Children's knowledge of morphological elements has traditionally been tested using Berko-type production tasks. Failure to respond correctly in this task may reflect production constraints independent of underlying linguistic knowledge. Accordingly, a detailed comparison of the comprehension of one morphological unit the /−ez/ plural allomorph, was investigated. Two groups of subjects were tested: (1) those who produced this allomorph correctly and (2) those who failed to produce it. For the subjects as a group, the results indicated that children who could produce the /−ez/ allomorph in nonsense word contexts performed significantly better than children who were unable to produce this allomorph. An analysis of individual performance indicated that almost all of the subjects who produced the /−ez/ allomorph correctly reliably comprehended it. A little more than half of the subjects who failed to produce it evidenced reliable comprehension. The conclusion was drawn that comprehension learning precedes production learning and that production-type tasks may consistently underestimate linguistic knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Anisfeld, M., and Tucker, G. R. (1967). English pluralization rules of six-year old children.Child Dev. 38:1201–1217.
Baird, R. (1972). On the role of chance in imitation-comprehension-production test results.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 11:474–477.
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology.Word,14:150–177.
Chapman, R. S., and Miller, J. F. (1975). Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension?J. Speech Hear. Res. 18:355–371.
Chomsky, N. (1965).Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Clark, E. V., and Garnica, O. K. (1974). Is he coming or going? On the acquisition of deictic verbs.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 13:559–572.
Eilers, R. E., and Oller, D. K. (1976). The role of speech discrimination in developmental substitutions.J. Child Lang. 3:319–329.
Fernald, C. D. (1972). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production: Problems of replication.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 11:606–613.
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., and Garrett, M. F. (1974).The Psychology of Language, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., and Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 2:121–135.
Huttenlocher, J. (1974). The origins of language comprehension. In Solso, R. L. (ed.),Cognitive Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Potomac, Md.
Ingram, D. (1974). The relationship between comprehension and production. In Schiefelbusch, R. L., and Lloyd, L. L. (eds.),Language Perspectives-Acquisition, Retardation, and Intervention, University Park Press, Baltimore, Md.
Richards, M. M. (1976).Come andgo reconsidered: Children's use of deictic verbs in contrived situations.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 15:655–665.
Winitz, H., and Reeds, J. (1975).Comprehension and Problem Solving as Strategies for Language Training, Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands.
This paper was supported by the Graduate College, University of Missouri, Kansas City.
About this article
Cite this article
Winitz, H., Sanders, R. & Kort, J. Comprehension and production of the /−ez/ plural allomorph. J Psycholinguist Res 10, 259–271 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067507
- Cognitive Psychology
- Detailed Comparison
- Individual Performance
- Production Task
- Word Context