Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:10:58.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: the role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2010

EVAN KIDD ,
ANDREW J. STEWART  and
LUDOVICA SERRATRICE
EVAN KIDD*
Affiliation:
La Trobe University & The University of Manchester
ANDREW J. STEWART
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester
LUDOVICA SERRATRICE
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester
*
Address for correspondence: Evan Kidd, School of Psychological Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Victoria, Australia. e-mail: e.kidd@latrobe.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we report on a visual world eye-tracking experiment that investigated the differing abilities of adults and children to use referential scene information during reanalysis to overcome lexical biases during sentence processing. The results showed that adults incorporated aspects of the referential scene into their parse as soon as it became apparent that a test sentence was syntactically ambiguous, suggesting they considered the two alternative analyses in parallel. In contrast, the children appeared not to reanalyze their initial analysis, even over shorter distances than have been investigated in prior research. We argue that this reflects the children's over-reliance on bottom-up, lexical cues to interpretation. The implications for the development of parsing routines are discussed.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 222 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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 supported in part by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and a Charles La Trobe Research Fellowship awarded to the first author. We would like to thank Jenny Habjan and Anna Roby for help with testing, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

References

REFERENCES

Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Magnuson, J. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 30, 687–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Caplan, D. & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, 559–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frederici, A. D. & Hahne, A. (2001). Development patterns of brain activity reflecting semantic and syntactic processes. In Weissenborn, J. & Höhle, B. (eds), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neuropsychological aspects of early language acquisition, Vol. 2, 231–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children's syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 597–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
January, D., Trueswell, J. C. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Co-location of stroop and syntactic ambiguity resolution in Broca's area: Implications for the neural basis of sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive 21, 2434–44.Google Scholar
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review 99, 122–49.CrossRefGoogle 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, 855–76.CrossRefGoogle 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, 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E. & Cameron-Faulkner, T. (2008). The acquisition of the multiple senses of with. Linguistics 46, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koening, J., Mauner, G. & Bienvenue, B. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89, 68–103.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. & Christiansen, M. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. & Seidenberg, M. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676–703.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, 263–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedeker, J. & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 238–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedeker, J. & Yuan, S. (2008). Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language 58, 574–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spivey-Knowlton, M. & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition 55, 227–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sussman, R. S. (2006). Verb-instrument information during on-line processing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. & Gleitman, L. (2004). Children's eye-movements during listening: Developmental evidence for a constraint-based theory of sentence processing. In Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (eds), Interface of vision, action, and language, 319–46. New York: Psychology Press.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C. & Tannenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, 155–79. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar