Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:03:23.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's syntactic-priming magnitude: lexical factors and participant characteristics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2014

ANOUSCHKA FOLTZ ,
KRISTINA THIELE ,
DUNJA KAHSNITZ  and
PRISCA STENNEKEN
ANOUSCHKA FOLTZ*
Affiliation:
Bielefeld University
KRISTINA THIELE
Affiliation:
University of Cologne
DUNJA KAHSNITZ
Affiliation:
Bielefeld University
PRISCA STENNEKEN
Affiliation:
University of Cologne
*
Address for correspondence: Anouschka Foltz, CITEC Center of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Emergentist Semantics Group, PO Box 10 01 31, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany. tel.: + 49 (0) 521 106 12125; fax: + 49 (0) 521 106 15 12239; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines whether lexical repetition, syntactic skills, and working memory (WM) affect children's syntactic-priming behavior, i.e. their tendency to adopt previously encountered syntactic structures. Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) and typically developing (TD) children were primed with prenominal (e.g. the yellow cup) or relative clause (RC; e.g. the cup that is yellow) structures with or without lexical overlap and performed additional tests of productive syntactic skills and WM capacity. Results revealed a reliable syntactic-priming effect without lexical boost in both groups: SLI and TD children produced more RCs following RC primes than following prenominal primes. Grammaticality requirements influenced RC productions in that SLI children produced fewer grammatical RCs than TD children. Of the additional measures, WM positively affected how frequently children produced dispreferred RC structures, but productive syntactic skills had no effect. The results support an implicit-learning account of syntactic priming and emphasize the importance of WM in syntactic priming tasks.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 932 - 945
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

[*]

Anouschka Foltz, CRC 673 Alignment in Communication, Bielefeld University, CITEC Center of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld University, and Clinical Linguistics, Faculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies, Bielefeld University; Kristina Thiele, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Cologne, CRC 673 Alignment in Communication, Bielefeld University, and CITEC Center of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld University; Dunja Kahsnitz, Clinical Linguistics, Faculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies, Bielefeld University, and CRC 673 Alignment in Communication, Bielefeld University; Prisca Stenneken, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Cologne, CRC 673 Alignment in Communication, Bielefeld University, and CITEC Center of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld University. Parts of this research have been presented at the 17th Meeting of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, San Sebastian, Spain, and at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the German Association of Academic Speech and Language Therapists, Munich, Germany. We would like to thank the children and their families for their participation. In addition, we would like to thank Kathryn Bock and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Angermaier, M. J. W. (1977). Psycholinguistischer Entwicklungstest (PET) [Test of psycholinguistic abilities] . Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Archibald, L. M. & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Short-term and working memory in specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 41(6), 675–93.Google Scholar
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E. & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics, identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L. & Valian, V. V. (2008). Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 97–113.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–87.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129(2), 177–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, S., Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2008). The acquisition of German relative clauses: a case study. Journal of Child Language 35, 325–48.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F. & Jones, M. (2005). A blue cat or a cat that is blue? Evidence for abstract syntax in young children's noun phrases. In Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. R. & Ha, S. (eds), The Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Boston University Conference on Language Development, 109–121. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2), 234–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleland, A. A. & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 214–30.Google Scholar
Grimm, H., Aktas, M. & Frevert, S. (2001). SETK 3-5: Sprachentwicklungstest für drei- bis fünfjährige Kinder [SETK 3-5: language development test for three- to five-year-old children] . Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Grimm, H. & Doil, H. (2006). Elternfragebögen zur Früherkennung von Risikokindern 2 (ELFRA II), 2nd ed. [Parental questionnaire for the early identification of children at risk 2]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Hecking, M. & Schlesiger, C. (2010). Late Bloomer oder Sprachentwicklungsstörung? Diagnostik und Beratung für Familien mit Late Talkern nach dem Dortmunder Konzept [Late Bloomer or language impairment? Diagnosis and counseling for families of late talkers following the Dortmunder program]. Forum Logopädie 24(1), 6–15.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M. & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language 50(2), 182–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 434–46.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: information density and reducible subject relatives. In Bender, E. M. & Arnold, J. E. (eds), Language from a cognitive perspective: grammar, usage, and processing. Studies in honor of Thomas Wasow, 161–98. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kauschke, C. & Siegmüller, J. (2010). Patholinguistische Diagnostik bei Sprachentwicklungsstörungen (PDSS) [Patholinguistic assessment of developmental language disorders] . München: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Keilmann, A., Moein, G. & Schöler, H. (2012). Werden mit dem SETK 3–5 klinisch diagnostizierte Sprachentwicklungsstörungen erfasst? [Does the SETK 3-5 detect clinically diagnosed language impairment?] HNO 60, 63–71.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (2011). Individual differences in syntactic priming in language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 22(2), 1–26.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (2012). Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology 48(1), 171–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P. & McLean, J. F. (2011). Evidence for (shared) abstract structure underlying children's short and full passives. Cognition 121, 268–74.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. & Deevy, P. (2006). Structural priming in children with and without specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 20(5), 387–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R. & Feinstein, A. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 49(12), 1373–79.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134(3), 427–459.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J., Wohlleben, B. & Gross, M. (2005). Eine Methode zur Phänotypisierung der spezifischen Sprachentwicklungsstörung bei 4- bis 5-jährigen deutschsprachigen Kindern [A system for phenotyping specific language impairment in German 4- and 5-year-old children]. Talk presented at the 22. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, 24. Kongress der Union der Europäischen Phoniater, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J., Wohlleben, B. & Gross, M. (2008). Diagnostische Genauigkeit des SETK 3-5 zur dichotomen Einschätzung von sprachlichen Leistungen [Diagnostic accuracy of the SETK 3-5 for a dichotomous classification of language abilities]. Talk presented at the 25. Wissenschaftliche Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Düsseldorf, Germany.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2012). The development of abstract syntax: evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 125(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, C., Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6(5), 557–67.Google Scholar
Schuele, C. M. & Tolbert, L. (2001). Omissions of obligatory relative markers in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 15(4), 257–74.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(6), 1334–46.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M. & Waterfall, H. (2012). Beyond syntactic priming: evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language 39(2), 258–83.Google Scholar