Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T02:16:11.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inhibitory Control and Patterns of Errors in Resolution of Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2022

Kaitlyn E. MAY Open the ORCID record for Kaitlyn E. MAY [Opens in a new window]  and
Jason SCOFIELD
Kaitlyn E. MAY*
Affiliation:
1Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, The University of Alabama, USA.
Jason SCOFIELD
Affiliation:
2Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The University of Alabama, USA.
*
*Corresponding author. Kaitlyn E. May, Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0160. Email: kmay3@crimson.ua.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sentences that have more than one possible meaning are said to be syntactically ambiguous (SA). Because the correct interpretation of these sentences can be unclear, resolving SA sentences can be cognitively demanding for children, particularly with regards to inhibitory control (IC). In this study we provide three lines of evidence supporting the importance of IC in SA resolution. First, we show that children with higher IC resolve more SA sentences correctly. Second, we show that SA resolution is worse on tasks that place higher demands on IC, even for children with high IC. Third, we show that children with higher IC make different types of SA errors than children with lower IC. This study expands understanding of the cognitive skills underlying language and suggests a need to consider task demands on IC when developing educational curriculums.

Keywords

syntactic ambiguityinhibitory controlexecutive functionssentence processingchild development
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , March 2024 , pp. 271 - 287
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Altmann, G. T., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(5), 685–712. doi:10.1016/0749-596x(92)90035-vCrossRefGoogle 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. Experience, Variation and Generalization Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.7.12andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. V., Nation, K., & Patterson, K. (2014). When words fail us: insights into language processing from developmental and acquired disorders. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120403. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0403Google ScholarPubMed
Caplan, D., Alpert, N., Waters, G., & Olivieri, A. (2000). Activation of Broca’s area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping, 9(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(200002)9:2<65::AID-HBM1>3.0.CO;2-43.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 41–61. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0752CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169539.003.0006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doebel, S. (2020). Rethinking executive function and its development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 942–956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 409–436. doi:10.1007/BF02143160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelhardt, P. E., Nigg, J. T., & Ferreira, F. (2017). Executive Function and Intelligence in the Resolution of Temporary Syntactic Ambiguity: An Individual Differences Investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1263–1281. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1178785CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuhs, M. W., & Day, J. D. (2011). Verbal ability and executive functioning development in preschoolers at head start. Developmental psychology, 47(2), 404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuhs, M. W., Nesbitt, K. T., Farran, D. C. & Dong, N. (2014). Longitudinal associations between executive functioning and academic skills across content areas. Developmental Psychology, 50(6), 1698–1709. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gandolfi, E., & Viterbori, P. (2020). Inhibitory control skills and language acquisition in toddlers and preschool children. Language Learning, 70(3), 604–642. 10.1111/lang.12388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 312–7 years old on a stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53(2), 129–153. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooch, D., Thompson, P., Nash, H. M., Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2016). The development of executive function and language skills in the early school years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(2), 180–187. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunning-Dixon, F. M., & Raz, N. (2003). Neuroanatomical correlates of selected executive functions in middle-aged and older adults: a prospective MRI study. Neuropsychologia, 41(14), 1929–1941. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(03)00129-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, N. S., & Novick, J. M. (2016). Dynamic engagement of cognitive control modulates recovery from misinterpretation during real-time language processing. Psychological Science, 27(4), 572–582. doi:10.1177/0956797615625223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 597–626. doi:10.1023/A:1026468209238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussey, E. K., & Novick, J. M. (2012). The Benefits of Executive Control Training and the Implications for Language Processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karasinski, C. (2015). Language ability, executive functioning and behavior in school‐age children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 50(2), 144–150. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2005). Lexical and referential cues to sentence interpretation: An investigation of children’s interpretations of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 855–876. doi:10.1017/s0305000905007051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, E., & Holler, J. (2009). Children’s use of gesture to resolve lexical ambiguity. Developmental Science, 12(6), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00830.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013). Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(5), 393–411. doi:10.1007/s10936-012-9224-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, R. T., & Stuss, D. T. (2002). Prefrontal cortex: The present and the future. Principles of Frontal Lobe Function, 573–597. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesey, D., Keen, J., Rouse, J., & White, F. (2006). The relationship between measures of executive function, motor performance and externalizing behavior in 5-and 6-year-old children. Human Movement Science, 25(1), 50–64. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2005.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustig, C., Hasher, L., & May, C. (2001). Working memory span and the role of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 199–207. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macdonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meroni, L., & Crain, S. (2003). On not being led down the kindergarten path. In Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 531–544). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Munakata, Y., Herd, S. A., Chatham, C. H., Depue, B. E., Banich, M. T., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2011). A unified framework for inhibitory control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(10), 453–459. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(3), 263–281. doi:10.3758/cabn.5.3.263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novick, J. M., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. F. (2013). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186–217. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.758297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, Z., Love, J., Fisher, C., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2020). Referential context and executive functioning influence children’s resolution of syntactic ambiguity. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(10), 1922–1947. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Oxford, England: Nielsen & Lydiche.Google Scholar
Robitzsch, A., & Lüdtke, O. (2020). A review of different scaling approaches under full invariance, partial invariance, and noninvariance for cross-sectional country comparisons in large-scale assessments. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62(2), 233–279.Google Scholar
Schmitt, S. A., Purpura, D. J., & Elicker, J. G. (2019). Predictive links among vocabulary, mathematical language, and executive functioning in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 180, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.12.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slot, P. L., & von Suchodoletz, A. (2018). Bidirectionality in preschool children’s executive functions and language skills: Is one developing skill the better predictor of the other? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 205–214. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: the role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49(3), 238–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.03.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spivey, M., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45(4), 447–481. doi:10.1016/s0010-0285(02)00503-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stahl, L., & Pry, R. (2005). Attentional flexibility and perseveration: Developmental aspects in young children. Child Neuropsychology, 11(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/092970490911315CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J., & Gleitman, L. (2004). Children’s Eye Movements during Listening: Developmental Evidence for a Constraint-Based Theory of Sentence Processing. In Henderson, J. M. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World (pp. 319–346). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Papafragou, A., & Choi, Y. (2011). Referential and syntactic processes: What develops? The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, 65–108. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015127.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73(2), 89–134. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00032-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weighall, A. R. (2008). The kindergarten path effect revisited: Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(2), 75–95. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimmer, M. C., Doherty, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2011). The development of Ambiguous Figure Perception. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 76(1), i–130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41261555Google Scholar
Woodard, K., Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Taking your own path: Individual differences in executive function and language processing skills in child learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 187–209. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

May and Scofield supplementary material

May and Scofield supplementary material

Download May and Scofield supplementary material(File)
File 2 MB