Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:07:41.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical activation effects on children's sentence planning and production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2015

MONIQUE CHAREST ,
JUDITH R. JOHNSTON  and
JEFF A. SMALL
MONIQUE CHAREST*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
JUDITH R. JOHNSTON
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
JEFF A. SMALL
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Monique Charest, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Alberta, 2-70 Corbett Hall, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G4, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between lexical activation and syntactic planning in children's sentences. Four- and 7-year-old children described transitive scenes following patient-related prime pictures and control pictures. We examined syntactic choices, and compared onset latency, sentence length, and dysfluency rates for active transitive sentences in the two conditions. Early activation of the patient in the primed condition did not lead to the production of patient-subject sentences, but it did have consequences for active transitive sentence production. Namely, onset latencies were longer and sentences were shorter in the primed condition. Dysfluency rates did not differ between the two conditions. Correlation analyses revealed a stronger pattern of association between working memory scores and language variables in the patient-primed condition. The results indicate that conflicts between lexical activation order and syntactic plans are a source of processing difficulty during children's sentence production.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 551 - 576
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, A.-M., & Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Phonological working memory and speech production in preschool children. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 38, 403–414.Google Scholar
Adobe Systems Incorporated. (1993–2008). Adobe Flash CS4 Professional [Computer software]. New York: Author.Google Scholar
Altmann, L. J. P., & Kemper, S. (2006). Effects of age, animacy and activation order on sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 322–354. doi:10.1080/0169096054400006Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839. doi:10.1038/nrn1201Google Scholar
Bajo, M.-T. (1988). Semantic facilitation with pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 579–589. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.579Google Scholar
Barry, C., Hirsh, K. W., Johnston, R. A., & Williams, C. L. (2001). Age of acquisition, word frequency, and the locus of repetition priming of picture naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 350–375. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, C., Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency and name agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 560–585. doi:10.1080/027249897392026Google Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L., & Valian, V. V. (2008). Abstract representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 97–113. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J., Austin, W., Cannon, M., & Lisus, A. (1994). The relationship between memory span and measures of imitative and spontaneous language complexity in preschool children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1–47. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.1.1Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 575–586. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.575Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1987a). Co-ordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 3, pp. 337–390). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1987b). An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 119–137. doi:10.1016/0749-596x(87)90120-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1995). Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In Miller, J. L. & Eimas, P. D. (Eds.), Speech, language, and communication (pp. 181–216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Irwin, D. E. (1980). Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 467–484. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90321-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47–67. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-xGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D., Brody, R. E., Fisch, S. M., & Weisberger, M. J. (1990). Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure? Journal of Child Language, 17, 313–342. doi:10.1017/s0305000900013799CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, T. H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R. D., & Parmelee, C. M. (1982). Words, pictures, and priming: On semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 757–777. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.6.757Google Scholar
Charest, M. (2012). Lexical activation effects on children's sentence production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/42552Google Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1984). Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 307–319. doi:0090-6905/84/0700-0307Google Scholar
Dale, P. S., & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms for young children. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 125–127.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. J., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2003). Age preservation of the syntactic processor in production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 541–566. doi:10.1023/a:1025402517111Google Scholar
Deen, K. U. (2011). The acquisition of the passive. In de Villiers, J. & Roeper, T. (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 155–188). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dewart, M. H. (1979). The role of animate and inanimate nouns in determining sentence voice. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 135–141. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02151.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entwisle, D. R. (1966). Word associations of young children. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296–340. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0730Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Slevc, L. R. (2007). Grammatical encoding. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 453–470). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gahl, S., Jurafsky, D., & Roland, D. (2004). Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 432–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 544–569. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.007Google Scholar
Grela, B. G., & Leonard, L. B. (2000). The influence of argument-structure complexity on the use of auxiliary verbs by children with SLI. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1115–1125.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, J. K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 313–338. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2547Google Scholar
Harris, F. N., & Flora, J. A. (1982). Children's use of get passives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 297–311. doi:10.1007/bf01067584Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., & Kubicek, L. F. (1983). The source of relatedness effects on naming latency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 486–496. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.9.3.486Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 182–195. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.09.003Google Scholar
Israel, M., Johnson, C., & Brooks, P. J. (2000). From states to events: The acquisition of English passive participles. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 103–129. doi:10.1515/cogl.2001.005Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1992). “Not by the chair of my hinny hin hin”: Some general properties of slips of the tongue in young children. Journal of Child Language, 19, 335–366. doi:10.1017/s0305000900011442Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122Google Scholar
Kail, R., & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity. Acta Psychologica, 86, 199–225. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(94)90003-5Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Miller, C. A., Grela, B., Holland, A. L., Gerber, E., & Petucci, M. (2000). Production operations contribute to the grammatical morpheme limitations of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 362–378. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2689Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Loeb, D. F., Pye, C., Richardson, L. Z., & Redmond, S. (1998). Causative alternations of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1103–1114.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Bates, E., Burkardt, A., & Good, A. B. (1991). Functional constraints of the acquisition of the passive: Toward a model of the competence to perform. First Language, 11, 65–92. doi:10.1177/014272379101103104Google Scholar
McCauley, C., Weil, C. M., & Sperber, R. D. (1976). The development of memory structure as reflected by semantic-priming effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 511–518. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(76)90113-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Garrett, M. F. (2010). Children's sentence planning: Syntactic correlates of fluency variations. Journal of Child Language, 37, 59–94. doi:10.1017/s0305000909009507Google Scholar
McNamara, T. P., & Holbrook, J. B. (2003). Semantic memory and priming. In Healy, A. F. & Proctor, R. W. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Experimental psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 447–474). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2011). Evidence for (shared) abstract structure underlying children's short and full passives. Cognition, 121, 268–274. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.003Google Scholar
Miller, J. F., & Iglesias, A. (2006). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) [Computer software]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Language Analysis Lab.Google Scholar
Morrison, C. M., Chappell, T. D., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 528–559. doi:10.1080/027249897392017Google Scholar
Moser, R. M., & Johnston, J. R. (2004). Beyond storage: Working memory and specific language impairment. Paper presented at the Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Moss, H., & Older, L. (1996). Birkbeck word association norms. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273–281. doi:10.1080/17470216508416445Google Scholar
Owen, A. J. (2010). Factors affecting accuracy of past tense production in children with specific language impairment and their typically developing peers: The influence of verb transitivity, clause location and sentence type. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 993–1014. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/09-0039)Google Scholar
Palermo, D. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1964). Word association norms: Grade school through college. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M., & Hadley, P. (2001). The leading-edge: The significance of sentence disruptions in the development of grammar. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1131–1143. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/089)Google Scholar
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236. doi:10.1068/p5117Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Shimpi, P. M., Gámez, P. B., Huttenlocher, J., & Vasilyeva, M. (2007). Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: Evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1334–1346. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1334CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slevc, L. R. (2011). Saying what's on your mind: Working memory effects on sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1503–1514. doi:10.1037/a0024350Google Scholar
Sperber, R. D., McCauley, C., Ragain, R. D., & Weil, C. M. (1979). Semantic priming effects on picture and word processing. Memory & Cognition, 7, 339–345.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1989). Speech errors in early child language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 164–188. doi:10.1016/0749-596x(89)90042-9Google Scholar
Streim, N. W., & Chapman, R. S. (1987). The effects of discourse support on the organization and production of children's utterances. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 55–66. doi:10.1017/s0142716400000060Google Scholar
Turner, E. A., & Rommetveit, R. (1968). Focus of attention in recall of active and passive sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 7, 543–548. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(68)80047-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 735–747. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735Google Scholar
Wheeldon, L. R., & Monsell, S. (1994). Inhibition of spoken word production by priming a semantic competitor. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 332–356. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E. (2004). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Preschool (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Zeno, S., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. New York: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.Google Scholar