Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:22:06.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing linguistic competence: when are children hard to understand?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Veronica Fabian-Kraus
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Paul Ammon
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley

Abstract

It is argued that previous assessments of children's knowledge of the hard to see type of construction were confounded by a variety of extra-linguistic factors. Therefore, the relatively delayed age of comprehension previously reported (6½–8 years) may have been due to younger children's deficiencies in extralinguistic skills. In the present study, with these extralinguistic complications eliminated, the passing age was found to be 5 years, and even 4-year-olds evidenced considerable knowledge of the target structure. Other findings were: variation in sentence difficulty as a function of the syntactic and/or aspectual character of the verb; high test–retest reliability at all levels of performance; and a necessary-but-not-sufficient empirical relation between comprehension of the target construction and the passive. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the acquisition of this particular structure and for the general problem of detecting linguistic competence from performance.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by a predoctoral traineeship awarded to the first author by the Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley (NIGMS 5-T01-GM01207-14) and by the second author's appointment at the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley. Thanks are due to Ms Melinda Martin of the Albany Children's Center for her cooperation. Portions of this paper were presented at the Second Annual Boston University Conference on Language Acquisition, October 1977. Authors' address: Department of Educational Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720.

References

REFERENCES

Bem, S. L. (1970). The role of comprehension in children's problem solving. DevPsych 2, 351–8.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 41 (Serial no. 164).Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1974). Learning the structure of causative verbs: a study in the relationship of cognitive, semantic and syntactic development. PRCLD 8. 142–78.Google Scholar
Cambon, J. & Sinclair, H. (1974). Relations between syntax and semantics. Are they ‘easy to see’? BJPsychol 65. 133–40.Google Scholar
Case, R. (1978). Intellectual development from birth to adulthood: a neo-Piagetian interpretation. In Siegler, R. (ed.), Children's thinking: what develops? Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. (1969). The acquisition of syntax from 5 to 10. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. HarvEdRev 42. 133.Google Scholar
Clark, R. (1974). Performing without competence. JChLang 1, 110.Google Scholar
Coker, P. M. (1978). Syntactic and semantic factors in the acquisition of before and after. JChLang 5. 261–77.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. (1970). Children are nice to understand: surface structure clues for the recovery of deep structure. BJPsychol 61. 397408.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. & McGarrigle, J. (1974). Some clues to the nature of semantic development. JChLang 1. 185–94.Google Scholar
French, L. A. & Brown, L. A. (1977). Comprehension of before and after in logical and arbitrary sequences. JChLang 4. 247–56.Google Scholar
Hoogenraad, R., Grieve, R., Baldwin, P. & Campbell, R. (1978). Comprehension as an interactive process. In Campbell, R. N. & Smith, P. T. (eds), Recent advances in the psychology of language. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. & Strauss, S. (1968). Comprehension and a statement's relation to the situation it describes. JVLVB 7. 300–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. & Weiner, S. L. (1971). Comprehension of instructions in varying contexts. CogPsych 2. 360–85.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. J. (1975). The meaning of before and after for preschool children. JExpCh-Psychol 19. 8899.Google ScholarPubMed
Kessel, F. S. (1970). The role of syntax in children's comprehension from ages six to twelve. Monogr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. 35 (Serial no. 139).Google ScholarPubMed
Maratsos, M., Kuczaj, S. A. & Fox, D. E. (1977). Some empirical studies in the acquisition of transformational relations: passives, negatives, and the past tense. Paper presented at the Minnesota Symposium of Child Psychology,Minneapolis,Minnesota.Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. (1942). The revision of the Stanford-Binet Scale, analysis of the standardized data. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Morsbach, G. & Steel, P. M. (1976). ‘John is easy to see’ revisited. JChLang 3. 443–7.Google Scholar
Palermo, D. & Molfese, D. (1972). Language acquisition from age 5 onward. PsychBull 78. 409–28.Google Scholar
Pascual-Leone, J. (1976 a). On learning and development Piagetian style. I. A reply to Lefebre-Pinard. CanPsychRev 17. 270–88.Google Scholar
Pascual-Leone, J. (1976 b). On learning and development Piagetian style. II. A critical analysis of Geneva's research programme. CanPsychRev 17. 289–97.Google Scholar
Richards, M. M. (1976). Come and go reconsidered: children's use of deictic verbs in contrived situations. JVLVB 15. 655–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sinclair, A., Sinclair, H. & DeMarcellus, O. (1971). Young children's comprehension and production of the passive voice. ArchPsych 41. 142.Google Scholar