Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:39:02.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Young children's sensitivity to new and given information when answering predicate-focus questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2009

DOROTHÉ SALOMO ,
ELENA LIEVEN  and
MICHAEL TOMASELLO
DOROTHÉ SALOMO*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
ELENA LIEVEN
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
MICHAEL TOMASELLO
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Dorothé Salomo, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: dorothé.salomo@mpi.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two studies we investigated 2-year-old children's answers to predicate-focus questions depending on the preceding context. Children were presented with a successive series of short video clips showing transitive actions (e.g., frog washing duck) in which either the action (action-new) or the patient (patient-new) was the changing, and therefore new, element. During the last scene the experimenter asked the question (e.g., “What's the frog doing now?”). We found that children expressed the action and the patient in the patient-new condition but expressed only the action in the action-new condition. These results show that children are sensitive to both the predicate-focus question and newness in context. A further finding was that children expressed new patients in their answers more often when there was a verbal context prior to the questions than when there was not.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 101 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483–521.Google Scholar
Baker, N. D., & Greenfield, P. M. (1988). The development of new and old information in young children's early language. Language Sciences, 10, 3–34.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. L., Brooks, P., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Factors affecting young children's use of pronouns as referring expressions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1337–1349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1997). Discourse motivations of referential choice in Korean Acquisition. In Sohn, H. & Haig, J. (Eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (Vol. 6, pp. 639–659). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84–107.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1970). Discourse agreement: How children answer questions. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In Kuczaj, S. (Ed.), Language development (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grassmann, S., & Tomasello, M. (2007). The effect of focal stress on two-year-olds’ visual attention. Poster presented at the Child Language Seminar.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M., & Smith, J. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M., & Zukow, P. G. (1978). Why do children say what they say when they say it? An experimental approach to the psychogenesis of presupposition. In Nelson, K. (Ed.), Children's language (Vol. 1). New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1988). On the pragmatics of anwers. In Meyer, M. (Ed.), Questions and questioning. New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Informatione structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N., & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver–child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 461–495.Google Scholar
Peterson, C., & Biggs, M. (1997). Interviewing children about trauma: Problems with “specific” questions. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salomo, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Young children's ability to answer different types of question. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2005). The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swingley, D., Pinto, J. P., & Fernald, A. (1999). Continuous processing in word recognition at 24 months. Cognition, 71, 73–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyack, D., & Ingram, D. (1977). Children's production and comprehension of questions. Journal of Child Language, 4, 211–224.Google Scholar
Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Young children's sensitivity to listener knowledge and perceptual context in choosing referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 541–558.Google Scholar