Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T13:52:01.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehending surface and deep structure subjects: children's understanding of implied vs. explicitly stated nouns*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Hedy White
Hedy White
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research indicates young children are likely to interpret the surface-structure subject of a sentence as the deep subject regardless of syntax, e.g. John is chosen as subject of both John is easy to please and John is eager to please. However, with one-noun sentences, the task required both recognizing a difference between the sentences and inferring an implied noun. Thus an inability to make an inference might be responsible for the children's consistency in choosing the surface subject. Two experiments compared kindergarteners' interpretations of one- and two-noun sentences. With two-noun sentences (i.e. John is easy for Jim to please), which explicitly stated the surface object, consistency in choosing the surface subject decreased.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 1983 , pp. 195 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

[*]

I would like to thank Deborah Burke for many valuable suggestions and ideas for improving several versions of this paper, William Banks for a helpful critique of an earlier version, and Dorothy Bromage, principal of the Oakmount Elementary School in Claremont, CA, where the experiments were conducted. At the time this research was conducted, I was affiliated with Pomona College and Claremont Graduate School. Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024.

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, C. (1969). The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. HarvEdRev 42. 1–33.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. (1970). Children are nice to understand: surface structure clues for the recovery of deep structure. BJPsychol 61. 397–408.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. (1972). The learning of surface structure clues to deep structure by a puppet show technique. QJExpPsychol 24. 66.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. (1974). Child and adult learning of surface structure clues to deep structure using a picture card technique. JPsycholingRes 3. 1–14.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. & de Villiers, P. A. (1978). Language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fabian-Kraus, V. & Ammon, P. (1980). Assessing linguistic competence: when are children hard to understand? JChLang 7. 401–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Kessel, F. S. (1970). The role of syntax in children's comprehension from ages six to twelve. Mongr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. 35.Google ScholarPubMed
Lindquist, E. F. (1953). Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Morsbach, G. & Steel, P. M. (1976). ‘John is easy to see’ revisited. JChLang 3. 443–7.Google Scholar