Developmental psycholinguistics on line methods in childrens language processing (language acquisition and language disorders) 44th edition {PRG}

Developmental Psycholinguistics


Language Acquisition and Language Disorders
(LALD)
Volumes in this series provide a forum for research contributing to theories of
language acquisition (first and second, child and adult), language learnability,
language attrition and language disorders.

Editor
Harald Clahsen

University of Essex

Lydia White

McGill University

Editorial Board
Melissa F. Bowerman

Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik,
Nijmegen

Katherine Demuth
Brown University

Wolfgang U. Dressler
Universität Wien

Nina Hyams

University of California at Los Angeles

Jürgen M. Meisel

Universität Hamburg

William O’Grady

University of Hawaii

Luigi Rizzi

University of Siena

Bonnie D. Schwartz

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Antonella Sorace

University of Edinburgh

Karin Stromswold
Rutgers University

Jürgen Weissenborn
Universität Potsdam

Frank Wijnen

Utrecht University

Mabel Rice

University of Kansas

Volume 44
Developmental Psycholinguistics. On-line methods in children’s language
processing
Edited by Irina A. Sekerina, Eva M. Fernández and Harald Clahsen


Developmental Psycholinguistics
On-line methods in children’s language processing

Edited by

Irina A. Sekerina
City University New York

Eva M. Fernández
City University New York

Harald Clahsen
University of Essex

John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Developmental psycholinguistics : on-line methods in children's language processing /
edited by Irina A. Sekerina, Eva M. Fernández, Harald Clahsen.
p. cm. (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, issn 0925-0123 ; v. 44)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Language acquisition--Data processing. 2. Language acquisition--Research-Methodology. I. Sekerina, I. A. (Irina A.), 1961- II. Fernández, Eva M. III.
Clahsen, Harald.
P118.3.D487

2008

401'.930285--dc22

2007038990

isbn 978 90 272 5304 0 (Hb; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 5305 7 (Pb; alk. paper)

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any

other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa


Table of contents

Introduction
Irina A. Sekerina, Eva M. Fernández and Harald Clahsen
Listofcontributors
Behavioralmethodsforinvestigatingmorphological
andsyntacticprocessinginchildren
Harald Clahsen

vii
xvii

1

Event-relatedbrainpotentialsasawindowtochildren’s
languageprocessing:Fromsyllablestosentences
Claudia Männel and Angela D. Friederici

29

Usingeyemovementsasadevelopmentalmeasure
withinpsycholinguistics
John C. Trueswell

73

Lookingwhilelistening:Usingeyemovementstomonitor
spokenlanguagecomprehensionbyinfantsandyoungchildren
Anne Fernald, Renate Zangl, Ana Luz Portillo
and Virginia A. Marchman

97

Whatlurksbeneath:Syntacticprimingduringlanguage
comprehensioninpreschoolers(andadults)
Jesse Snedeker and Malathi Thothathiri

137

Languageacquisitionresearch.Apeekatthepast:
Aglimpseintothefuture
Helen Smith Cairns

169

Index

187



Introduction
IrinaA.Sekerina,EvaM.FernándezandHaraldClahsen

Thestudyofchildlanguageoccupiesauniqueplaceinresearchonchildren’scognitivedevelopment.Thiscomesasnosurprise,aslanguageisquiteclosetothe

coreofwhatitmeanstobehuman.Childrensuccessfullylearntheirnativelanguageinarelativelyshorttimeandwithouttheneedforformalinstruction.Languageisalsothemainvehiclebywhichwelearnaboutotherpeople’sthoughts;
therefore,cognitiveandlinguisticaspectsofhumandevelopmentmustbeintimatelyrelated.
Traditionalmethodsofinquiryinmodernlinguisticsandcognitivepsychologyhaveenabledustolearnagreatdealabouthowchildrenacquirelanguageand
thestagestheygothroughontheirwaytoadultcompetence(Pinker1995).But
empiricalstudiesonhowchildren’slanguagedevelopspublishedoverthelast30
or40yearshaveastrikingcharacteristicincommon:theytreatlanguageacquisitionasaprocessthatinvolvesbuildingastaticdatabasecalledthe grammar,tothe
exclusionofthemechanismsthatoperateinrealtimewhenthechildproducesor
comprehends language. The classic Competence/Performance distinction (e.g.,
Chomsky1964)providesausefulframeworkfordiscussingthisproblem:while
investigationsofchildlanguageacquisitionaregroundedontheassumptionthat
knowledgeoflanguageisputtoworkviaasetofprocessingmechanisms(performance),theprimaryconcerninacquisitionresearchhasbeenwithhowthatprincipledknowledge(competence)develops.McDaniel,McKeeandCairns(1996),
intheirseminalbookonassessingchildlanguage,describedhowtheknowledge
thatconstitutescompetencehadupuntilthenbeenextensivelystudied,andthey
documented the predominance of off-line experimental methods, that is, techniquesthatpromptedchildrentoactoutsentences,answerquestionsorprovide
grammaticalityjudgments,responsesthatcouldthenbecomparedtothoseprovidedbyadultsorbyolderoryoungerchildren.Armedwithempiricalevidence
ofthatsort,thefieldwasabletobegintoaddresssomeofthemostbasicquestions
aboutlanguagedevelopmentandtoformulateexplicitdescriptionsaboutthenatureofdevelopmentalsequences.


viii IrinaA.Sekerina,EvaM.FernándezandHaraldClahsen

Theeraoftraditionalresearchonlanguageacquisition,capturedsowellin
thevolumebyMcDanieletal.(1996),hasgrownintoamatureareaofinquiry
whoseinsightshaveledtoarichunderstandingaboutthedevelopmentoflinguisticcompetence.Buttimeshavechanged,asweenteranewerathattakesa
“dynamicprocessingapproach”tothestudyoflanguagedevelopment(Trueswell
thisvolume).Wearewitnessingagrowinginterestinthemechanismsthatunderlieproductionandcomprehensionabilitiesinchildren,ashiftfromafocus
oncompetencetoafocusonperformance.Thisenterprisehasbeensignificantly
facilitatedbyrecentadvancesintechnologiesthatpermittrackingbehaviorata
very fine temporal resolution, methods that have been successfully and extensivelyappliedtostudylanguageprocessinginadults.Suchnewtechniques,which
wewillcollectivelyrefertoas on-line,measurereactiontimes,trackeyegazes,

examinebrainactivity.Someofthesemethods,likeself-pacedreading,self-paced
listening,andcross-modalprimingbenefitfromhavingalong-standingtradition
in the study of adult language processing. Others, like eyetracking and neurophysiological techniques (Henderson & Ferreira 2004; Trueswell & Tanenhaus
2005;Carreiras&Clifton2004),arenewerbutquitepowerfuladditionstotheexperimentaltoolkit,particularlybecausetheyprovidethemeanstostudyingreat
detailveryearlyphasesofprocessing,andbecausetheyrelylittleonconscious
attentiontoormetalinguisticawarenessoflinguisticstimuli.
On-line methods have made their way into language acquisition research
withatrulyamazingspeed.Amere10yearsago,asdocumentedbyCecileMcKee
(1996) in her chapter on on-line methods in child language research, reaction
time methods (cross-modal priming in particular) dominated the scene, neuroimaginghardlyhavingapresence.EyetrackingwasfullyabsentfromMcKee’s
chapter.
When applied to the study of child language, on-line methods permit researchers to observe the interaction of grammar principles (competence) and
behaviorallimitationsand/orpreferences(performance),withagreaterlevelof
detailandagreaternumberofperspectivesthaneverbefore.Wecannowinvestigatehowchildrencoordinatemultiplesourcesofinformationinrealtimeand
arriveatsentencemeaningusinginformationextractednotonlyfromthewords
and structure of the sentence but also from the nonlinguistic context. The applicationofon-linemethodsalsomakesitpossibletotestchildren’sperformance
limits,toseparateperformancefromcompetenceinassessingchildren’sstaticand
developinglinguisticknowledge,anapproachthatpermitsbuildingandtesting
theoriesabouthowchildren’slanguageprocessingcontributestotheiracquisition
oflanguage(Fodor1998).
Thegrowingimportanceofon-linemethodsinchildlanguageresearchwas
evidentattheforumthatbroughtthisvolumeintobeing,theWorkshop on On-




Introduction

Line Methods in Children’s Language ProcessingheldattheGraduateCenterofthe
City University of New York in March 2006. Workshop participants discussed

andevaluatedquestionsaboutthedesign,methodology,ethics,andpracticalities
ofconductingsuchstudieswithchildren,andspeculatedonfuturedirectionsfor
theemergingfieldofdevelopmental psycholinguistics(Trueswellthisvolume)and
itssubfield,developmental cognitive neuroscience(Männel&Friedericithisvolume).Inassemblingthisvolume,weaskeddistinguishedresearchers–pioneers
intheapplicationtochildlanguageresearchofarangeofon-linemethods–to
provideoverviewsonhowchangingresearchparadigmsareadvancingourunderstanding of language processing in children. While the overarching theme
ofthisvolumeismethodologicalinnature,thecollectionofchaptersachievesa
broadcoveragealsooflinguisticanddevelopmentalareasbyincludingresearch
onbothcomprehensionandproduction;byaddressingsound-,word-andsentence-levelrepresentations;andbydiscussingaspectsofacquisitionthroughout
theentirespanofearlychildhood,frominfancytotheelementaryschoolyears.
The chapters in the volume are dedicated to reaction time methods (Clahsen);
eyetrackinginitstwomainforms,free-viewing(Trueswell;Snedeker&Thothathiri) and looking-while-listening (Fernald, Zangl, Portillo & Marchman); and
event-relatedpotentials(ERPs;Männel&Friederici).Functionalneuroimaging
(fMRI),magnetoencephalography(MEG)andopticalimaginghaveyettomake
theirwayintodevelopmentalpsycholinguisticsand,therefore,arenotrepresentedinthevolume.
Wehavechosentogroupandorderthechaptersintermsofthemethodsthey
focus on, starting with methods examining behavioral responses and followed
bymethodsanalyzingevent-relatedpotentialsandmethodstrackingeyegazes.
Closing the volume, Chapter 6 provides a historical backdrop and speculates
aboutthefutureofthefield.
Chapter1,“Behavioralmethodsforinvestigatingmorphologicalandsyntacticprocessinginchildren”(HaraldClahsen),describesandevaluatesexperiments
usingresponse-timemeasurestoexamineprocessesinvolvedinchildren’sprocessingofsentencesandinflectedwords.ThechapterbuildsonCecileMcKee’s
documentation(1998)ofon-linemethodsinchildlanguageresearchandpresentsanupdatedoverviewfocusingontechniquesthatClahsen,Felser,andthe
research group at the University of Essex have used to examine how children
process complex syntactic phenomena and morphologically complex words in
real time. The chapter introduces five criteria against which the various methods for studying children’s on-line language processing can be assessed. These
criteriaare:(a)timesensitivityofthetechnique,(b)naturalnessofstimulipresentation,(c)childappropriatenessofthetechnique,(d)linguisticversatility,and
(e) filed compatibility. It then provides an overview of behavioral tasks for in-

ix

x

IrinaA.Sekerina,EvaM.FernándezandHaraldClahsen

vestigatingchildren’sgrammaticalprocessinginproductionandcomprehension.
Threeexperimentaltechniquesarepresentedindetail:speeded production,used
toexamineautomaticprocessesinvolvedinthespokenproductionofinflected
words;self-paced listening,employedinexaminingchildren’sprocessingoftemporarilyambiguoussentences,specificallyrelative-clauseattachmentpreferences;
andcross-modal primingusedtodeterminewhetherdislocatedconstituents(e.g.,
frontedwh-phrases)arereactivatedatcorrespondinggappositionsduringprocessing.DespitetheavailabilityofERPsandeyetracking,behavioralmethodssuch
astheonesoutlinedbyClahsenstillhaveanimportantplaceindevelopmental
psycholinguistics,asthesetechniquescanbeappliedtostudyarangeofcomplex
andinterestinglanguagephenomena,providingtime-sensitivemeasuresthatrequireminimaltechnicalequipment.
Chapter2,“Event-relatedbrainpotentialsasawindowtochildren’slanguage
processing:Fromsyllablestosentences”(ClaudiaMännelandAngelaFriederici),
provides an overview of the comprehensive research program to study neurocognitionoflanguage,corticalnetworksandcognitivefunctions,andlanguage
acquisitionusingERPsattheInstituteofNeuropsychologyoftheMax-PlanckInstituteforHumanCognitiveandBrainScienceinLeipzig.AngelaFriederici,head
oftheInstitute,isaleadingresearcherinapplyingmeasuresofbrainactivityin
adultsentenceprocessingandhasproposedaninfluentialneurocognitivemodel
oflanguageanditsextensiontotheareaoflanguageacquisition,whichsheherself
callsthe developmental cognitive neuroscience of language(Friederici2000,2002).
Intheirchapter,MännelandFriedericidescribethesuccessfulapplicationof
ERPmethodstostudylanguageacquisitionininfantsfrombirthtothreeyears.
ThechapterdescribesfiveERPcomponentscloselylinkedtolanguage,andhow
theyreflecttheprocessingofphonological,semantic,andsyntacticinformation
inprogressivelyolderchildren,comparedtoadults.MännelandFriedericioutlineERPresearchonanumberoflandmarksofchildlanguageacquisitionand
identifyneuralcorrelatesfordevelopmentalstagesinauditorylanguagecomprehension.TheresearchfindingssummarizedinChapter2include(a)workonsyllableandstressdiscriminationininfantsusingthepassiveoddballparadigm,(b)
investigationsoftheN400componentasareflexofphonotacticknowledge,early

word learning and knowledge of selectional restrictions for verbs, (c) research
measuringsensitivitytosentence-levelprosodiccueswiththeClosurePositive
Shift(CPS),and(d)studieselicitinganadult-likebiphasicELAN-P600componentinresponsetophrasestructureviolationsatthesentencelevel.Männeland
FriedericidrawthechaptertoaclosebydemonstratinghowERPcomponentscan
beusedtoidentifyinfantsatriskforlaterdevelopinglanguageproblems,suchas
SpecificLanguageImpairment(SLI)anddyslexia.Thetechniquethereforecon-




Introduction

stitutesanewdiagnostictoolforveryearlyidentificationofchildrenwhowould
benefitfromintervention.
Chapter3,“Usingeyemovementsasadevelopmentalmeasurewithinpsycholinguistics” (John Trueswell), is the first of the three chapters dedicated to
eyetracking. Trueswell describes and evaluates free-viewing eyetracking – also
knownasthevisualworldparadigmandtheworld-situatedeye-gazeparadigm–
tostudysentence-level comprehension intoddlersandpreschool-agechildren.
JohnTrueswellandhisteamattheInstituteforResearchinCognitiveScienceat
theUniversityofPennsylvaniawerethefirsttoadaptthismethodtoinvestigate
how5-year-oldchildrencomprehendsyntacticallyambiguoussentencesandhow
sentence processing mechanisms develop (Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill & Logrip
1999).Trueswellbeginshischapterwithahistoryofeyetrackinginadultresearch
andcontinueswithatechnicaldescriptionofhead-mounted,remoteand“poor
man’s”eyetrackers;anexplanationofcalibrationprocedures;andremarksabout
eyetracking data analysis. Trueswell then describes three linking assumptions
criticalformakingvalidinferencesaboutwhatchildren’seyegazepatternsreveal
about the development of sentence processing mechanisms, and, in particular,
referentialprocessing.
Inasecondpartofhischapter,Trueswelldiscussesrecentfindingsfromearly

oculomotordevelopment,visualsearch,andneurocomputationmodelsofvisual
attention,allofwhichareinformativewithrespecttounderstandingcharacteristicsofspatialattentionfrominfancyuntiltheageof3.Suchdiscussionprovidesa
solidbackdropforTrueswell’sreviewoftheexperimentalevidenceaccumulated
overthepastdecadesaboutusingeyemovementstoinferhowchildrenresolve
prepositionalphraseattachmentambiguities,pronominalreference,andquantifierscope,aswellastheinfluenceofdiscoursefactorsinreferentialcommunicationtasks.
Chapter4,“Howinfantslookastheylisten:Usingeyemovementstomonitor
on-linecomprehensionbyveryyounglanguagelearners”(AnneFernald,Renate
Zangl,AnaLuzPortilloandVirginiaMarchman),takesonacomplementaryapproachtothefoundationalchapterbyTrueswell,walkingthereaderthrougha
detaileddescriptionofthelistening-while-lookingparadigmpioneeredbyAnne
Fernald,theleadingauthorofthischapter,andtheStanfordUniversityCenter
for Infant Studies. Listening-while-looking (LWL) is a version of free-viewing
eyetrackingadaptedforusewithinfants.Thetechniquewasdevelopedoutofa
desiretoovercomeanumberofshortcomingsofcommonlyusedoff-linemethodstoexaminelanguagecomprehensionbyinfants,suchasdiarystudies,parental-report checklists of vocabulary growth, experiments on word learning, and
early versions of the preferential-looking paradigm. These methods do not tap
intothereal-timepropertiesofspokenlanguageandreveallittleaboutthechild’s

xi


xii IrinaA.Sekerina,EvaM.FernándezandHaraldClahsen

developing efficiency in processing continuous speech during comprehension.
TheLWLmethodinvolvesvideotapinginfants’eyemovementsandcodingthese
atthefinestlevelofresolutionpossibleinrelationtorelevantpointsinthespeech
signal.Thetechniquecanbeusedtocollecteyemovementdatafrominfantsas
youngas14months,comparableinreliabilityandprecisiontodatafromadult
studiesthatrequiretechnicallymuchmoresophisticatedeyetrackingtechnology.
ThechapterfocusesontheLWLparadigmatafunctionallevelanddiscussesthe
logicofeachstepintheprocedure,frompreparingandrunninganexperiment
tocodingeyemovementsandanalyzingthedataforseveraldifferentmeasuresof

efficiencyinspokenwordrecognitionininfants.
Chapter 5, “What lurks beneath: Syntactic priming during language comprehension in preschoolers (and adults)” (Jesse Snedeker and Malathi Thothathiri)–thethirdandfinalcontributiononeyetracking–describeshowtousea
“poorman’s”free-viewingeyetrackerintestingaparticulartheoreticalproblem
in the area of language acquisition, i.e., the nature of young children’s abstract
grammaticalrepresentations.SnedekerandThothathiriexploitthephenomenon
of structural priming in production, well known in adult psycholinguistics, to
study structural priming during spoken language comprehension in 3- and 4year-oldchildren.
SnedekerandThothathiri’sstartingpointisabriefsummaryofthreeprior
experimentsthatextendtoyoungchildrenbasicfindingsinstructuralprimingin
adultproduction.Thislineofresearchsuggeststhatchildrenolderthan4.5show
robustevidenceforabstractstructuralrepresentationsofbothdativeandtransitiveconstructions,while3-year-oldsandyounger4-year-oldsdonot.Snedeker
andThothathirisetouttotestthehypothesisthatevenyoungerpreschoolersdo
indeedconstructabstractstructuralrepresentations,seekingevidenceofthisin
their eye movement patterns. The remainder of the chapter reports a series of
threeexperimentsemployingthe“poorman’seyetracker”toexaminestructural
priminginsentenceswithverbssuchasgiveandhand,whichlicensedativealternation(VNPNPvs.VNPPP).Asexpected,eyemovementpatternsforyoung
4-years-oldsand3-yearolds–asforadultsand4-year-olds–showaneffectnot
onlyoflexicalwithin-verbprimingbut,critically,alsoofabstractbetween-verb
primingfordativesentences.
Thefinalchapterofthevolume,“Languageacquisitionresearch.Apeekatthe
past:Aglimpseintothefuture”(HelenSmithCairns),reviewsarangeoflandmarkstudiesinlanguageacquisitionresearch,providingahistoricalperspective
thatpromotesabetterunderstandingofthesignificanceoftheshiftinfocusfrom
competencetowardperformance,fromoff-linetoon-lineparadigms.Cairnstells
thestoryofhowthe (still young)field of researchonlanguage acquisitionhas
evolved,fromearlyfieldworkstudiesfocusingontheregularitiesofspeechpro-




Introduction xiii

ducedbychildrenthroughstudiesemployingsophisticatedoff-linetechniquesto
probeunderlyinglinguisticknowledge,thoughstudiestakingadvantageofonlinetechniquestounderstandperformancemechanismsinchildren.Thechapter
addressesthecomplexityoftherelationshipbetweentheoryandpractice.Theorieshavedrivenexperimentalinnovation,whileatthesametimetheavailability
ofexperimentaltechniquespromotesthedevelopmentofnewtheories.
Cairns discusses the early interest on the problem of how an underlying
grammaticalsystemisacquired.Therealizationthatthespeechproducedbychildrenvastlyunder-representswhattheymightknowledtoashiftinintereston
howimplicitknowledgeoflanguagedevelops,anundertakingsustainedbythe
increasedsophisticationoftheoriesofgrammar.
Cairnsthenprovidesabriefhistoryofhowpsycholinguisticsdevelopedinto
aripeareaofinquiryexploringthemechanismsemployedintheproductionand
perceptionoflanguageinadults.Asforchildren,Cairnsnotesthatthepreoccupationwithcompetenceinlanguageacquisitionresearch,alongwithaconcern
tocontrol“performancefactors”(suchaseffectsofmemoryortaskdemands),
resultedinapaucityofstudiesofchildren’sperformance.
But,asthisvolumerepresents,andCairnsdiscussesatlengthinherchapter,
newquestionsareemergingthatdirectlyaddressthenatureofchildren’slanguage
processing.Cairnsreviewsarangeofstudies–somediscussedelsewhereinthis
volume, some presented at the Workshop, and others sampled from the literature–thatareaddressingquestionsaboutwhetherchildrenconstructrepresentationsthatresemblethoseconstructedbyadults,abouthowchildrenreviseinitial
parses,abouthowchildren’smemoryspanslimittheirperformance,abouthow
cross-linguisticresearchisidentifyinguniversaltendenciesinchildlanguageprocessing,andabouthowsomeofthesetechniquescanbeemployedfortheearly
detectionoflanguagedisorders.
Toconcludeherchapter,Cairnsofferssomespeculationsaboutwhatthefutureholdsforresearchinchildlanguagedevelopment,echoinganumberofthe
othercontributionstothisvolumewhenstressingtheneedformultipleandcomplementarymethodologicalapproaches.Progressiscalledforinparticularwith
respecttothequestionofhowchildrenoperateoninputtocreatenewgrammars,
onhowadult-likeprocessingskillsdevelop,andontheunderlyingneuralorganization.Wehopethatthisvolumewillleadtoinnovationintheseandrelated
questions.
Wecannotunderstatetheimportanceofthesourceforthisvolume,theWorkshop on On-Line Methods in Children’s Language Processing held at the GraduateCenteroftheCityUniversityofNewYork,March22–23,2006.Theabstract
proceedingsforthepapersandposterspresentedattheWorkshoparepresently
available at The first joint scien-

xiv IrinaA.Sekerina,EvaM.FernándezandHaraldClahsen

tific gathering specifically dedicated to the emerging field of experimental developmental psycholinguistics, the Workshop gathered specialists in language
acquisition, psycholinguistics, neuroscience, and speech-language pathology.
Ostensibly, the objective was to provide a forum for discussing the advantages
andshortcomingsofusingon-linemethodstostudylanguageprocessinginchildren,rangingfrombehavioralmethodstoparadigmsinvolvingeyetracking,to
neurophysiologicaltechniques.Beyonddiscussingmethodology,theWorkshop
initiateddialogbetweenaninternationalandinterdisciplinarygroupofscholars,
whowereaffordedtheopportunitytoreflectonpastlandmarksofresearchinlanguageacquisition,summarizethecurrentstateofemergingresearchonlanguage
processinginchildren,andengageinlivelydebatesaboutfuturedirections.
Thecurrentvolumeofferssixpaperslooselybasedontalksdeliveredatthe
Workshop. We have asked the authors to concentrate on methodological matters,buttheyhavegonebeyondthatdirectiveandproducedchaptersthatserve
asmorethanintroductionstoexperimentalparadigms,sincetheyaddresssome
of the complex theoretical debates as well as provide a solid overview of child
languagedevelopment.
Wearehappytotakethisopportunitytoexpressourgratitudetothosewho
madetheWorkshopandthisvolumepossible.
First,wethankthe120presentersandattendeesfromtheUnitedStates,Europe,JapanandAustraliafortheirthought-provokingpapersandposters.
Second, we thank the co-directors of the Annual CUNY Human Sentence
ProcessingConference,JanetDeanFodorandDianeC.Bradley,forenthusiastically supporting this project andsharing the CUNY Conferenceinfrastructure
withus.
InorganizingtheWorkshopandeditingthevolume,wewereassistedbya
committeeofcommittedreviewersthatincludedJenniferArnold,HollyBranigan,
PatriciaBrooks,EdwardGibson,JeffreyLidz,EricPakulak,JulieSedivy,Valery
Shafer,MatthewTraxler,andVirginiaValian.Wewishtothankthem,alongwith
allthecontributingauthors,forsharingtheirexpertiseandkeepingupwithour
tightdeadlines.
WewouldalsoliketoexpressourgratitudetoLydiaWhite,Co-Editorofthe
Language Acquisition and Language Disorders series, Kees Vaes and the John

BenjaminsPublishingCompany,forencouragementandassistanceatallstages
ofproduction.
Finally,aredeeplygratefultotheNationalScienceFoundationforitsgenerousfinancialsupportofthisWorkshopthroughitsChildResearchInitiativegrant
#0518438.(TheopinionsexpressedintheWorkshoparethoseoftheorganizers,
presentersandattendeesanddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheNationalScienceFoundationoranyothergovernmentalorganization.)




Introduction xv

References
Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C., Jr. (Eds.). (2004). The on-line study of sentence comprehension:
Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond. Hove:PsychologyPress.
Chomsky,N.(1964).[Thedevelopmentofgrammarinchildlanguage]:Discussion.InU.Bellugi&R.Brown(Eds.),The acquisition of language,Vol.1:Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 29(1),35–42.
Fodor,J.D.(1998).Parsingtolearn.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(3),339–374.
Friederici,A.D.(2000).Thedevelopmentalcognitiveneuroscienceoflanguage:Anewresearch
domain.Brain and Language, 71,65–68.
Friederici,A.D.(2002).Towardsaneuralbasisofauditorysentenceprocessing.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2),78–84.
Henderson,J.M.&F.Ferreira(Eds.).(2004).The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye
movements and the visual world.Hove:PsychologyPress.
McDaniel,D.,McKee,C.,&Cairns,H.S.(Eds.).(1996).Methods for assessing children’s syntax.
CambridgeMA:TheMITPress.
McKee,C.(1996).On-linemethods.InD.McDaniel,C.McKee,&H.S.Cairns(Eds.),Methods
for assessing children’s syntax(pp.189–212).Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.
Pinker,S.(1995).Languageacquisition.InL.R.Gleitman&M.Liberman(Eds.),An invitation
to cognitive science, Vol.1.: Language(2nded.,pp.135–182).CambridgeMA:TheMIT
Press.
Trueswell,J.C.&Tanenhaus,M.K.(Eds.).(2005).Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions.Cambridge

MA:TheMITPress.
Trueswell,J.C.,Sekerina,I.A.,Hill,N.,&Logrip.M.(1999).TheKindergarten-patheffect:
Studyingon-linesentenceprocessinginyoungchildren.Cognition, 73,89–134.



List of contributors

Helen Smith Cairns
QueensCollegeandGraduateCenter
CityUniversityofNewYork
65-30KissenaBlvd.
Flushing,NY11367-1597
Tel:718-997-2870
Fax:718-997-2873


Angela D. Friederici
MaxPlanckInstituteforHuman
CognitiveandBrainSciences
Stephanstr.1a
04103Leipzig,Germany
Tel.:+49/0341/99-40112
Fax:+49/0341/99-40113


Harald Clahsen
UniversityofEssex
Colchester,CO43SQ,UK
Tel:+44/1206/87-2228

Fax:+44/1206/87-2198


Claudia Männel
MaxPlanckInstituteforHuman
CognitiveandBrainSciences
Stephanstr.1a
04103Leipzig,Germany
Tel.:+49/0341/99-40112
Fax:+49/0341/99-40113


Anne Fernald
StanfordUniversity
Stanford,CA94305
Tel:650-725-2400
Fax:650-725-5699

Eva M. Fernández
QueensCollegeandGraduateCenter
CityUniversityofNewYork
65-30KissenaBlvd.
Flushing,NY11367-1597
Tel:718-997-2867
Fax:718-997-2873


Virginia A. Marchman
StanfordUniversity
Stanford,CA94305

Tel:650-725-2400
Fax:650-725-5699

Ana Luz Portillo
StanfordUniversity
Stanford,CA94305
Tel:650-725-2400
Fax:650-725-5699



xviiiListofcontributors

Irina A. Sekerina
CollegeofStatenIslandandGraduate
Center,CityUniversityofNewYork
2800VictoryBlvd.
StatenIsland,NY10314-6609
Tel:718-982-3760
Fax:718-982-4114

Jesse Snedeker
HarvardUniversity
WilliamJamesHall,33KirklandStreet
Cambridge,MA02138-2044
Tel:617-495-3873
Fax:617-384-7944

Marathi Thothathiri
HarvardUniversity

WilliamJamesHall,33KirklandStreet
Cambridge,MA02138-2044
Tel:617-384-8357
Fax:617-384-7944


John C. Trueswell
UniversityofPennsylvania
3401WalnutStreet,Room302C
Philadelphia,PA19104-6228
Tel:215-898-0911
Fax:215-573-9247

Renate Zangl
StanfordUniversity
Stanford,CA94305
Tel:650-725-2400
Fax:650-725-5699



chapter1

Behavioral methods for investigating
morphological and syntactic processing
in children
HaraldClahsen

Whilemostfirstlanguageacquisitionresearchtodatehasfocusedonthedevelopmentofchildren’slinguisticcompetence,anumberofresearchteamshave
alsoinvestigatedthemechanismschildrenemploytoprocesssentence-leveland

word-levelinformationinrealtime,byapplyingexperimentaltechniquesfamiliarfromtheadultprocessingliteraturetochildren.Thischapterpresentsan
overviewofdifferentkindsofbehavioraltasksforinvestigatingbothmorphologicalandsyntacticprocessinginchildrenfocusingonthreetechniquesthat
wehaveexploredinourownresearchonchildren’son-linelanguageprocessing:
self-pacedlistening,cross-modalpriming,andspeededproduction.

1.

Introduction

In1996,CecileMcKeepresentedanoverviewoftheverysmallnumberofon-line
techniquessuitableforstudyingsyntacticprocessinginchildrenthatwereavailableatthetime.Thepurposeofthischapteristoprovideanupdatedoverview.My
focuswillbeonchildren’sgrammaticalprocessingandondifferentkindsofbehavioral tasksforinvestigatingmorphologicalandsyntacticprocessinginchildren.
Languageprocessingcanbeconceivedofasasequenceofoperations,each
ofwhichtransformsalinguisticrepresentationofastimulusintoalinguisticrepresentationofadifferentform.Researchintolanguageprocessingexamineshow
linguisticrepresentationsareconstructedin real timeduringthecomprehension
and production of language and how different sources of information become
availableovertime.Tostudytheprocessesinvolvedinproductionandcomprehension as they occur, time-sensitive, so-called on-line, measures of language
processingarerequired.Theadvantagesofusingon-lineexperimentaltechniques
are that they allow us to tap into automatic unconscious processes involved in


2

HaraldClahsen

languagecomprehensionandproductionandthattheyminimizeparticipants’relianceonexplicitormetalinguisticknowledge.Therearetwobasictypesoftimesensitivemeasuresavailabletoexaminelanguageprocessing:behavioralmeasures
(e.g.,comprehensionresponsetimesandproductionlatencies)andphysiological
measures(e.g.,event-relatedbrainpotentials(ERPs)andeyemovements).Asthe
latterwillbepresentedinotherchaptersofthisbook(seeMännel&Friedericifor
ERPs,andTrueswellforeyemovementexperiments),Iwillonlybeconcerned

withbehavioralmeasuresoflanguageprocessinghere.
Beforepresentinganoverviewofbehavioralexperimentalmethods,itisnecessarytoestablishsomecriteriaagainstwhichthevariousmethodscanbeevaluated.Thefirstcriterionconcernsthetime-sensitivityofatechniqueandasksat
which point in time during language processing a particular measure is taken.
Clearly,ifatechniquemeasuresresponsesattheoffsetofastimulus,e.g.,atthe
endofasentence,itisnotparticularlyrevealingforunderstandingthemomentby-momentcharacteristicsofprocessesoccurringduringtheprocessingofthat
sentence.Thesecondcriterioniswhetherthestimuliarepresentedin a natural
wayallowingparticipantstoprocessthemusingnormallisteningorreading.As
we will see, this is particularly difficult to achieve for behavioral experimental
tasks.Thethirdquestionweaskiswhethertheexperimentaltaskassignedtoparticipantsischild-appropriate.Sometechniquesrequireadualtask,e.g.,monitoringforavisualtargetwhilelisteningtoasentence,whichmaybetoochallenging
foryoungchildren.Thefourthcriterioniswhetheratechniqueis linguistically
versatile,i.e.,applicabletoarangeofdifferentlinguisticphenomena.Finally,we
willaskwhetheratechniqueisfield-compatible.Thisreferstopracticalconsiderationsinrunningexperimentswithchildren.Insomecircumstances,forexample,itisimpossibletobringchildrenintothelab.Insuchcases,itwouldbe
advantageousifatechniquerequiredminimalequipmentsothatchildrencanbe
testedattheirschoolsortheirhomes.
Intheremainderofthischapter,Iwillconsiderbehavioralmethodsfirstfor
studyingon-linesentencecomprehensionandsecondforinvestigatinglanguage
production.Myfocuswillbeontheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthreetechniquesthatwehaveexploredinourownresearchonchildren’son-linelanguage
processing: (i) the self-paced listening task to examine children’s comprehensionofambiguoussentences;(ii)thecross-modalpictureprimingtasktostudy
children’s comprehension of syntactic dependencies, specificallywh-dependencies, and (iii) the speeded production task to investigate processes involved in
children’sproductionofmorphologicallycomplexwords.




Behavioralmethods

2.

Behavioral methods for studying grammatical comprehension

Theadultpsycholinguisticliteratureoffersarangeofbehavioralmethodsforinvestigatingon-linegrammaticalcomprehension,butonlyasmallnumberoftechniqueshavebeenusedwithchildren:wordmonitoringduringsentencecomprehension,proberecognition,speededgrammaticalityjudgment,self-pacedreading
andlistening,andcross-modalpriming.Whatiscommontothesetechniquesis
thattheycanbeusedwithchildrenfromabout4or5yearsofageonwardsto
studyrelativelycomplexsyntacticphenomena.Thestudyoflanguageprocessing
ininfantsrequiresdifferenttechniquesmeasuring,forexample,preferentiallooking and head-turning patterns (see Fernald, Zangl, Portillo, & Marchman this
volume). Here, I will first briefly present word monitoring, probe recognition,
andspeededgrammaticalityjudgment,andthendiscussinsomemoredetailselfpacedreading,self-pacedlisteningandcross-modalpriming.

2.1

Wordmonitoring

TylerandMarslen-Wilson(1981)wereamongthefirsttoinvestigateon-linesentencecomprehensioninchildren.Theyusedataskinwhichparticipantsmonitor
linguisticstimuli,e.g.,auditorilypresentedsentencesassuchasthosein(1),fora
particulartargetword,e.g.,thewordhand.Theparticipant’sresponse,usuallyeitherabuttonpressoravocalresponse,indicatesthattheparticipanthasnotedthe
occurrenceofthetargetinthesentence.Word-monitoringtimesaremeasured
fromthetarget’soccurrenceinthesentencetotheparticipant’sresponse.
 (1) a. Johnhadtogobackhome.Hehadfallenoutoftheswingandhadhurt
 hishand ontheground.


 b. Johnhadtositontheshop.Hehadlivedoutofthekitchenandhad 
 enjoyedhishandinthemud



 c. TheonsittoptohadJohn.Helivedhadandkitchentheouthisofhad
 enjoyedhandmudinthe

TylerandMarslen-Wilson(1981)appliedthistechniqueto5-,7-,and10-yearoldchildren‚andfoundthatthechildren’sabilitytodetectawordtargetshowed

thesamepatternofdegradationasitdidinadultswiththeshortestmonitoring
timesforcontextuallyappropriatesentences(1a),followedbycontextuallyinappropriatesentences(1b),andsemanticallyandsyntacticallyanomaloussentences
(1c).Thisfindingwastakentoindicatethatchildrenandadultsanalyzesentences
inessentiallythesameway,i.e.,childrenlikeadultsusecontextinformationto
constructinterpretativerepresentationson-linewhichinturnfacilitatestherec-

3




HaraldClahsen

ognitionprocessofthetargetwords.Inthecategorymonitoringtask,however,in
whichchildrenhadtomonitorthesentencesforamemberofaparticularsemanticcategory(e.g.,‘Monitorforbodyparts’),the5-year-oldsdifferedfromtheolderchildreninthatthefacilitatingeffectofcontextuallyappropriatesentences(1a)
wassmallerthanforthe7-and10-year-olds.TylerandMarslen-Wilson(1981)
attributedthisfindingtotheadditionalprocessingcostassociatedwithsemanticattributematching–possiblyinconjunctionwithamoregeneralproblemwith
utilizingcertaintypesofpragmaticcuesduringsentencecomprehension.
TylerandMarslen-Wilson’s(1981)word-monitoringtaskallowstheresearchertoexaminetheroleofdifferentkindsofcontextualinformationforwordrecognition.Thetaskprovidesatime-sensitivemeasureofwordrecognitionincontext
andallowslistenerstoprocesstheauditorilypresentedsentencesinanormalway.
However,asMcKee(1996)pointedout,adisadvantageofthistechniqueisthat
only a limited range of relations between target words and their host material
canbestudiedwiththistechnique.Itis,forexample,hardtoseehowcoreference
relationsandotherkindsofsyntacticdependenciescouldbeexaminedwiththis
technique.

2.2

Proberecognition

Intheproberecognitiontask,participantshearorreadasentence.Atsomepoint,
thepresentationofthesentenceisstoppedandparticipantsareaskedtodecide
whetheravisuallyorauditorilypresentedtargetword(‘probe’)hadoccurredin
theprecedinglinguisticmaterial.Responsetimesaremeasuredfromtheonset
oftheprobeitemtothebeginningoftheparticipant’svocalresponseorbutton
press.Severalresearchershaveusedthistasktoexaminedifferentkindsofsyntacticdependenciesinadultsentencecomprehension(Bever&McElree1988;McElree&Bever1989;MacDonald1989;Bever&Sanz1997).Consider,forexample,
sentencessuchasthosein(2)fromMcElreeandBever(1989):
 (2) a. Thedazedcabbiewhodrovethebeat-uptaxiwasresented(P1)
 constantly(P2).
   DAZED



 b. Thedazedcabbiewhodrovethebeat-uptaxiwasresentful(P1)
 constantly(P2).
  DAZED

P1andP2indicatethepointsatwhichtheprobeitemsappeared.McElreeand
Beverdidnotfindanydifferencebetween(2a)and(2b)atP1,butattheendof
the sentence (P2), response times were significantly shorter for (2a) than (2b).




Behavioralmethods

Proberecognitiontimesareknowntoyieldfasterresponsetimesfortargetwords
thatwererecentlyperceivedthanforthosethatarefurtherawayfromtheendof
thesentence.Giventheassumptionthatpassivesentencessuchas(2a)contain
asyntacticgap of the dislocatedobject, the shorterproberecognitiontimes to

DAZEDin(2a)havebeeninterpretedasarecencyeffect,duetothereactivation
ofthedislocatedphrasethe dazed cabbieafterresented.
Mazuka (1998) applied this technique to groups of English and Japanesespeaking children as young as 4. Children had to listen to sentences involving
main and subordinate clauses and were probed on auditory word targets from
these sentences. Her results indicate differences in the way main and subordinateclausesareprocessedinthetwolanguages.Specifically,theEnglish-speakingchildrenshowedanadvantageforsubordinateclauses(asrevealedbyshorter
responsetimesinalexicalproberecognitiontask),whereastheJapanesechildren
hadshorterRTsformainclauses.
Fromamethodologicalperspective,onecrucialdisadvantageoftheproberecognitiontaskisthatitappearstobelesstime-sensitivethanotheron-linetechniquesandthatthetaskissensitivetoavarietyofstrategicprocesses(Gordon,
Hendrick,&Foster2000).Inmanystudies,probe-recognitiontimesaremeasured
attheendofthesentence.Thesedatadonottapon-linesyntacticprocessingas
itoccursbutaremorelikelytopickupsentence-finalwrap-upprocesses,which
may involve semantic rather than syntactic representations. A disadvantage of
studiesthatmeasuredprobe-recognitiontimesatwithin-sentencetestpointsis
thatthestimulussentenceshavetobeinterrupted,whichmakesthetaskrather
unnatural.

2.3

Speededgrammaticalityjudgment

Inthistask,participantsareaskedtojudgethegrammaticalityorungrammaticalityoflinguisticstimuliasquicklyaspossible.Timedorspeededgrammaticality
judgmenttaskshavebeenwidelyusedtoexamineadults’sensitivitytovarious
typesofgrammaticalandsemanticinformation,orrelativeprocessingdifficulty.
Thegeneralassumptionisthatrelativeprocessingdifficultyshouldbereflected
inslowerresponsetimes,lowerresponseaccuracy,orboth(McElree&Griffith
1995, 1998). A variant of this task, the violation detection paradigm, has also
been applied to children (Wulfeck 1993; Kail & Diakogiorgi 1998; Kail 2004).
Consider,forexample,Kail’s(2004)studyinwhichthreeagegroupsofFrench
children(meanage:6;8,8;6and10;10years)andagroupofadultswereaskedto
detectagreementviolationsinsentencessuchas(3a)andwordorderviolations

insentencessuchas(3b):




6

HaraldClahsen

 (3) a.
  
  
  

Chaquesemaine lavoisine     *remplissent lefrigo
Everyweek    theneighbor[sg.]fill[pl.]   thefridge
aprèsavoirfaitlescourses    aumarché.
afterhavingdonetheshopping  atthemarket






Chaquesemaine *remplit lavoisine   lefrigo
everyweek    fill[sg]  theneighbor thefridge
aprèsavoirfaitlescourses    aumarché.
afterhavingdonetheshopping  atthemarket







b.




The stimulus sentences were presented auditorily with normal intonation. Participantswereaskedtodecidewhetherasentencehad‘goodgrammar’andwere
specificallyinstructedtopressabuttonassoonastheydiscoveredanungrammaticality.Whileresponsetimestothegrammaticalsentenceswerenotanalyzed,
theresponselatenciesfortheungrammaticalsentencesweremeasuredfromthe
offsetoftheword(e.g.,*remplissentin(3a))thatmadeasentenceungrammatical.
Kail(2004)foundthatbothchildrenandadultswerefasterindetectingagreementviolationsthanwordorderviolationssuggestingdifferencesinsensitivityto
differenttypesofungrammaticality.
Fromamethodologicalperspective,itisnoteworthythatchildren’sresponse
timesinthistaskweresubstantiallylongerthanthoseofadults.Thiswasthecase
notonlyforthe8-to-9-year-olds,whohadanoverallresponsetimeof2017ms,
butalsoforthe6-to-8-year-oldswhohadameanoverallresponsetimeof2573ms,
morethanthreetimesoftheadultgroup.Theseextremelylongresponsetimes
suggestthatthistaskisparticularlydifficultforchildrenand,moreimportantly,
thatthedataareunlikelytotapautomaticprocessesinvolvedinchildren’slanguage processing. Moreover, grammaticality judgment tasks have been subject
tomuchcriticismasthedegreetowhichsuchjudgmentsreflectimplicitgrammaticalcompetenceisunclear(Schütze1996).Itisalsonotobvioushowyoung
childreninterprettheinstructiontodecidebetweensentencesthathavegoodvs.
badgrammar.

2.

Self-pacedreadingandself-pacedlistening

In this task, sentences are presented segment-by-segment or word-by-word either visually or auditorily. Participants trigger the presentation of subsequent
segmentsbypressingapacingbutton.Inself-pacedreading,priorsegmentsor
wordsmayeitherstayonthescreenordisappearuponpressingthepacingbutton.Timesbetweenbuttonpressesarerecordedandprovideastep-by-steprecord
oftheparseasitunfolds.Thebasicrationaleunderlyingthistaskisthatincreased
readingorlisteningtimestoaparticularsegment(relativetothesamesegmentin