Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 219–241 | Cite as

Answering Questions and Explaining Answers: A Study of Finnish-Speaking Children

Original Article


This research explores, within the framework of Relevance Theory, how children’s ability to answer questions and explain their answers develops between the ages of 3 and 9 years. Two hundred and ten normally developing Finnish-speaking children participated in this study. The children were asked questions requiring processing of inferential meanings and routines, and were asked to explain their correct answers to elicit understanding about their awareness of how they had derived the answers from the context. The results indicated that the number of correct answers increased rapidly between the ages of 3 years and 4–5 years. Familiarity of context had a significant effect on young children’s ability to answer questions. Becoming aware of the information used in inferencing developed gradually over time between the ages of 3 and 9. Analysis of the children’s incorrect answers and explanations showed that, as children develop, their unsophisticated answer strategies diminish and they increasingly utilize context even in incorrect answers and explanations.


Comprehension strategies Inference Pragmatic processing Relevance theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams C. (2002). Practitioner review: The assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 43: 973–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley A.D. (1996). The concept of working memory. In: Gathercole S.E. (ed) Models of short-term memory. Hove, Psychology Press, pp. 1–27Google Scholar
  3. Bara B.G., Bosco F.M., Bucciarelli M. (1999). Developmental pragmatics in normal and abnormal children. Brain and Language 68: 507–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartsch K., Wellman H.M. (1995). Children talk about the mind. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Bezuidenhout A., Sroda M.S. (1998). Children’s use of contextual cues to resolve referential ambiguity: An application of Relevance Theory. Pragmatics and Cognition 6: 265–299Google Scholar
  6. Bishop D.V.M. (1997). Uncommon understanding. Hove, Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Blakemore D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  8. Blåfield, L., & Kuusinen, J. (1974). Suomalaisen ITPA:n psykometriset ominaisuudet. [Psychometric features of Finnish ITPA Test]. Kasvatustieteiden tutkimuslaitoksen julkaisuja 241. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylän yliopisto.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen G. (1989). Memory in the real world. Hove, Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  10. Donaldson M.L. (1986). Children’s explanations: A psycholinguistic study. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson M. (1992). Human minds: an exploration. London, Allen LaneGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehlers S., Gillberg C. (1993). The epidemiology of Asperger syndrome. A total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 34: 1327–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehlers S., Gillberg C., Wing L. (1999). A screening questionnaire for Asperger syndrome and other high-functioning autism spectrum disorders in school age children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 29: 129–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eson M. E., Shapiro A.S. (1982). When ‘don’t’ means ‘do’: Pragmatic and cognitive development in understanding an indirect imperative. First Language 3: 83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisbach A.O. (2004). Children’s developing awareness of diversity in people’s trains of thought. Child Development 75: 1694–1707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flavell J.H., Green F.L., Flavell E.R. (2000). Development of children’s awareness of their own thoughts. Journal of Cognition and Development 1: 97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster-Cohen S. (2000). Relevance theory and language acquisition: A productive paradigm shift? Child Language Bulletin 20: 5–8Google Scholar
  18. Foster-Cohen S. (2004). Relevance Theory, Action Theory and second language communication strategies. Second Language Research 20: 289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillam R.B., Bedore L.M. (2000). Language science. In: Gillam R.B., Marquardt T.P., Martin F.N. (eds) Communication sciences and disorders: From science to clinical practice. San Diego, Singular Publishing Club, Thomson Learning, pp. 385–408Google Scholar
  20. Happé F.G.E. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism. A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48: 101–109Google Scholar
  21. Happé F.G.E. (1995). Understanding minds and metaphors: Insight from the study of figurative language in autism. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 275–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hudson J., Nelson K. (1983). Effects of script structure on children’s story recall. Developmental Psychology 19: 625–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hudson J.A., Slackman E.A. (1990). Children’s use of scripts in inferential text processing. Discourse Processes 13: 375–386Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan E.F., Goodglass H., Weintraub S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, Lea & FebigerGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirk S.A., McCarthy J.D., Kirk W.S. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA). Urbana, University of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Laine M., Koivuselkä-Sallinen P., Hänninen R., Niemi J. (1997). Bostonin nimentätesti [the Boston Naming Test]. Helsinki, Psykologien Kustannus OyGoogle Scholar
  27. Leinonen E., Letts C., Smith B.R. (2000). Children’s pragmatic communication difficulties. London, Whurr PublishersGoogle Scholar
  28. Leinonen, E., Ryder, N., Ellis, M., & Hammond, C. (2003). The use of context in pragmatic comprehension by specifically language-impaired and control children. Linguistics, 41–2, 407–423.Google Scholar
  29. Letts C., Leinonen E. (2001). Comprehension of inferential meaning in language-impaired and language normal children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 36: 307–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marinac J.V., Ozanne A.E. (1999). Comprehension strategies: the bridge between literal and discourse understanding. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 15: 233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mattila, M.-L., Kielinen, M., Linna, S.-L., Ebeling, H., & Moilanen, I. (2001). Asperger syndrome project in Northern Ostrobothnia Hospital District: Preliminary results from the screening by ASSQ. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 60, 66.Google Scholar
  32. Mercer N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Milosky L.M. (1992). Children listening: The role of world knowledge in language comprehension. In: Chapman R.S. (ed) Processes in language acquisition and disorders. St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book, pp. 20–44Google Scholar
  34. Nelson K. (1978). How children represent knowledge of their world in and out of language: a preliminary report. In: Siegler R.S. (ed) Children’s thinking. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 255–273Google Scholar
  35. Noh E.-J. (2000). Metarepresentation: A Relevance Theory approach. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing CoGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Neill D.K. (1996). Two-year-old children’s sensitivity to a parent’s knowledge state when making request. Child Development 67: 659–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pillow B.H. (1999). Children’s understanding of inferential knowledge. Journal of Genetic Psychology 160: 419–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson E.J. (1994). What people say, what they think, and what is really the case: Children’s understanding of utterances as sources of knowledge. In: Lewis C., Mitchell P. (eds) Children’s early understanding of mind: Origins and development. Hove, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 355–381Google Scholar
  39. Ryder N., Leinonen E. (2003). Use of context in question answering by 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 397–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schank R.C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  41. Sperber D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In: Khalfa J. (ed) What is intelligence?. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–198Google Scholar
  42. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed). Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  43. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1997). Remarks on relevance theory and the social sciences. Multilingua 16: 145–151Google Scholar
  44. Sperber D., Wilson D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17: 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strohner H., Nelson K.E. (1974). The young child’s development of sentence comprehension: influence of event probability, nonverbal context, syntactic form, and strategies. Child Development 45: 567–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson L. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence: Past findings and future directions for research. In: Thompson L. (ed) Children talking: The development of pragmatic competence. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–21Google Scholar
  47. Van der Henst J.-B., Sperber D., Politzer G. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking and Reasoning 8: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verschueren J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London, ArnoldGoogle Scholar
  49. Wellman H.M., Cross D., Watson J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development 72: 655–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wellman H.M., Lagattuta K.H. (2000). Developing understanding of mind. In: Baron-Cohen S., Tager-Flusberg H., Cohen D.J. (eds) Understanding other minds. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 21–49Google Scholar
  51. Wilson D. (2000). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In: Sperber D. (ed) Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 411–448Google Scholar
  52. Wilson D., Sperber D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111: 583–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson D., Sperber D. (2004). Relevance theory. In: Horn L., Ward G. (eds) Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 607–632Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finnish, Information Studies and LogopedicsUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations