Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:50:51.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cascading activation across levels of representation in children's lexical processing*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2010

YI TING HUANG  and
JESSE SNEDEKER
YI TING HUANG*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
JESSE SNEDEKER
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, Davie Hall CB 3270, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work in adult psycholinguistics has demonstrated that activation of semantic representations begins long before phonological processing is complete. This incremental propagation of information across multiple levels of analysis is a hallmark of adult language processing but how does this ability develop? In two experiments, we elicit measures of incremental activation of semantic representations during word recognition in children. Five-year-olds were instructed to select a target (logs) while their eye-movements were measured to a competitor (key) that was semantically related to an absent phonological associate (lock). We found that, like adults, children made increased looks to competitors relative to unrelated control items. However, unlike adults, children continued to look at the competitor even after the target word was uniquely identified and were more likely to incorrectly select this item. Altogether, these results suggest that early lexical processing involves cascading activation but less efficient resolution of competing entries.

Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , June 2011 , pp. 644 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

[*]

We would like to thank Jessica Hoy and Charlotte Mucchetti for their assistance in data collection and coding. We are also grateful to the children and teachers at the McGlynn Elementary School in Medford, MA for their participation in this study. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0623845.

References

REFERENCES

Bunge, S. A., Dudukovic, N. M., Thomason, M. E., Vaidya, C. J. & Gabrieli, J. D. (2002). Immature frontal lobe contributions to cognitive control in children: Evidence from fMRI. Neuron 33, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M. & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review 104, 801–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dempster, F. N. (1981). Memory span: Sources of individual and developmental differences. Psychological Bulletin 89, 63–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, A. & Doar, B. (1989). The performance of human infants on a measure of frontal cortex function, the delayed response task. Developmental Psychobiology 22, 271–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doherty, M. J. (2004). Children's difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language 31, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernald, A., Perfors, A. & Marchman, V. A. (2006). Picking up speed in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology 42, 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Swingley, D. & Pinto, J. P. (2001). When half a word is enough: Infants can recognize spoken words using partial phonetic information. Child Development 72, 1003–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flavell, J. H. (1986). The development of children's knowledge about the appearance–reality distinction. American Psychologist 41, 418–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y. & Snedeker, J. (2009). Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in five-year-olds: Evidence from real time spoken language comprehension. Developmental Psychology 45, 1723–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, C. & Graham, A. (2002). Measuring executive functions in childhood: Problems and solutions? Child and Adolescent Mental Health 7, 131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jincho, N., Mazuka, R. & Yamane, N. (2007). ‘No, there is no cat in the second place!’: Children's incremental processing of prenominal modifiers and executive control of response inhibition. Paper presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
Joseph, H. S. S. L., Liversedge, S. P., Blythe, H. I., White, S. J., Gathercole, S. E. & Rayner, K. (2008). Children's and adults' processing of anomaly and implausibility during reading: Evidence from eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61, 708–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kail, R. V. (1991). Development of processing speed in childhood and adolescence. In Reese, H. W. (ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, vol. 25, 151–85. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kail, R. V. & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity. Acta Psychologica 86, 199–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luciana, M. & Nelson, C. A. (1998). The functional emergence of prefrontally guided working memory systems in four- to eight-year-old children. Neuropsychologia 36, 273–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M., Pearlmutter, N. & Seidenberg, M. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mani, N. & Plunkett, K. (2010). In the infant's mind's ear: evidence for implicit naming in 18-month-olds. In press at Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797610373371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchman, V. A. & Fernald, A. (2008). Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. Developmental Science 11, F9–F16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matin, E., Shao, K. & Boff, K. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information processing time with and without saccades. Perception and Psychophysics 53, 372–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzocco, M. (1997). Children's interpretations of homonyms: A developmental study. Journal of Child Language 24, 441–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18, 1–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A. & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 475–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L. & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.Google Scholar
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Re-examining the role of Broca's area in sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 5, 263–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passler, M. A., Isaac, W. & Hynd, G. D. (1985). Neuropsychological development of behavior attributed to frontal lobe functioning in children. Developmental Neuropsychology 1, 349–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, D. A. & Lane, D. M. (1991) Auditory attention switching: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 51, 320–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Permer, J. & Wimmer, H. (1985). ‘John thinks that Mary thinks that …’: Attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 39, 437–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1946). The development of children's concept of time. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). Memory. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. S. (eds), Cognitive, language, and perceptual development, 467–521, vol. 2 of Damon, W. (general editor), Handbook of child psychology, 5th edn.New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. A. & Brooks, P. J. (2007). Eye movements during spoken word recognition in Russian children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 98, 20–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedeker, J. & Trueswell, J. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology 49, 238–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swingley, D. & Aslin, R. (2000). Spoken word recognition and lexical representation in very young children. Cognition 76, 147–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swingley, D., Pinto, J. P. and Fernald, A. (1999). Continuous processing in word recognition at 24 months. Cognition 71, 73–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, M. J. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children's processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergartenpath effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C. and Frazier, L. (eds), Perspectives on sentence processing, 155–79. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Welsh, M., Pennington, B. & Groisser, D. (1991). A normative-developmental study of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology 7, 131–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, E. & Sedivy, J. (2006). Eye movements to pictures reveal transient semantic activation during spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32, 1–14.Google ScholarPubMed