Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 285–304 | Cite as

Slowed Speech Input has a Differential Impact on On-line and Off-line Processing in Children’s Comprehension of Pronouns

  • Tracy Love
  • Matthew Walenski
  • David Swinney
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The central question underlying this study revolves around how children process co-reference relationships—such as those evidenced by pronouns (him) and reflexives (himself)—and how a slowed rate of speech input may critically affect this process. Previous studies of child language processing have demonstrated that typical language developing (TLD) children as young as 4 years of age process co-reference relations in a manner similar to adults on-line. In contrast, off-line measures of pronoun comprehension suggest a developmental delay for pronouns (relative to reflexives). The present study examines dependency relations in TLD children (ages 5–13) and investigates how a slowed rate of speech input affects the unconscious (on-line) and conscious (off-line) parsing of these constructions. For the on-line investigations (using a cross-modal picture priming paradigm), results indicate that at a normal rate of speech TLD children demonstrate adult-like syntactic reflexes. At a slowed rate of speech the typical language developing children displayed a breakdown in automatic syntactic parsing (again, similar to the pattern seen in unimpaired adults). As demonstrated in the literature, our off-line investigations (sentence/picture matching task) revealed that these children performed much better on reflexives than on pronouns at a regular speech rate. However, at the slow speech rate, performance on pronouns was substantially improved, whereas performance on reflexives was not different than at the regular speech rate. We interpret these results in light of a distinction between fast automatic processes (relied upon for on-line processing in real time) and conscious reflective processes (relied upon for off-line processing), such that slowed speech input disrupts the former, yet improves the latter.

Keywords

Rate of speech Pronominal resolution Child language Sentence processing On-line and off-line processing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Maxwell Moholy, Brianne Bricker, Justin Baker, Danielle Vignati, Richard Schwartz and Arild Hestvik for their contributions at various stages of this project. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, R01DC03885.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Baauw S., Cuetos F. (2003) The interpretation of pronouns in Spanish language acquisition and breakdown: Evidence for the “Principle B Delay” as a non-unitary phenomenon. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 11(4): 219–275. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la1104_2 Google Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H. (2004). Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards. Mental Lexicon Working Papers 1, 1, 1–47.Google Scholar
  3. Baayen R.H. (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Balogh J., Zurif E., Prather P., Swinney D., Finkel L. (1998) Gap-filling and end-of-sentence effects in real-time language processing: Implications for modeling sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language 61(2): 169–182. doi: 10.1006/brln.1997.1917 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth J.R., MacWhinney B., Harasaki Y. (2000) Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development 71(4): 981–1003. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00203 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (1997). Test of nonverbal intelligence (3rd ed). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  7. Camblin C.C., Ledoux K., Boudewyn M., Gordon P.C., Swaab T.Y. (2007) Processing new and repeated names: Effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP. Brain Research 1146: 172–184. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chien Y.-C., Wexler K. (1990) Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 1(3): 225–295. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0103_2 Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky N. (1986) Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowles H.W., Walenski M., Kluender R. (2007) Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi 26(1): 3–18. doi: 10.1007/s11245-006-9004-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner H., Albert M., Weintraub S. (1975) Comprehending a word: The influence of speed and redundancy on auditory comprehension in aphasia. Cortex 11: 155–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimshaw J.R.S. (1990) Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 187–222Google Scholar
  14. Grodzinsky Y., Kave G. (1994) Do children really know condition A? Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 3(1): 41–45. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0301_2 Google Scholar
  15. Grodzinsky Y., Wexler K., Chien Y., Marakovitz S., Solomon J. (1993) The breakdown of binding relations. Brain and Language 45: 396–422. doi: 10.1006/brln.1993.1052 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hestvik, A., Schwartz, R., Tornyova, L., Almodovar, D., Love, T., & Swinney, D. (2007). Binding theory and syntactic movement are dissociated in specific language impairment. Paper presented at the Twentieth Annuam CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Kail R., Hall L.K. (1994) Processing speed, naming speed, and reading. Developmental Psychology 30(6): 949–954. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koster, C. (1993). Errors in anaphora acquisition. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  19. Lasky E.Z., Weidner W.E., Johnson J.P. (1976) Influence of linguistic complexity, rate of presentation, and interphase pause time on auditory—Verbal comprehension of adult aphasic patients. Brain and Language 3: 386–395. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(76)90034-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Love T. (2007) The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: A real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36: 191–206. doi: 10.1007/s10936-006-9040-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Love T., Swinney D. (1996) Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 5–24. doi: 10.1007/BF01708418 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Love T., Swinney D., Walenski M., Zurif E. (2008) How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language 107(3): 203–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDaniel D., Cairns H.S., Hsu J.R. (1990) Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 1(1): 121–138. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0101_5 Google Scholar
  24. McDaniel D., Maxfield T.L. (1992) Principle B and contrastive stress. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics. Special Issue: The Development of Binding 2(4): 337–358Google Scholar
  25. McKee C. (1992) A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 2: 21–54. doi: 10.1207/s15327817la0201_2 Google Scholar
  26. McKee C., Nicol J., McDaniel D. (1993) Children’s application of binding during sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(3): 265–290. doi: 10.1080/01690969308406956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicol, J. L. (1988). Coreference processing during sentence comprehension. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Nicol J., Fodor J.D., Swinney D. (1994) Using cross-modal lexical decision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(5): 1229–1238. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1229 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicol J., Swinney D. (1989) The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 5–19. doi: 10.1007/BF01069043 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicol J., Swinney D. (2002) The psycholinguistics of anaphora. Blackwell Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicol J., Swinney D., Love T., Hald L. (2006) The on-line study of sentence comprehension: An examination of dual task paradigms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35(3): 215–231. doi: 10.1007/s10936-006-9012-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pashek G.V., Brookshire R.H. (1982) Effects of rate of speech and linguistic stress on auditory paragraph comprehension of aphasic individuals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 25: 377–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Poeck K., Pietron H.-P. (1981) The influence of stretched speech on token test performance of aphasic and right-brain damaged patients. Neuropsychologia 19: 133–136. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(81)90052-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radeau M., Morais J., Mousty P., Bertelson P. (2000) The Effect of speaking rate on the role of the uniqueness point in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 406–422. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts L., Marinis T., Felser C., Clahsen H. (2007) Antecedent priming at trace positions in children’s sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36: 175–188. doi: 10.1007/s10936-006-9038-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sag I., Wasow T. (1999) Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. CSLI, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Satterthwaite F.E. (1946) An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin 2(6): 110–114. doi: 10.2307/3002019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sekerina I.A., Stromswold K., Hestvik A. (2004) How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns?. Journal of Child Language 31(1): 123–152. doi: 10.1017/S0305000903005890 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (4th ed.) San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  40. Solan L. (1983) Pronominal reference: Child language and the theory of grammar. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, HollandGoogle Scholar
  41. Solan, L., & Ortiz, R. (1982). The development of pronouns and reflexives: Evidence from Spanish. Paper presented at the Sixth Boston University Conference on Child Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  42. Swinney D. (1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 219–227Google Scholar
  43. Swinney, D., & Love, T.(1998). Language input as a parameter on structural processing. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  44. Swinney D., Onifer W., Prather P., Hirshkowitz M. (1979) Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory & Cognition 7: 159–165Google Scholar
  45. Swinney D., Prather P. (1989) On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young children: Investigations into the development of mental modularity. In: Gorfein D. (eds) Resolving semantic ambiguity. Springer, New York, pp 225–238Google Scholar
  46. Swinney D., Zurif E., Prather P., Love T. (1996) Neurological distribution of processing operations underlying language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 8(2): 174–184. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1996.8.2.174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tallal P., Piercy M. (1973) Defects of nonverbal auditory perception in children with developmental dysphasia. Nature 241: 468–469. doi: 10.1038/241468a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tallal P., Piercy M. (1973) Developmental aphasia: Impaired rate of non-verbal processing as a function of sensory modality. Neuropsychologia 11: 389–398. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(73)90025-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tallal P., Piercy M. (1974) Developmental aphasia: Rate of auditory processing as a selective impairment of consonant perception. Neuropsychologia 12: 83–93. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(74)90030-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tallal P., Piercy M. (1975) Developmental aphasia: The perception of brief vowels and extended stop consonants. Neuropsychologia 13(1): 69–74. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(75)90049-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tauroza S., Allison D. (1990) Speech rates in British English. Applied Linguistics 11(1): 90–105. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.1.90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van der Lely H.K.J., Stollwerck L. (1997) Binding theory and grammatical specific language impairment in children. Cognition 62: 245–290. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00783-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Heuven V.J., van Zanten E. (2005) Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages. Speech Communication. Special Issue In Honour of Louis Pols 47(1–2): 87–99Google Scholar
  54. Walenski, M. (2002). Relating parsers and grammars: On the structure and real-time comprehension of English infinitival complements. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California San Diego, San Diego.Google Scholar
  55. Walenski M., Mostofsky S.H., Ullman M.T. (2007) Speeded processing of grammar and tool knowledge in Tourette’s syndrome. Neuropsychologia 45: 2447–2460. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.04.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ziegler W. (2002) Task-related factors in oral motor control: Speech and oral diadochokinesis in dysarthria and apraxia of speech. Brain and Language 80: 556–575. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2614 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Speech, Language and Hearing SciencesSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations