No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2008
This paper rebuts a recent article in this journal (Petretic & Tweney 1977), which claimed to overthrow prior findings of ours. We show that subject populations, methods, and scoring procedures differed materially in the two studies, logically disallowing comparative interpretation of them. We demonstrate that the original study concerned syntactic organization; and that interpretation of it, or of the recent study, as bearing on comprehension is largely unjustified. Finally, we comment on our prior work in the context of new developments and findings about child language which postdate its publication in 1969.