterance Match mismatch mismatch
one cup
two cups
of sand
of sand
one pile
two piles
of sand
of sand
one cup
two cups
of rice
of rice
one pile
two piles
of rice
of rice
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

3yr-olds
4 yr-olds

chance

All Match

One

Partitive
Mismatch

Noun
Mismatch

All Match

Two

Number Coordination
Mismatch
Mismatch

e.g.$One$cup$of$sand
e.g.$Two$cups$of$sand
Figure 2. Results for the language comprehension task of Exp. 2. Sample trials
depicted, with check marks indicating the correct box.

For the test trials, the adults performed as expected, averaging 97% correct
across all trials. Figure 2 plots the percentage correct for the children by trial
type. Four-year-olds performed better than 3-year-olds. Unlike 3-year-olds who
were often at or below chance for the partial match trial types, 4-year-olds
performed above chance. Children were best on the all-match trials, followed by

the number-mismatch and noun-mismatch trials, and then the coordinationmismatch and partitive-mismatch trials. For the majority of the trials on which
children erred (i.e., 98%), they were selecting the open box with some attribute
that partially matched the utterance. In sum, Experiment 2 shows that children
are working out measure phrases that coordinate number, partitive, and noun at
the same age that other studies have reported children are working out measure
word meanings (e.g., Srinivasan et al., in press; Huntley-Fenner, 1995).
4.

Experiment 3 Language comprehension and quantification

Experiment 3 addresses whether there is a relationship between the

acquisition of measure phrases and childrens ability to make use of cups in
quantifying sand. Using a within-subjects design, we tested children on both
quantity judgment and language comprehension to see if there is a correlation
between these two tasks. Furthermore, we extended our studies to test
Mandarin-speaking children who are learning a grammatically different
language. We capitalized on the fact that cross-linguistic variations between
English and Mandarin could affect when children acquire measure phrases in
their native language, and this could in turn help us disentangle the relationship
between language and thought.
In count-mass languages, such as English, nominal quantificational
structure is organized around the count-mass distinction. Count nouns directly
co-occur with numerals and can be pluralized (three tables). Mass nouns can
do neither, and must be accompanied by a unitizer in counting (e.g., three
woods vs. three chunks of wood). In classifier languages, such as Mandarin,
all nouns behave like English mass nouns. Mandarin lacks a general plural
marker, and all nouns require a unitizer in counting. The unitizer (a.k.a.,
classifier) classifies nouns according to properties such as shape, size, and
animacy. Thus, three tables in Mandarin is san zhang zhuozi (three CLflat
table), where classifier zhang is used with nouns referring to flat things.
In the several aspects that have been examined, Mandarin-speaking children
are delayed relative to English-speaking children in acquiring the comparable
quantificational structures (Cheung, Barner, & Li, 2010; Li, Barner, & Huang,
2008). For example, by noting the co-occurrence of singular-plural morphology
with numerals, English-speaking children come to figure out the meaning of
one and realize that other numerals in their count list are quantities of more
than one. In contrast, Mandarin-speaking children, whose language lacks
singular-plural morphology, figure out number word meanings several months
later than English-speaking children, despite the fact that they hear a similar
amount of parental input concerning numbers (Carey, 2004). Because number
words constitute a component of the measure phrase, a delay in learning number
words is going to affect the acquisition of measure phrases in Mandarin.
Additionally, in English, numerals and determiners such as a directly
precede the noun when referencing whole objects (e.g., three tables, a
table). This surface structure differs from pseudo-partitive constructions that

reference parts and portions (three parts of a table; three piles of tables). In
Mandarin, the surface structure is the same. For example, the distinction
between three tables (san zhang zhuozi) and three sections of a table (san jie
zhuozi) differ only in the classifier (zhang vs. jie), making the difference easy
to miss. In fact, Li, Huang, and Hsiao (2010) showed that three-year-old
Mandarin-speaking children tend to ignore the classifier (e.g., amongst choices
of a strawberry, a box of strawberry, and a pile of strawberry, children tend to
pick the one strawberry regardless of the classifier that the experimenter used).
If learning quantificational language plays a role in treating portions of noncohesive substances as units, such delays in language acquisition might be
accompanied by delays in conceptual development. That is, if Mandarin learners
are delayed relative to English speakers in mastering measure phrases, they
might also be delayed in their ability to coordinate numerical and continuous
quantification in thought. On the other hand, if conceptual development
proceeds unaffected by the acquisition of language, Mandarin learners should
perform similarly to English learners when it comes to spontaneously using
containers to quantify substances, despite not having mastered the language.
4.1.

Method

A new group of children were recruited, consisting of 25 native English

speakers (15 3-year-olds, M = 3;4, SD = 3.0 months; 10 4-year-olds, M = 4;5,
SD = 3.5 months), and 24 native Mandarin speakers (11 3-year-olds, M = 3;4,
SD = 3.0 months; 13 4-year-olds, M = 4;7 months, SD = 3.2 months). Englishspeaking participants were recruited from the greater Boston area through a
laboratory database. Mandarin participants were recruited from a university
affiliated daycare in Hangzhou, China. Each participant was tested first on the
quantity judgment task and then the language comprehension task. At the end of
the experiment, children were also administered Wynn (1990)s give-a-number
task, which tested childrens ability to give the number requested from a bucket
of counters (e.g., Can you give me five fish?). The number requested ranged
from one to six. Give-a-number was added because children were tested on
harder to discriminate ratios in the present quantity judgment task than in
Experiment 1(see below). Children who could not give the appropriate numbers
were excluded from the study. This consisted of an additional six Englishspeaking children and one Mandarin-speaking child.
Quantity Judgment Task: The procedure followed that of Experiment 1
with two exceptions. First, because children performed at above chance-level on
the hard to discriminate ratios in Experiment 1, the ratios were made harder yet.
Three-year-olds were now tested on a 4:3 ratio, and 4-year-olds on a 5:4 ratio.
Second, cups for each character were brought out individually instead of
together on a tray.
Language comprehension task: Children were tested on a simplified
version of Experiment 2. Since the quantity judgment tested childrens judgment
of sand using cups, the measure phrases in this task always had cup as the

partitive and sand as the noun. The number in the measure phrase was either
one or three. Like Experiment 2, children had to assess whether the measure
phrase matched a display (Is this one cup of sand? or
?,
see Table 3). The displays consisted of different numbers of cups in which
sometimes all were filled (Full Cups), sometimes all were empty (Empty Cups),
and sometimes some were filled while others were left empty (Mixed Cups).
The Full Cups trials, consisting of trials in which children should be able to
answer correctly, served as the control condition to verify that children did not
have a bias to always respond yes or to always respond no. Compared to
Experiment 2, the expected yes trials were like the all-match trials because the
display matched all the three components of the measure phrase. The no trials
were like the number-mismatch trials, in which even 3-year-old children
performed above chance. The Empty Cups trials were like the noun-mismatch
trials of Experiment 2, where the content of the (empty) cups mismatched the
noun (sand). We therefore expected some children to make the same kind of
error as Experiment 2, by accepting the measure phrase when the number of
cups in the display matches (see Table 3, asterisked trials of Empty Cups). The
Mixed Cups trials were like the coordination-mismatch trials of Experiment 2,
because correct interpretation of the phrase requires coordination of the number,
partitive and noun. Again, we expected some children to go by the mentioned
number of cups in the measure phrase, regardless of the actual number of cups
containing sand (see Table 3, asterisked trials of Mixed Cups). Children were
tested twice on each of the twelve trials depicted in Table 3, with presentation of
the trials randomized.
Table 3. Display and instruction for the language comprehension task of Exp. 3.
Adult responses are in bold. Hypothesized child responses are in parentheses (on the
basis of Exp. 2). Asterisks (*) mark incongruent trials in which the predicted child
responses differ from adult responses. Unmarked trials are congruent trials.
Conditions:
Control
Test
Full Cups
Empty Cups
Mixed Cups
Display
Question
Is this one
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
cup of sand (Yes)
(No)
(Yes)*
(No)
(No)*
(No)
Is this three
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
cups of sand
(No)
(Yes)
(No)
(Yes)*
(Yes)*
(No)*

4.2.

Results and discussion

Quantity judgment task: An ANOVA comparing percentage correct on

the four trial types, language, and age, revealed two significant effects. First,
Mandarin-speaking children performed better than English-speaking children
(F(1,45)=5.75, p=0.02), likely because the Mandarin-speaking children as a
group were more attentive (Sabbagh et al., 2006). Second, the effect of trial type

was also significant (F(3,45)=21.36, p<.0001; see Figure 3). Like Experiment 1,
children were near-ceiling at picking out which side had more cups (trial type
D). Also like Experiment 1, children were also quite good at discriminating
between the sand piles for the easy ratio (trial type A, 4:1 ratio). They were
worse for the smaller, harder to discriminate ratios (trial type C, 4:3 for 3-yearolds and 5:4 for 4-year-olds). However, importantly and in contrast to
Experiment 1, children were better at discriminating amounts of sand when the
sand was placed inside cups than when it was in piles (trial type C vs. B). We
suspect that this difference lies in the method by which cups were presented to
children. In Experiment 1, cups for each character were presented as a group in a
tray. In the current experiment, cups were brought out individually. It is possible
that presenting cups individually highlighted the containers and the notion that
one could use cups in quantifying the amounts of sand. If true, this finding
provides evidence that under some circumstances preschoolers are capable of
applying number to quantify non-cohesive substances.
(b) Mandarin Speakers

(a) English Speakers

%"Correct"

90

% Correct

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

3y.o.
4y.o.
sand

A.

vs.

sand

B.

vs.

sand

C.

vs.

cup

D.

vs.

3y.o.
4y.o.
sand

sand

vs.

vs.

A.

B.

sand

C.

vs.

cup

D.

vs.

Figure 3. Results for the quantity judgment task of Exp. 3.

Language comprehension task: Figure 4 plots the results for the three
types of conditions (Full Cups, Empty Cups, and Mixed Cups). We first
examined childrens performance for the Full Cups control condition. There was
no effect of language or age. As expected, children were on average above 95%
correct on both the yes trials and the no trials (see Figure 4a).
We next turned to the Empty Cups and the Mixed Cups conditions (Figures
4b and 4c). The pattern of performance for the two conditions was similar when
the trials were split into incongruent trials and congruent trials (see Table 3
for the breakdown of incongruent vs. congruent trials). Analysis revealed an
effect of trial type, with children performing better on the congruent than the
incongruent trials (F(1,45)=65.40, p<0.001). There was also an age effect
(F(1,45)=7.27, p=0.01) mediated by trial type (F(1,45)=5.46, p=0.02). Threeyear-olds performed worse than 4-year-olds especially on the incongruent trials.
Replicating the findings of English-speaking children in Experiment 2, fouryear-old English-speaking childrens performance on the measure phrases was
above chance, while 3-year-old English-speaking childrens performance was at
chance. Lastly, English-speaking children performed better than Mandarin-

speaking children (F(1,45)=5.66, p=0.02), aligning with previous studies

suggesting that Mandarin-speaking children may be delayed relative to Englishspeaking children in comprehending measure phrases (Cheung, Barner, and Li,
2010; Li, Barner, & Huang, 2008).
(b) Empty Cups

(a) Full Cups

(c) Mixed Cups

%"Correct

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

chance

3yr>olds.
4yr>olds
English

Mandarin

English Mandarin English Mandarin

Congruent
Incongruent

English Mandarin English Mandarin

Congruent
Incongruent

Figure 4. Results for the language comprehension task of Exp. 3.

Relationship between Language and Cognition: No significant

correlations were found between childrens performance on the language
comprehension task and their ability to use cups in quantifying sand (as
measured by their performance on trial type C, or their improvement from trial
type B to trial type C). Despite the lack of correlation, the present data rule out
the possibility that acquiring measure phrases is necessary for the developmental
ability to treat discrete portions of non-cohesive substances as individuals and to
quantify over them using number. This is evidenced by the fact that many
children, despite performing poorly on the language comprehension task,
performed near 100% correct on the quantity judgment task involving cups of
sand. In fact, one might argue conversely that childrens cognitive development
(i.e., their growing appreciation that non-cohesive portions can be thought of as
individuals) is supporting their interpretation and acquisition of measure phrases.
5.

General discussion

Research suggests that infants have a natural tendency to treat portions of

substances as continuous amounts rather than as individuals. This tendency
might be due to the fact that portions of non-cohesive substances often do not
make stable individuals (e.g., with a small shake, a pile of sand may no longer
be a single pile). As adults, however, we often do treat portions of substances as
individuals, and can apply discrete quantification to reason about continuous
quantities. For example, we readily make use of measure information to quantify
two otherwise difficult to discriminate volumes of substances, and are surprised
when children do not (Huntley-Fenner, 2001). Our ability to package and make
up units for quantification is reflected through our use of measure phrases.
In three experiments, we explored when the ability to spontaneously make
use of measure information to quantify non-cohesive substances emerges in
childhood and whether this ability is linked to the acquisition of measure

phrases. Our replication of Huntley-Fenner (2001) suggests that although the

tendency to ignore number when quantifying non-cohesive substances persists
in preschoolers (Exp. 1), the tendency can be over-ridden under some
circumstances (Exp. 3). We found that when the cups of sand were brought out
individually, rather than as a group on a tray, preschoolers were more likely to
use the number of cups to compare the two amounts of sand. Moving cups
individually likely highlighted each portion of sand, making number a more
salient dimension of quantification.
Our study also suggests that childrens ability to apply discrete
quantification to non-cohesive substances is not dependent upon the acquisition
of measure phrases (Exp. 3). By age four, English-speaking children work out
how partitive measures such as cup and pile are used to group substances
together (Exps. 2 and 3). Mandarin-speaking children, who are acquiring a
grammatically different language, work out such constructions in their language
later (Exp. 3). Within this age range, the very same children who are having
difficulties understanding measure language can make use of the number of cups
in quantify substances. Hence language acquisition is not a prerequisite. Our
study, however, leaves open the possibility that learning and using measure
language could make the strategy of applying discrete quantification to
continuous dimensions more explicit or salient for deployment under all sorts of
circumstances.
Our study also leaves unanswered the extent to which children truly
understand how to apply discrete quantification to continuous substances. Do
they know that the units of comparison should be identical? For example, do
they know that the amounts inside the cups have to be the same in order to apply
number? Future studies will shed light on the matter.
References
Bloom, Paul, & Kelemen, Deborah (1995). Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective
nouns. Cognition, 56(1), 1-30.
Carey, Susan (2004). Bootstrapping and the origins of concepts. Daedalus, 5968.
Cheung, Pierina, Barner, David, & Li, Peggy (2010). Syntactic cues to individuation in
Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Cognitive Science, 10, 135-147.
Chiang, Wen-Chi, & Wynn, Karen (2000). Infants tracking of objects and collections.
Cognition, 77(3), 169195.
Cordes, Sara, & Brannon, Elizabeth M. (2008). Discrimination of continuous quantities
in 6-month old infants: Using number is just easier. Child Development, 79(2), 476489
Feigenson, Lisa (2007). The equality of quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 185187.
Galperin, Piotr. Ya., & Georgiev, L. S. (1969). The formation of elementary
mathematical notions. Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching
mathematics, 1, 189216.
Gordon, Peter (1988). Count/mass category acquisition: Distributional distinctions in
children's speech. Journal of Child Language, 15(1), 109-128.

Hespos, Susan J., Dora, Begum, Rips, Lance J., & Christie, Stella (2012). Infants make
quantity discriminations for substances. Child development.
Hespos, Susan J., Mikklia, Maija, Rips, Lance J., Chang, Yin-Juei, Dora, Begum (2011).
Infants make quantity discriminations for multiple piles of substances. Manuscript
under review.
Huntley-Fenner, Gavin (1995). The representation of objects, non-solid substances, and
collections in infancy and early childhood. ProQuest Information & Learning.
Huntley-Fenner, Gavin (2001). Why count stuff? Young preschoolers do not use number
for measurement in continuous dimensions. Developmental Science, 4, 456462.
Huntley-Fenner, Gavin, Carey, Susan, & Solimando, A. (2002). Objects are individuals
but stuff doesnt count: Perceived rigidity and cohesiveness influence infants
representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition, 85(3), 203221.
Levin, Iris, & Wilkening, Friedrich (1989). Measuring time via counting: The
development of children's conceptions of time as a quantifiable dimension.
Advances in Psychology, 59, 119-144.
Li, Peggy, Barner, David, & Huang, Becky H. (2008). Classifiers as count syntax:
Individuation and measurement in the acquisition of Mandarin Chinese. Language
Learning and Development, 4(4), 249290.
Li, Peggy, Huang, Becky, & Hsiao, Yaling (2010). Learning that classifiers count:
Mandarin-speaking childrens acquisition of sortal and mensural classifiers. Journal
of East Asian Linguistics, 19, 207230.
Rosenberg, Rebecca D., & Carey, Ssusan (2006). Infants indexing of objects vs. noncohesive substances. Journal of Vision, 6(6), 611611. doi:10.1167/6.6.611
Sabbagh, Mark A., Xu, Fei, Carlson, Stephanie M., Moses, Louis J., & Lee, Kang (2006).
The development of executive functioning and theory of mind: A comparison of
Chinese and U.S. Preschoolers. Psychological Science, 17, 7481.
Srinivasan, Mahesh., Chestnut, Eleanor., Li, Peggy, & Barner, David (in press). Sortal
concepts and pragmatic inference in childrens early quantification of objects. To
appear in Cognitive Psychology.
Spelke, Elizabeth S. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural
language. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 277311.
Stickney, Helen (2007). From pseudopartitive to partitive. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language
Acquisition North America (GALANA), Somerville, MA.
Syrett, Kristen (in press). The role of cardinality in the interpretation of measurement
expressions. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics.
vanMarle, Kristy, & Wynn, Karen (2011). Tracking and quantifying objects and noncohesive substances. Developmental Science, 14(3), 502-515.
Wilkening, Friedrich (1980). Development of dimensional integration in children's
perceptual judgment: Experiments with area, volume, and velocity. Information
integration by children, 47-69.
Wynn, Karen (1990). Children's understanding of counting. Cognition, 36(2), 155-193.
Xu, Fei, & Arriaga, R. I. (2007). Number discrimination in 10-month-old infants. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 103-108.
Xu, Fei, & Spelke, Elizabeth S. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old
infants. Cognition, 74(1), B1-B11.