Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T07:12:56.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding sentences in varying contexts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Clark C. Presson
Clark C. Presson
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study tested Huttenlocher & Weiner's (1971) hypothesis concerning the role of grammatical function in sentence comprehension. Children arranged objects to correspond to descriptions of transitive relations in two tasks. The patterns of object placements provided evidence of how children understood the various sentence forms. Contrary to Huttenlocher & Weiner's hypothesis, grammatical function was not a critical factor in object placements. This was true based on the group data or individual-based analyses. Two factors were important: logical function and order of mention of the items in the sentence. Whether an item was grammatical subject or grammatical object did not affect subjects' choices. The order of mention effects resulted from inattention to sentence meaning prior to the initial choices on certain trials. If the logical relations in a sentence were understood prior to the response, only logical function influenced subjects' responses.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 217 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

REFERENCES

Bridges, A. (1980). SVO comprehension strategies reconsidered: the evidence of individual patterns of response. JChLang 7. 89–104.Google ScholarPubMed
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part II. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Eisenberg, K. & Strauss, S. (1968). Comprehension: relation between perceived actor and logical subject. JVLVB 7. 527–30.CrossRefGoogle 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. (1971). Comprehension of instructions in varying contexts. CogPsych 2. 369–85.Google Scholar
Mood, D. (1979). Sentence comprehension in preschool children: testing an adaptive egocentrism hypothesis. ChDev 50. 247–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem-solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. CogPsych 4. 481–520.Google Scholar
Strohner, H. & Nelson, K. (1974). The young child's development of sentence comprehension: influence of event probability, nonverbal context, syntactic form, and strategies. ChDev 45. 567–76.Google Scholar
Turner, E. & Rommetveit, R. (1968). Focus of attention in recall of active and passive sentences. JVLVB 7. 543–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, L. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1978). Some developmental aspects of sentence processing and memory. JChLang 5. 113–30.Google Scholar