Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:06:46.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On-line processing of English which-questions by children and adults: a visual world paradigm study*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2017

CARLA CONTEMORI*
Affiliation:
Department of Languages and Linguistics, University of Texas, El Paso
MATTHEW CARLSON
Affiliation:
Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, Pennsylvania State University and Center for Language Sciences, Pennsylvania State University
THEODOROS MARINIS
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Carla Contemori, Department of Languages and Linguistics, University of Texasat El Paso, 500 W. University Ave, El Paso, TX 79968. e-mail: carla.contemori@gmail.com

Abstract

Previous research has shown that children demonstrate similar sentence processing reflexes to those observed in adults, but they have difficulties revising an erroneous initial interpretation when they process garden-path sentences, passives, and wh-questions. We used the visual-world paradigm to examine children's use of syntactic and non-syntactic information to resolve syntactic ambiguity by extending our understanding of number features as a cue for interpretation to which-subject and which-object questions. We compared children's and adults’ eye-movements to understand how this information shapes children's commitment to and revision of possible interpretations of these questions. The results showed that English-speaking adults and children both exhibit an initial preference to interpret an object-which question as a subject question. While adults quickly override this preference, children take significantly longer, showing an overall processing difficulty for object questions. Crucially, their recovery from an initially erroneous interpretation is speeded when disambiguating number agreement features are present.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This work was supported by the Fondazione Marica De Vincenzi under the 2011 Postdoctoral Grant to the first author, which is gratefully acknowledged.

References

REFERENCES

Adani, F., Forgiarini, M., Guasti, M. T. & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2014). Number dissimilarities facilitate the comprehension of relative clause in children affected by (Grammatical) Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Child Language 41(4), 811–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avrutin, S. (2000). Comprehension of discourse-linked and non-discourse-linked questions by children and Broca's aphasics. In Grodzinsky, Yosef, Shapiro, Lee & Swinney, David (eds). Language and brain: representation and processing (pp. 295313). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CD-ROM version of the CELEX lexical database. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, D., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eye-tracking data using multi-level logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 457–74.Google Scholar
Bavin, E., Kidd, E., Prendergast, L. A. & Baker, E. K (2016). Young children with ASD use lexical and referential information during on-line sentence processing. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 171. Online: <doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00171>.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bever, T. G. (1970). Cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, John R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language, 279362. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F. & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology 42, 368407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Contemori, C. & Marinis, T. (2014). The impact of number mismatch and passives on the real-time processing of relative clauses. Journal of Child Language 41(3), 658–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deevy, P. & Leonard, L. (2004). The comprehension of Wh-questions in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 802–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vincenzi, M., Arduino, L. S., Ciccarelli, L. & Job, R. (1999). Parsing strategies in children: comprehension of interrogative sentences. In Bagnara, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of European Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 301308). Rome: Instituto di Psicologia del CNR.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2009). The emergence of relative clauses in early child language. Unpublished ms, University of Jena, Thuringia, Germany.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4(2), 93126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: a study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language 28, 331–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies, Lingua 119(1), 6788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, H. (2005). D(iscourse)-linking and question formation: comprehension effects in children and Broca's aphasics. In Di Sciullo, A. M. (ed.), UG and external systems: language, brain and computation (pp. 185192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R. & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 97114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (1996). The acquisition of Italian interrogatives. In Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 241269). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, F. (2001). Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y., Zheng, X., Meng, X. & Snedeker, J. (2013). Assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 64(4), 589606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. & Gutierrez, J. (2007). Elicited production and comprehension of root wh-questions in French and Basque. Presentation at the COST Meeting Cross-linguistically robust stage of children's linguistic performance, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. & Arciuli, J. (2016). Individual differences in statistical learning predict children's comprehension of syntax. Child Development, 87(1), 184193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: a crosslinguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 860–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106, 1126–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, T. (1997). The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: a real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36, 191206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukyanenko, C. & Fisher, C. (2016). Where are the cookies? Two- and three-year-olds use number-marked verbs to anticipate upcoming nouns. Cognition 146, 349–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. & Saddy, D. (2013). Parsing the passive: comparing children with Specific Language Impairment to sequential bilingual children. Language Acquisition 20, 155–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matin, E., Shao, K. & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: information processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics 53, 372–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendelsohn, A. (2002). Individual differences in ambiguity resolution: working memory and inhibition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Novick, J. M., Kan, I. P., Trueswell, J. C. & Thompson-Schill, S. (2010). A case for conflict across multiple domains: memory and language impairments following damage to ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Cognitive Neuropsychology 26(6), 527–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Executive control and parsing: reexamining the role of Broca's area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 5, 263–81.CrossRefGoogle 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(3), 206–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F. & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of English grammatical structures: a corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57, 348–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R. & Krems, J. (2000). The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In Hemforth, B. & Konieczny, L. (eds), German sentence processing, 6593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Psychology Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition 116, 7186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stavrakaki, S. (2006). Developmental perspectives on specific language impairment: evidence for the production of wh-questions by Greek SLI children over time. Advances in Speech–Language Pathology 8, 384–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, A. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromswold, K. (1995). The cognitive and neural bases of language acquisition. In Gazzaniga, M. (ed.), The cognitive neurosciences, 855–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
Trueswell, J. & Gleitman, L. R. (2004). Children's eye movements during listening: evidence for a constraint-based theory of parsing and word learning. In Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (eds). Interface of language, vision, and action: eye movements and the visual world (pp. 319346). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. & Logrip, M. (1999). The kindergarden-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dyke, J. & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 157–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M. (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database: machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 20, 610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodard, K., Pozzan, L. & Trueswell, J. (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
Yoshinaga, N. (1996). Wh-questions: a comparative study of their form and acquisition in English and Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar