Abstract
Two experiments are reported which examine children's ability to use referential context when making syntactic choices in language production and comprehension. In a recent on-line study of auditory comprehension, Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill, and Logrip (1999) examined children's and adults' abilities to resolve temporary syntactic ambiguities involving prepositional phrases (e.g., “Put the frog on the napkin into ¨”). Although adults and older children used the referential context to guide their initial analysis (pursuing a destination interpretation in a one-frog context and a modifier interpretation in a two-frog context), 4 to 5-year olds' initial and ultimate analysis was one of destination, regardless of context. The present studies examined whether these differences were attributable to the comprehension process itself or to other sources, such as possible differences in how children perceive the scene and referential situation. In both experiments, children were given a language generation task designed to elicit and test children's ability to refer to a member of a set through restrictive modification. This task was immediately followed by the “put” comprehension task. The findings showed that, in response to a question about a member of a set (e.g., “Which frog went to Mrs. Squid's house?”), 4- to 5-year-olds frequently produced a definite NP with a restrictive prepositional modifier (e.g., “The one on the napkin”). These same children, however, continued to misanalyze put instructions, showing a strong avoidance of restrictive modification during comprehension. Experiment 2 showed that an increase in the salience of the platforms that distinguished the two referents increased overall performance, but still showed the strong asymmetry between production and comprehension. Eye movements were also recorded in Experiment 2, revealing on-line parsing patterns similar to Trueswell et al.: an initial preference for a destination analysis and a failure to revise early referential commitments. These experiments indicate that child–adult differences in parsing preferences arise, in part, from developmental changes in the comprehension process itself and not from a general insensitivity to referential properties of the scene. The findings are consistent with a probabilistic model for uncovering the structure of the input during comprehension, in which more reliable linguistic and discourse-related cues are learned first, followed by a gradually developing ability to take into account other more uncertain (or more difficult to learn) cues to structure.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Adams, A., & Gathercole, S. E. (2000). Limitations in working memory: Implications for language development. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35, 95–116.
Ackerman, B. P. (1983). Children's judgements of the functional acceptablility of referential communications in discourse contexts. Journal of Child Language. 10, 151–166.
Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419–439
Altmann, G., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. (1994). Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 209–216.
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.
Bock, K. (1995) Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In P. Eimas and J. L. Miller (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication, Handbook of perception and cognition: Language, 2nd Ed, San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Brennan, S., & Clark H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.
Britt, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251–283.
Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.
Crain, S., McKee, C., & Emiliani, M. (1990) Visiting relatives in Italy. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. J. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.
Goodluck, H. (1990). Knowledge integration in processing and acquisition: Comments on Grimshaw and Rosen. In L. Frazier & J. De Villiers (Eds.) Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11, 1–27.
Grice, H. P. (1968). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hall, D. G., Waxman, S. R., Hurwitz, W. M. (1993). How two-and four-year-old children interpret adjectives and count nouns Child Development, 64, 1651–1664.
Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development, Vol. II Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996) When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 16, 217–26.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lorsbach, T., Katz, G., & Cupak, A. (1998). Developmental differences in the ability to inihibit the initial interpretation of garden path passages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 275–296.
Lorsbach, T., & Reimer, J. F. (1996). Developmental changes in the inhibition of previously relevant information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 317–342.
MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692–715.
MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2000). Reassessing working memory: A reply to Just & Carpenter and Waters & Caplan. Manuscript submitted.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature (London), 244, 522–523.
Matin, E., Shao, K., & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380.
McKee, C., McDaniel, D., & Snedeker, J. (1998). Relatives children say. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 573–596.
Nadig, A., & Sedivy, J. (2000). Children's use of referential pragmatic constraints in production and processing. Talk presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. La Jolla, California.
Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 521–542.
Plumert, J. M., Dwert, K., & Spears, S. (1995). The early development of children's communication about nested spatial relations. Child Development, 66, 959–969.
Plumert, J. M., & Nicols-Whitehead, P. (1996). Parental scaffolding of young children's spatial communication. Developmental Psychology, 32, 523–532.
Robinson, E. J., & Robinson, W. D. (1982). Knowing when you don't know enough: Children's judgements about ambiguous information. Cognition, 12(3), 267–280.
Robinson, E. J., & Whittaker, S. J. (1985). Children's responses to ambiguous messages and their understanding of ambiguity. Developmental Psychology, 21, 446–454.
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.
Sedivy, J. (1999). Investigating the discourse-based properties of adjectives in on-line semantic interpretation. Talk presented at the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
Smith, L. B., Jones, S., & Landau, B. (1992). Count nouns, adjectives, and perceptual properties in children's novel word interpretations. Developmental Psychology, 28, 273–286.
Spivey, M., Tanenhaus, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (2000). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, in press.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 1–36.
Thornton, R. (1996). Elicited production. In McDaniel, D., Mckee, C. & Cairns, H. S. (Eds.), Methods for assessing children's syntax, Language, speech, and communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (pp. 78–102).
Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566–585.
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraintbased syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, K. Rayner, & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528–553.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K. et al. One Frog, Two Frog, Red Frog, Blue Frog: Factors Affecting Children's Syntactic Choices in Production and Comprehension. J Psycholinguist Res 29, 597–626 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026468209238
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026468209238