Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-x5fd4 Total loading time: 0.273 Render date: 2021-02-25T09:22:19.155Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Real-time comprehension of garden-path constructions by preschoolers: A Mandarin perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2020

Peng Zhou
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Jiawei Shi
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Likan Zhan
Affiliation:
Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China

Abstract

The present study investigated whether 4- and 5-year-old Mandarin-speaking children are able to process garden-path constructions in real time when the working memory burden associated with revision and reanalysis is kept to minimum. In total, 25 4-year-olds, 25 5-year-olds, and 30 adults were tested using the visual-world paradigm of eye tracking. The obtained eye gaze patterns reflect that the 4- and 5-year-olds, like the adults, committed to an initial misinterpretation and later successfully revised their initial interpretation. The findings show that preschool children are able to revise and reanalyze their initial commitment and then arrive at the correct interpretation using the later-encountered linguistic information when processing the garden-path constructions in the current study. The findings also suggest that although the 4-year-olds successfully processed the garden-path constructions in real time, they were not as effective as the 5-year-olds and the adults in revising and reanalyzing their initial mistaken interpretation when later encountering the critical linguistic cue. Taken together, our findings call for a fine-grained model of child sentence processing.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

PZ and JS contributed equally to this work.

References

Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247264.10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502518.10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreu, L., Sanz-Torrent, M., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Anticipatory sentence processing in children with specific language impairment: Evidence from eye movements during listening. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 544.10.1017/S0142716411000592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing “visual world” eye tracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457474.10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255278.10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Calderón, J. B. S., Noack, A., Kleinschmidt, D., Kelman, T., Bouchet-Valat, M., … Baldassari, A. (2019). dmbates/MixedModels.jl: v2.1.1 | Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3428819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 148.10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. (2017). Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review, 59, 6598.10.1137/141000671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413.10.1016/0749-596X(90)90064-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386404.10.1016/0022-0965(82)90054-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 4161.10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84107.10.1016/0010-0285(74)90005-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. K. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Zangl, R., Portillo, A. L., & Marchman, V. A. (2008). Looking while listening: Using eye movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children. In Sekerina, I., Fernández, E. M., & Clahsen, H. (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children’s language processing (pp. 97135). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/lald.44.06ferCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164203.10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348368.10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Lowder, M. W. (2016). Prediction, information structure, and good enough language processing. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 65, 217247.10.1016/bs.plm.2016.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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, 178210.10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40, 177.10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, S., Gavarró, A., & Guasti, M. T. (2016). Children’s production of head-final relative clauses: The case of Mandarin. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 323346.10.1017/S0142716414000587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, S., Gavarró, A., Vernice, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2016). The acquisition of Chinese relative clauses: Contrasting two theoretical approaches. Journal of Child Language, 43, 121.10.1017/S0305000914000865CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y. T., & Hollister, E. (2019). Developmental parsing and linguistic knowledge: Reexamining the role of cognitive control in the kindergarten path effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 210219.10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122149.10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133156.10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2005). Lexical and referential cues to interpretation: An investigation of children’s interpretations of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Child Language, 32, 855876.10.1017/S0305000905007051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2007). Lexical and referential influences on on-line spoken language comprehension: A comparison of adults and primary school-age children. First Language, 27, 2952.10.1177/0142723707067437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Stewart, A. J., & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38, 222234.10.1017/S0305000909990316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, L., Zhou, G., & Li, X. (1990). Investigation on the use of DE by 1 to 5 years old children. Psychological Science, 6, 1420.Google Scholar
Lassotta, R., Omaki, A., & Franck, J. (2016). Developmental changes in misinterpretation of garden-path wh-questions in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 829854.10.1080/17470218.2015.1054845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, T. H.-T. (2006). A note on garden path sentences in Chinese. In Ho, D.-A., Cheung, S., Pan, W., & Wu, F. (Eds.), Linguistic studies in Chinese and neighboring languages: Festschrift in honor of Professor Pang-Hsin Ting on his seventieth birthday (pp. 491518). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (2014). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9152.001.0001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. B., Caselli, M. C., Bortolini, U., McGregor, K. K., & Sabbadini, L. (1992). Morphological deficits in children with specific language impairment: The status of features in the underlying grammar. Language Acquisition, 2, 151179.10.1207/s15327817la0202_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Eyer, J. A., Bedore, L. M., & Grela, B. G. (1997). Three accounts of the grammatical morpheme difficulties of English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 741753.10.1044/jslhr.4004.741CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2007). Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 18, 193198.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01871.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375419.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Y. (2004). The development of child language. Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157201.10.1080/01690969408402115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazuka, R., Jincho, N., & Onishi, H. (2009). Development of executive control and language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 5989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meroni, L., & Crain, S. (2003). On not being led down the kindergarten path. In Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 531–544). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Nation, K., Marshall, C. M., & Altmann, G. (2003). Investigating individual differences in children’s real-time sentence comprehension using language-mediated eye movements. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 314329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 263281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Omaki, A. (2010). Commitment and flexibility in the developing parser. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Davidson White, I., Goro, T., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2014). No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development, 10, 206233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özge, D., Küntay, A., & Snedeker, J. (2019). Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension. Cognition, 183, 152180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2015). Incremental processing in head-final child language: Online comprehension of relative clauses in Turkish-speaking children and adults. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 12301243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2012). Interactive processing of contrastive expressions by Russian children. First Language, 32, 6387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, J., & Zhou, P. (2018). How possessive relations are mapped onto child language: A view from Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 13211341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 238299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, A., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from eitheror . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 425436.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431.Google ScholarPubMed
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, 16321634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children’s processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 7596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, M. J. (2005). Plausibility and verb subcategorization in temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. & Logrip, L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443467.Google ScholarPubMed
van Dyke, J. A., & Lewis, R. L. (2003). Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 285316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Syntactic parsing. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 289307). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Heugten, M., & Shi, R. (2009). French-learning toddlers use gender information on determiners during word recognition. Developmental Science, 12, 419425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weighall, A. R. (2008). The kindergarten path effect revisited: Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 7595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodard, K., Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Taking your own path: Individual differences in executive function and language processing skills in child learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 187209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhan, L. (2018). Scalar and ignorance inferences are both computed immediately upon encountering the sentential connective: The online processing of sentences with disjunction using the visual world paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, P., Crain, S., & Zhan, L. (2014). Grammatical aspect and event recognition in children’s online sentence comprehension. Cognition, 133, 262276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, P., Ma, W., Zhan, L., & Ma, H. (2018). Using the visual world paradigm to study sentence comprehension in Mandarin-Speaking children with autism. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 140, e58452.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 100
Total number of PDF views: 84 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 11th December 2020 - 25th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Real-time comprehension of garden-path constructions by preschoolers: A Mandarin perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Real-time comprehension of garden-path constructions by preschoolers: A Mandarin perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Real-time comprehension of garden-path constructions by preschoolers: A Mandarin perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *