Skip to main content
Log in

One Frog, Two Frog, Red Frog, Blue Frog: Factors Affecting Children's Syntactic Choices in Production and Comprehension

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, B. P. (1983). Children's judgements of the functional acceptablility of referential communications in discourse contexts. Journal of Child Language. 10, 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S., & Clark H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1968). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development, Vol. II Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996) When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 16, 217–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorsbach, T., & Reimer, J. F. (1996). Developmental changes in the inhibition of previously relevant information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 317–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature (London), 244, 522–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matin, E., Shao, K., & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 372–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKee, C., McDaniel, D., & Snedeker, J. (1998). Relatives children say. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 573–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumert, J. M., Dwert, K., & Spears, S. (1995). The early development of children's communication about nested spatial relations. Child Development, 66, 959–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumert, J. M., & Nicols-Whitehead, P. (1996). Parental scaffolding of young children's spatial communication. Developmental Psychology, 32, 523–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, E. J., & Whittaker, S. J. (1985). Children's responses to ambiguous messages and their understanding of ambiguity. Developmental Psychology, 21, 446–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026468209238

Navigation