Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T02:04:26.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Variations in the recruitment of syntactic knowledge contribute to SES differences in syntactic development*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2016

KATHRYN A. LEECH*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, and Harvard University Graduate School of Education
MEREDITH L. ROWE
Affiliation:
Harvard University Graduate School of Education
YI TING HUANG
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
*
Address for correspondence: Kathryn A. Leech, University of Maryland – Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, 3304 Benjamin Building, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, United States. e-mail: kleech@umd.edu

Abstract

Average differences in children's language abilities by socioeconomic status (SES) emerge early in development and predict academic achievement. Previous research has focused on coarse-grained outcome measures such as vocabulary size, but less is known about the extent to which SES differences exist in children's strategies for comprehension and learning. We measured children's (N = 98) comprehension of passive sentences to investigate whether SES differences are more pronounced in overall knowledge of the construction or in more specific abilities to process sentences during real-time interpretation. SES differences in comprehension emerged when syntactic revision of passives was necessary, and disappeared when the need to revise was removed. Further, syntactic revision but not knowledge of the passive best explained the association between SES and a standardized measure of syntactic development. These results demonstrate that SES differences in syntactic development may result from how children recruit syntactic information within sentences.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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 an NSF IGERT fellowship (#0801465) to KL and a UMCP ADVANCE grant to YTH and MR. We are grateful to L. Abadie, D. Bemaman, M. Kahwaty, K. Lippitt, and others in the Language and Cognition Laboratory for help with data collection and coding, and to Jeff Lidz for commenting on an earlier version of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F. & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 42, 239–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arriaga, R. I., Fenson, L., Cronan, T. & Pethick, S. J. (1998). Scores on the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory of children from low- and middle-income families. Applied Psycholinguistics 19, 209–23.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–82.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1989). Maturation, continuity, and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65, 5680.Google Scholar
Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Paradise, J. L., Feldman, H. M., Janosky, J. E., Pitcairn, D. N. & Kurs-Lasky, M. (1999). Maternal education and measures of early speech and language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 42, 1432–43.Google Scholar
Durham, R. E., Farkas, G., Hammer, C. S., Tomblin, J. B. & Catts, H. W. (2007). Kindergarten oral language skill: a key variable in the intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic status. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25, 294305.Google Scholar
Farkas, G. & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: differences by class and race. Social Science Research 33, 464–97.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Marchman, V. A. (2011). Causes and consequences of variability in early language learning. In Arnon, I. & Clark, E. V. (eds), Experience, variation, and generalization: learning a first language (Trends in language acquisition research) , 181202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A. & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science 16, 234–48.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Perfors, A. & Marchman, V. A. (2006). Picking up speed in understanding: speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology 42, 98116.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Pinto, J., Swingley, D., Weinberg, A. & McRoberts, G. (1998). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the 2nd year. Psychological Science 9, 72–5.Google Scholar
Furrow, D., Nelson, K. & Benedict, H. (1979). Mothers’ speech to children and syntactic development: some simple relationships. Journal of Child Language 6, 423–42.Google Scholar
Goodwin, A., Fein, D. & Naigles, L. (2014). The role of maternal input in the development of wh-question comprehension in autism and typical development. Journal of Child Language 42, 3263.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. & Chafetz, J. (1990). Verb-based versus class-based accounts of actionality effects in children's comprehension of passives. Cognition 36, 227–54.Google Scholar
Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., Wandner, L., Wessel, J. & Vick, J. (2009). Disparities in early learning and development: lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). Washington, DC: Child Trends.Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development 74, 1368–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure in maternal speech: their relation to the child's development of syntax. Developmental Psychology 22, 155–63.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. T., Zheng, X., Meng, X. & Snedeker, J. (2013). Children's assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 69, 589606.Google Scholar
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. & Trueswell, J. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: factors affecting children's syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 597626.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology 45, 337–74.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J. & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children's language growth. Cognitive Psychology 61, 343–65.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. & Gagliardi, A. (2015). How nature meets nurture: Universal Grammar and statistical learning. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 333–53.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 116.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R. & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children's early verb use. Journal of Child Language 25, 95120.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition, 109–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: re-examining the role of Broca's area in sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 5, 263–81.Google Scholar
Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: new evidence and possible explanations. In Murnane, R. & Duncan, G. (eds), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income children, 91116. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L., Roberts, J. & Dahlsgaard, K. (1997). Late talkers at 2: outcome at age 3. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40, 556–66.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. & Hadley, P. (2014). Input effects on the acquisition of finiteness. Proceedings of the 5th Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (pp. 121–127). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development 83, 1762–74.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science 323, 951–3.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of acquisition order in wh-questions: revaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language 30, 609–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., De Villiers, J. G. & De Villiers, P. A. (2003). Diagnostic evaluation of language variation: screening test (DELV-ST) . San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K., Eisenband, J., Norland, E. & Ratzan, J. (2002). Tracking the acquisition and processing of English passives: using acoustic cues to disambiguate actives and passives. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Tabor, W. & Hutchins, S. (2000). Evidence of self-organized sentence processing: digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 431–50.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. & Logrip, M. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: studyingon-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89134.Google Scholar
Weisleder, A. & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters: early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychological Science 24, 2143–52.Google Scholar