Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:12:27.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why do children pay more attention to grammatical morphemes at the ends of sentences?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2017

Megha SUNDARA
Megha SUNDARA*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles
*
Address for correspondence: Megha Sundara, Department of Linguistics, University of California at Los Angeles, 3125 Campbell Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543. e-mail: megha.sundara@humnet.ucla.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children pay more attention to the beginnings and ends of sentences rather than the middle. In natural speech, ends of sentences are prosodically and segmentally enhanced; they are also privileged by sensory and recall advantages. We contrasted whether acoustic enhancement or sensory and recall-related advantages are necessary and sufficient for the salience of grammatical morphemes at the ends of sentences. We measured 22-month-olds’ listening times to grammatical and ungrammatical sentences with third person singular -s. Crucially, by cross-splicing the speech stimuli, acoustic enhancement and sensory and recall advantages were fully crossed. Only children presented with the verb in sentence-final position, a position with sensory and recall advantages, distinguished between the grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Thus, sensory and recall advantages alone were necessary and sufficient to make grammatical morphemes at ends of sentences salient. These general processing constraints privilege ends of sentences over middles, regardless of the acoustic enhancement.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , May 2018 , pp. 703 - 716
Check for updates
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 research was funded by UCLA internal grants. I would like to thank Adrienne Scutellaro and Kristi Hendrickson for recruiting and testing subjects, and Katherine Demuth for discussions about the experiment.

References

REFERENCES

Aslin, R. N., Woodward, J. Z., LaMendola, P. & Bever, T. G. (1996). Models of word segmentation in fluent maternal speech to infants. In Morgan, J. L. & Demuth, K. (eds), Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, 117–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E. & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3, 255–309.Google Scholar
Benavides-Varela, S. & Mehler, J. (2015), Verbal positional memory in 7-month-olds. Child Development 86, 209–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein Ratner, N. (1986). Durational cues which mark clause boundaries in mother–child speech. Journal of Phonetics 14, 303–9.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D., (2005). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Software. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M. & Gibson, E., (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7), 1044–98.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. B., Atkinson, D. J. & Chaput, H. H. (2004). A new program for obtaining and organizing data in infant perception and cognition studies (Version 1.0). Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Dalal, R. & Loeb, D. (2005). Imitative production of regular past tense -ed by English-speaking children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Communication Disorders 40(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Dale, P. S. & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms for young children. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 28, 125–7.Google Scholar
Deese, J. & Kaufman, R. A. (1957). Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material Journal of Experimental Psychology 54(3), 180–7.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition 48, 71–99.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D., Nespor, M. & Mehler, J. (2009). Perceptual and memory constraints on language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(8), 348–53.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Mazzie, C. (1991). Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Developmental Psychology 27, 209–21.Google Scholar
Ferry, A. L., Fló, A., Brusini, P., Cattarossi, L., Macagno, F., Nespor, M. & Mehler, J. (2016). On the edge of language acquisition: inherent constraints on encoding multisyllabic sequences in the neonate brain. Developmental Science 19(3), 488–503.Google Scholar
Fisher, C. & Tokura, H. (1996). Acoustic cues to grammatical structure in infant-directed speech: cross-linguistic evidence. Child Development 67, 3192–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fougeron, C. & Keating, P. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101, 3728–40.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. & Alioto, A. (1995). Infant-directed speech facilitates lexical learning in adults hearing Chinese: implications for language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 22, 703–26.Google Scholar
Gupta, P., Lipinski, J., Abbs, B. & Lin, P.-H. (2005). Serial position effects in nonword repetition. Journal of Memory and Language 53(1), 141–62.Google Scholar
Hartley, D. E. H., Wright, B. A., Hogan, S. C. & Moore, D. R. (2000). Age related improvements in auditory backward and simultaneous masking in 6- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43, 1402–15.Google Scholar
Horne, M., Strangert, E. & Heldner, M. (1995). Prosodic boundary strength in Swedish: final lengthening and silent interval duration. Proceedings of the ICPhS 95, 170–173.Google Scholar
Hsieh, L., Leonard, L. B. & Swanson, L. A. (1999). Some differences between English plural noun inflections and third singular verb inflections in the input: the contributions of frequency, sentence position, and duration. Journal of Child Language 26, 531–43.Google Scholar
Hurlstone, M. J., Hitch, G. J. & Baddeley, A. D. (2014). Memory for serial order across domains: an overview of the literature and directions for future research. Psychological Bulletin 140(2), 339–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keating, P., Cho, T., Fougeron, C. & Hsu, C.-S. (2003). Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In Local, J., Ogden, R. & Temple, R. (eds), Papers in laboratory phonology VI, 143–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Miller, C. & Owen, A. (2000). The comprehension of verb agreement morphology by English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 14, 465–81.Google Scholar
Li, P. & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J. W. & Leonard, L. B. (2006). Effects of acoustic manipulation on the real-time inflectional processing of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, 1238–56.Google Scholar
Moore, B. C. J. (1997). An introduction to the psychology of hearing, 4th ed. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14, 11–28.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (Eds.), Intentions in communication, (pp.271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinto, J. P., Fernald, A., McRoberts, G. W. & Cole, S. (1999). Reliability and validity in infant auditory preference procedures. In Rovee-Collier, C., Lipsitt, L. & Hayne, H. (eds), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 12, pp. 221–36). Stamford, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Werker, J. F. & Werner, L. A. (2006). The infant's auditory world: hearing, speech, and the beginnings of language. In Siegler, R. & Kuhn, D. (eds), Handbook of child development, 58–108. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Seidl, A. & Johnson, E. K. (2006). Infant word segmentation revisited: edge alignment facilitates target extraction. Developmental Science 9(6), 565–73.Google Scholar
Seidl, A. & Johnson, E. K. (2008). Boundary alignment enables 11-month-olds to segment vowel-initial words from speech. Journal of Child Language 35, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shukla, M., White, K. S., and Aslin, R. N. (2011). Prosody guides the rapid mapping of auditory word forms onto visual objects in 6-mo-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 6038–43.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973) Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development, 175–209. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 1157–256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Song, J. Y., Sundara, M. & Demuth, K. (2009). Effects of phonology on children's production of English 3rd person singular –s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52(3), 623–42.Google Scholar
Sundara, M., Demuth, K. & Kuhl, P.K. (2011). Sentence-position effects on children's comprehension & production of English 3rd person singular –s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54, 55–71.Google Scholar
Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Osterdorf, M. & Price, P. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91 (1707–1717).Google Scholar