<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Dear Info-childes,
<p>This note is in response to Tom Roeper's inquiry about work on <u>each</u>.
I have responded directly to Tom, but it occurred to me that my message
might also be of more general interest to the group. Some years ago
I published a study of the acquisition of a group of English quantifiers
that I called set-relational quantifiers. This group includes the
terms <u>all, some, no, none, each, every, any, another, other,both, either,
and neither</u> , as they are used to quantify nominals. Subsequently
I used the conceptual model constructed to predict the developmental sequence
for American English speakers to do a comparative study of seven modern
Indo-European languages and classical Greek and Latin. The empirical data
were provided by native informants, except, of course, for classical
Greek and Latin, where I had to make do with a classicist colleague.
The results of these studies are reported in the following papers:
<p>Hanlon, Camille. (1987). Acquisition of set-relational quantifiers
in early childhood. Genetic, Social, and General Psycholgy Monographs,
113, (2), 213-264. (Genetic is the older term for
<br>Developmental and has no biological implication in this usage.)
<p>Hanlon, Camille, & Silverberg, Joann. (1998). Semantic
and pragmatic aspects of set-relational reference in modern Indo-European
languages. Pragmatics, 8, 543-554.
<p>The conceptual structures necessary to fully control this semantic domain
in everyday reference form a highly elaborated, multi-layered system, a
magnificent testament to the human (higher primate?) mind. Reading
through relevant transcripts of caregiver-child conversation gave me a
lot of clues as to how these structures could be constructed, but before
I finished the job, it was time to retire. Now its your turn to ask
the questions and find the answers. Enjoy!
<p>Best wishes for a just and lasting peace everywhere,
<p>Camille Hanlon
<br> </html>