@cite{zani-ciardelli-sanfelici-2026} — SDA from Acquisition #
Simplification of disjunctive antecedents: Insights from acquisition. Semantics and Pragmatics 19(3).
Core Contribution #
Experimental study of 148 Italian children (ages 4;1–9;11) and 28 adults on disjunctive antecedent conditionals (DACs), testing three readings:
- SDA (Simplification, @cite{mckay-vaninwagen-1977}): "if A or B, C" ≡ "(if A, C) and (if B, C)"
- DCR (Disjunctive Conditional Reading): "if A or B, C" ≡ "(if A, C) or (if B, C)"
- AR (Asymmetric Reading): only the more realistic disjunct matters
Key Findings #
- SDA is the preferred reading at all ages, already dominant at age 4–5
- AR is nearly absent (2.3% of children's responses)
- DCR decreases with age while SDA increases — a DCR→SDA developmental shift strictly parallel to the existential→universal shift in plural definites (@cite{tieu-kriz-chemla-2019})
- No indicative/counterfactual difference (Mode non-significant, p = 0.869)
- SDA does not require equally realistic disjuncts (contra @cite{lewis-1973})
Theoretical Implications #
The DCR→SDA trajectory supports homogeneity-based accounts (@cite{santorio-2018}, @cite{cariani-goldstein-2020}) over:
- @cite{lewis-1973}: predicts AR when disjuncts differ in realism; AR is absent
- @cite{bar-lev-fox-2020}: predicts AR→SDA shift; observed shift is DCR→SDA
Connection to Linglib #
- DAC readings use the alternative-sensitive conditional semantics from
AlternativeSensitive.lean(@cite{santorio-2018}):homogeneityEval,sdaEval,dcrEval - SDA/DCR correspond to conjunctive/disjunctive
ProjectionType - Developmental trajectory parallels @cite{tieu-kriz-chemla-2019}'s existential→homogeneous shift
The three theoretically predicted readings of disjunctive antecedent conditionals (DACs). Table 2 of the paper.
- sda : DACReading
- dcr : DACReading
- ar : DACReading
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Logical strength ordering: SDA ≥ AR ≥ DCR.
Equations
Instances For
SDA = conjunctive projection over alternatives. DCR = disjunctive projection over alternatives. This is the same duality as quantifier strength in @cite{ramotowska-santorio-2025}.
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.dacProjection Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.DACReading.sda = Core.Duality.ProjectionType.conjunctive
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.dacProjection Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.DACReading.dcr = Core.Duality.ProjectionType.disjunctive
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.dacProjection Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.DACReading.ar = Core.Duality.ProjectionType.disjunctive
Instances For
Alternative semantics validates SDA universally (for two alternatives): "if {A,B}, C" ≡ ∀p ∈ {A,B}. min_w(p) ⊆ C ≡ (if A, C) ∧ (if B, C). Under Lewis, SDA is only contingently valid.
Conditional mode (indicative vs counterfactual).
- indicative : ConditionalMode
- counterfactual : ConditionalMode
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Number of eligible participants per age group. Table 1.
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.AgeGroup.age4.n = 8
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.AgeGroup.age5.n = 28
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.AgeGroup.age6.n = 28
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.AgeGroup.age7.n = 28
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.AgeGroup.age8.n = 28
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.AgeGroup.age9.n = 28
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.AgeGroup.adult.n = 28
Instances For
The four target items per scenario. Table 3. Each item has a disjunctive antecedent where the consequent matches one disjunct's prize (making one simplification true, one false).
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Children's overall rates (across modes and age groups).
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.childrenOverall = { sda := 450 / 10, dcr := 182 / 10, ar := 23 / 10, other := 345 / 10 }
Instances For
Adults' overall rates (across modes). From Table 6 profiles: 26 SDA, 1 DCR, 1 mixed (AR ctf / DCR ind). Scenario-level: SDA 92.9%, DCR 5.4%, AR 1.8%.
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.adultsOverall = { sda := 929 / 10, dcr := 54 / 10, ar := 18 / 10, other := 0 }
Instances For
Finding 1: SDA is the most frequent reading for both groups.
Finding 2: AR is nearly absent.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Finding 4: No indicative/counterfactual difference. Adults show identical SDA rates; children are very similar. (Table 4: Mode coefficient p = 0.869 for DCR vs SDA.)
Per-age-group pattern rates (from Figure 4 bar chart annotations). This is the paper's core developmental data. Values are approximate (read from bar chart, not tabulated in paper).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Core developmental finding: SDA rates increase monotonically from age 5 onward.
Core developmental finding: DCR rates decrease from age 7 onward.
The developmental shift: SDA overtakes DCR. At every age, SDA ≥ DCR, and by adulthood SDA dominates completely.
AR is marginal (< 5%) at every age group. This rules out Lewis's prediction that AR should be common in younger children.
9.6% of children refused to judge DACs as true or false, saying they were "half true and half false." This is direct behavioral evidence for the truth-value gap predicted by homogeneity theory: when one simplification is true and the other false, the DAC lacks a definite truth value.
10 children showed this pattern consistently across all 4 scenarios; 6 more did so in at least one scenario.
Instances For
The refusal rate is substantial — nearly 1 in 10 children.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.childProfiles = { sdaSda := 52, dcrDcr := 15, arAr := 2, otherOther := 29 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.adultProfiles = { sdaSda := 26, dcrDcr := 1, arAr := 0, otherOther := 0 }
Instances For
Children who are consistent across modes (on the diagonal).
Adults are almost all SDA-consistent.
Rates among participants who accepted the closeness evaluation item (indicating they regard one disjunct as MORE realistic). Table 8. Lewis predicts AR for these participants.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.nonEquallyRealistic = { adultsSDA := 8776 / 100, childrenSDA := 3934 / 100, adultsAR := 408 / 100, childrenAR := 284 / 100 }
Instances For
Finding 5: Even among participants who regard disjuncts as non-equally realistic, SDA dominates and AR is marginal. This directly falsifies Lewis's prediction.
The developmental trajectory for DACs parallels the trajectory for plural definites (@cite{tieu-kriz-chemla-2019}):
| Plural definites | DACs | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Existential (EXI) | DCR | ∃ (some satisfy → true) |
| Homogeneous (HOM) | SDA | ∀ (all must satisfy) |
| Universal (UNI) | — | — |
Both phenomena show the same developmental pattern: younger children start existential (accepting when ANY element satisfies) and shift to universal/homogeneous (requiring ALL elements to satisfy).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.pluralToDACParallel Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.TieuKrizChemla2019.DefinitePluralReading.universal = none
Instances For
The developmental parallel: both trajectories go from existential-like to universal-like readings.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.dacDevelopmentalStage Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.DACReading.ar = none
Instances For
The parallel is structurally exact: DCR maps to the existential stage, SDA maps to the homogeneous stage.
Both phenomena show the same direction of shift. In TieuKrizChemla2019, the EXI/−SI group (existential, no implicatures) exists in young children and gives way to HOM groups. Here, DCR exists in young children and gives way to SDA.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
What each theory predicts as the pre-SDA reading in children.
Equations
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.SDATheory.lewis.predictedPreSDA = some Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.DACReading.ar
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.SDATheory.alternativeSem.predictedPreSDA = none
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.SDATheory.homogeneity.predictedPreSDA = some Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.DACReading.dcr
- Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.SDATheory.exhaustification.predictedPreSDA = some Phenomena.Conditionals.Studies.ZaniCiardelliSanfelici2026.DACReading.ar
Instances For
The observed pre-SDA reading is DCR, not AR.
Equations
Instances For
Homogeneity theory correctly predicts the developmental trajectory. Lewis and exhaustification predict AR as the pre-SDA stage, but AR is nearly absent.
Answers to the Five Research Questions #
Q1: At what age does SDA arise? Already at age 4–5, SDA is the most frequent non-deviant reading. This parallels the early emergence of free-choice inferences (@cite{tieu-etal-2016}).
Q2: Do children shift from AR to SDA? No. AR is nearly absent (2.3%). The two participants who consistently showed AR were aged 8;0 and 9;7 — not young children with undeveloped pragmatic skills. This is unexpected on @cite{bar-lev-fox-2020}'s account.
Q3: Do children shift from DCR to SDA? Yes. DCR is higher in younger children (~25% at ages 4–7) and decreases with age, while SDA increases. This DCR→SDA shift parallels the EXI→HOM shift in plural definites (@cite{tieu-kriz-chemla-2019}).
Q4: Does SDA arise earlier for indicatives than counterfactuals? No. Mode has no significant effect (p = 0.869). Children show the same reading in both modes (Table 5). This supports uniform accounts of conditionals.
Q5: Does SDA require equally realistic disjuncts? No. Among participants who regarded disjuncts as non-equally realistic, SDA still dominated (87.76% adults, 39.34% children) and AR was marginal (4.08% adults, 2.84% children). This falsifies Lewis's prediction that non-equally-realistic disjuncts should yield AR.