Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:31:59.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Print exposure predicts pronoun comprehension strategies in children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2019

Jennifer E. ARNOLD ,
Laura CASTRO-SCHILO ,
Sandra ZERKLE  and
Leela RAO
Jennifer E. ARNOLD*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Laura CASTRO-SCHILO
Affiliation:
SAS Institute Inc.
Sandra ZERKLE
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Leela RAO
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
*
*Corresponding author: UNC Chapel Hill, Dept. of Psychology and Neuroscience, Davie Hall #337B, CB #3270, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Language development requires children to learn how to understand ambiguous pronouns, as in Panda Bear is having lunch with Puppy. He wants a pepperoni slice. Adults tend to link he with Panda Bear, the prior grammatical subject, but young children either fail to exhibit this bias (Arnold, Brown-Schmidt & Trueswell, 2007) or do so more slowly than adults (Hartshorne et al., 2015a; Song & Fisher, 2005). In the current study, we test whether language exposure affects this bias in elementary-school-age children. Children listened to stories like the one above, and answered questions like “Who wants a pepperoni slice?” which reveal their pronoun interpretation. Individual variation in the rate of selecting the subject character correlated with measures of print exposure, such that children who read more are more likely to follow the subject bias. This is the first study to establish that print exposure affects spoken pronoun comprehension in children.

Keywords

reading print exposurepronoun comprehension
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 863 - 893
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 278–89.Google Scholar
Almor, A. (1999). Definite noun-phrase anaphora and focus. Psychological Review, 106, 748–65.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. E., Farmer, T. A., Goldstein, M., Schwade, J., & Spivey, M. J. (2011). Individual differences in measures of linguistic experience account for variability in the sentence processing skill of five-year-olds. In Arnon, I. & Clark, E. V. (Eds.), Experience, variation, and generalization: learning a first language (pp. 203–21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 137–62.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: the role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(4), 187–203.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. (2007). Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 527–65.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course for pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76(1), B13–B26.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Nadig, A., Bennetto, L., & Diehl, J. J. (2009). Pronoun comprehension and production in children with and without autism. Poster; CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Strangmann, I., Hwang, H., & Zerkle, S. (2018b). Reference frequency: What do speakers tend to talk about? Technical Report #2. UNC Language Processing Lab, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Strangmann, I., Hwang, H., Zerkle, S., & Nappa, R. (2018a). Linguistic experience affects pronoun interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 41–54.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62, 875–90.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Infants’ ability to consult the speaker for clues to word reference. Journal of Child Language, 20, 395–418.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–51.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–78.Google Scholar
Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2005). One-year-olds comprehend the communicative intentions behind gestures in a hiding game. Developmental Science, 8, 492–99.Google Scholar
Behne, T., Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Twelve-month-olds’ comprehension and production of pointing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 359–75.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., McAdoo, H. P., & García Coll, C. (2001). The home environments of children in the United States part I: variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Development, 72, 1844–67.Google Scholar
Bright, R. (1963). Georgie and the Robbers. New York: Doubleday and Company.Google Scholar
Cannon, J. (1993). Stellaluna. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cartmill, E. A., Armstrong, B. I., Gleitman, L. R., Goldin-Meadow, S., Medina, T. N., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Quality of early parent input predicts child vocabulary 3 years later. PNAS Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 11278–83.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Crawley, R. J., & Stevenson, R. J. (1990). Reference in single sentences and in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(3), 191–210.Google Scholar
Csibra, G., & Volein, Á. (2008). Infants can infer the presence of hidden objects from referential gaze information. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 1–11.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: a quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 733–40.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264–74.Google Scholar
De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Deák, G. O., Krasno, A. M., Triesch, J., Lewis, J., & Sepeta, L. (2014). Watch the hands: infants can learn to follow gaze by seeing adults manipulate objects. Developmental Science, 17, 270–81.Google Scholar
Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Paradise, J. L., Feldman, H. M., Janosky, J. E., Pitcairn, D. N., et al. (1999). Maternal education and measures of early speech and language. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 1432–43.Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–99.Google Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Fine, A. B., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017) Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 413–33.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2011). Causes and consequences of variability in early language learning. In Arnon, I., & Clark, E. V. (Eds.), Experience, variation, and generalization: learning a first language (pp. 181–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cognitive Science, 37(3), 578–91.Google Scholar
Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 357–83.Google Scholar
Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: the advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717.Google Scholar
Goodrich, W., & Hudson Kam, C. L. (2009). Co-speech gesture as input in verb learning. Developmental Science 12, 81–7.Google Scholar
Goodrich Smith, W., & Hudson Kam, C. L. (2015) Children's use of gesture in ambiguous pronoun interpretation. Journal of Child Language, 42, 591–617.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–47.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K., Nappa, R., & Snedeker, J. (2015a). Development of the first-mention bias. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 2–25.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K., O'Donnell, T. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015b). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 30, 716–34.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–78.Google Scholar
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 4–14.Google Scholar
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to children's language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 603–29.Google Scholar
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 87–96.Google Scholar
Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and children's literacy development: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 252–71.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–48.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input at home and at school: relation to child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337–74.Google Scholar
James, A. N., Fraundorf, S., Lee, E., & Watson, D. (2018). Individual differences in syntactic processing: Is there evidence for reader–text interactions? Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 155–81.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, J., van Gompel, R. P. G., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: contrasting the first-mention and subject preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16, 260–4.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1625–66.Google Scholar
Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008) Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics Special Issue on Processing Meaning, 25, 1–44.Google Scholar
Kehler, A., & Rohde, H. (2013). A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 1–37.Google Scholar
Koster, C., Hoeks, J., & Hendriks, P. (2011). Comprehension and production of subject pronouns: evidence for the asymmetry of grammar. In Grimm, A., Müller, A., Hamann, C., & Ruigendijk, E. (Eds), Production–comprehension asymmetries in child language (pp. 99–122). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., Mann, S., & Peers, I. (1998). The growth of speaker and listener skills from five to eleven years. First Language, 18, 81–104.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 543–66.Google Scholar
Meyer, M., & Baldwin, D. A. (2013). Pointing as a socio-pragmatic cue to particular vs. generic reference. Language Learning and Development, 9, 245–65.Google Scholar
Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2004). 12- and 18-month-old infants follow gaze to spaces behind barriers. Developmental Science, 7, F1–F9.Google Scholar
Montag, J. L., & MacDonald, M. C. (2015). Text exposure predicts spoken production of complex sentences in eight and twelve year old children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 447–68.Google Scholar
Moore, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: item response theory analysis of the author recognition test. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1095–109.Google Scholar
Morford, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1992). Comprehension and production of gesture in combination with speech in one-word speakers. Journal of Child Language, 19, 559–80.Google Scholar
Morisset, D., Barnard, K., Greenberg, M., Booth, D., & Spieker, S. (1990). Environmental influences on early language development: the context of social risk. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 127–49.Google Scholar
Namy, L. L., Campbell, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2004). The changing role of iconicity in non-verbal symbol learning: a U-shaped trajectory in the learning of arbitrary gestures. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5, 37–57.Google Scholar
Nappa, R., & Arnold, J. E. (2014). The road to understanding is paved with the speaker's intentions: cues to the speaker's attention and intentions affect pronoun comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 58–81.Google Scholar
Okumura, Y., Kanakogi, Y., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2013). Infants understand the referential nature of human gaze but not robot gaze. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(1), 86–95.Google Scholar
Orr, A. J. (2003). Black–White differences in achievement: the importance of wealth. Sociology of Education, 76, 281–304.Google Scholar
Pyykkönen, P., Matthews, D., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Three-year-olds are sensitive to semantic prominence during online spoken language comprehension: a visual world study of pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 115–29.Google Scholar
Rey, H. A. (1969). Curious George. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, Special Issue on Production of Referring Expressions: Models and Empirical Data, 29, 912–27.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35, 185–205.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83, 1762–74.Google Scholar
Russell, A. E., Ford, T., Williams, R., & Russell, G. (2016). The association between socioeconomic disadvantage and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a systematic review. Child Psychiatry Human Development, 47, 440–58.Google Scholar
Sobol, D. J. (1963). Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective: The Case of the Scattered Cards. New York: Puffin Books.Google Scholar
Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2005). Who's ‘she’? Discourse prominence influences preschoolers’ comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(1), 29–57.Google Scholar
Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2007). Discourse prominence effects on 2.5-year-old children's interpretation of pronouns. Lingua, 117, 1959–87.Google Scholar
Stanfield, C., Williamson, R., & Özçalişkan, Ş. (2014). How early do children understand gesture–speech combinations with iconic gestures? Journal of Child Language, 41(2), 462–71.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402–33.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.Google Scholar
van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., & Hendriks, P. (2011). WM load influences the interpretation of referring expressions. In Keller, F. & Reitter, D. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 67–75). Portland, OR: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
van Rij, J., van Rijn, H., & Hendriks, P. (2013). How WM load influences linguistic processing in adults: a computational model of pronoun interpretation in discourse. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 564–80.Google Scholar
Vernon-Feagans, L., Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A., & Manlove, E. (2001). Early language and literacy skills in low-income African American and Hispanic children. In Neuman, S. B. & Dickinson, D. K. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 192–210). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–71.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L. (2003). Infants’ developing understanding of the link between looker and object. Developmental Science, 6, 297–311.Google Scholar
Yow, W. Q. (2013). Monolingual and bilingual children's use of gestures and grammatical agreement in pronoun interpretation. In Baiz, S., Goldman, N., & Hawkes, R. (Eds.), BUCLD 37 Proceedings (pp. 482–94). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2013). Joint attention without gaze following: human infants and their parents coordinate visual attention to objects through eye-hand coordination. PLOS One, 8, e79659. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079659Google Scholar