Cited by 57Language Development and DisordersChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Iconicity affects children’s comprehension of complex sentences: The role of semantics, clause order, input and individual differences

Open access
de Ruiter, Laura E., Theakston, Anna L., Brandt, Silke, Lieven, Elena V.M.·2018·Cognition

Abstract

Complex sentences involving adverbial clauses appear in children's speech at about three years of age yet children have difficulty comprehending these sentences well into the school years. To date, the reasons for these difficulties are unclear, largely because previous studies have tended to focus on only sub-types of adverbial clauses, or have tested only limited theoretical models. In this paper, we provide the most comprehensive experimental study to date. We tested four-year-olds, five-year-olds and adults on four different adverbial clauses (before, after, because, if) to evaluate four different theoretical models (semantic, syntactic, frequency-based and capacity-constrained). 71 children and 10 adults (as controls) completed a forced-choice, picture-selection comprehension test, providing accuracy and response time data. Children also completed a battery of tests to assess their linguistic and general cognitive abilities. We found that children's comprehension was strongly influenced by semantic factors - the iconicity of the event-to-language mappings - and that their response times were influenced by the type of relation expressed by the connective (temporal vs. causal). Neither input frequency (frequency-based account), nor clause order (syntax account) or working memory (capacity-constrained account) provided a good fit to the data. Our findings thus contribute to the development of more sophisticated models of sentence processing. We conclude that such models must also take into account how children's emerging linguistic understanding interacts with developments in other cognitive domains such as their ability to construct mental models and reason flexibly about them.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.015

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Forms of one-to-one and iconic concatenation biases are widely attested in natural language.

    “These response patterns can be compared to biases in language acquisition more generally; indeed, forms of one-to-one27 and iconic concatenation28,29 are widely attested in natural language.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Amidon, 1976, Children’s understanding of sentences with contingent relations: Why are temporal and conditional connectives so difficult?, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 423, 10.1016/0022-0965(76)90106-5 · DOI
  2. Amidon, 1972, Why five-year-olds cannot understand before and after, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 417, 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80022-7 · DOI
  3. Baayen, 2008, Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items, Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390, 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. Retrieved from <http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967>. · arXiv
  5. Bates, 2015, Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4, Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1, 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bloom, 1987, Sources of meaning in the acquisition of complex syntax: The sample case of causality, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 112, 10.1016/0022-0965(87)90054-3 · DOI
  7. Blything, 2016, Children’s processing and comprehension of complex sentences containing temporal connectives: The influence of memory on the time course of accurate responses, Developmental Psychology, 52, 1517, 10.1037/dev0000201 · DOI
  8. Blything, 2015, Young children’s comprehension of temporal relations in complex sentences: The influence of memory on performance, Child Development, 86, 1922, 10.1111/cdev.12412 · DOI
  9. Brandt, 2009, The discourse bases of relativization: an investigation of young German and English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses, Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 539, 10.1515/COGL.2009.024 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Carni, 1984, The acquisition of before and after reconsidered: what develops?, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 394, 10.1016/0022-0965(84)90011-0 · DOI
  11. Clark, 1971, On the acquisition of the meaning of “before” and “after”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 266, 10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80054-3 · DOI
  12. Clark, 1968, Semantic distinctions and memory for complex sentences, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 129, 10.1080/14640746808400141 · DOI
  13. Corrigan, 1975, A scalogram analysis of the development of the use and comprehension of “because” in children, Child Development, 46, 195, 10.2307/1128848 · DOI
  14. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2000). Constructions with if, since, and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions (pp. 111–142).
  15. De Villiers, 2007, The interface of language and theory of mind, Lingua, 117, 1858, 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Diessel, 2001, The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: a typological study, Language, 77, 433, 10.1353/lan.2001.0152 · DOI
  17. Diessel, 2005, Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses, Linguistics, 43, 449, 10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449 · DOI
  18. Diessel, 2008, Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English, Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 465, 10.1515/COGL.2008.018 · DOI
  19. Diessel, H., & Hetterle, K. (2011). Causal clauses: a cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. In P. Siemund (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation (pp. 21–52). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203209493_Introduction. · DOI
  20. Eager, C., & Roy, J. (2017). Mixed effects models are sometimes terrible. Retrieved from <http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04858>. · arXiv
  21. Emerson, 1979, Children’s comprehension of “because” in reversible and non-reversible sentences, Journal of Child Language, 6, 279, 10.1017/S0305000900002300 · DOI
  22. Emerson, 1980, Children’s judgements of correct and reversed sentences with “if”, Journal of Child Language, 7, 137, 10.1017/S0305000900007078 · DOI
  23. Emerson, 1980, Development of comprehension of sentences with “because” or “if”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 202, 10.1016/0022-0965(80)90016-8 · DOI
  24. Evers-Vermeul, 2011, Discovering domains – On the acquisition of causal connectives, Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1645, 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.015 · DOI
  25. Feagans, 1980, Children’s understanding of some temporal terms denoting order, duration, and simultaneity, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 41, 10.1007/BF01067301 · DOI
  26. Ford, 1986, Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English, On Conditionals, 353, 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.019 · DOI
  27. French, 1977, Comprehension of “before” and “after” in logical and arbitrary sequences, Journal of Child Language, 4, 247, 10.1017/S0305000900001641 · DOI
  28. Gerstadt, 1994, The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 3 1/2- 7 years old on a stroop- like day-night test, Cognition, 53, 129, 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X · DOI · Paper page
  29. Gorrell, 1989, Contextual information and temporal terms, Journal of Child Language, 16, 623, 10.1017/S0305000900010758 · DOI
  30. Grimm, 2011, Vol. 43
  31. Haviland, 1974, What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512, 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4 · DOI
  32. Hawkins, 1990, A parsing theory of word order universals, Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 223
  33. Hawkins, 1994, Vol. 73
  34. Irwin, 1980, The effects of explicitness and clause order on the comprehension of reversible causal relationships, Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 477, 10.2307/747275 · DOI
  35. Johnson, 1975, The meaning of before and after for preschool children, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 88, 10.1016/0022-0965(75)90151-4 · DOI
  36. Johnson, 1980, Children’s judgment and recall of causal connectives: A developmental study of “because”, “so”, and “and”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 243, 10.1007/BF01067240 · DOI
  37. Junge, 2015, Given–new/new–given? Children’s sensitivity to the ordering of information in complex sentences, Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 589, 10.1017/S0142716413000350 · DOI
  38. Just, 1992, A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory, Psychological Review, 99, 122, 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Keller-Cohen, 1987, Context and strategy in acquiring temporal connectives, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 165, 10.1007/BF01072000 · DOI
  40. Kidd, 2013, The role of verbal working memory in children’s sentence comprehension: a critical review, Topics in Language Disorders, 33, 208, 10.1097/TLD.0b013e31829d623e · DOI
  41. Kuhn, 1976, The development of children’s comprehension of causal direction, Child Development, 47, 248, 10.2307/1128307 · DOI
  42. Lohse, 2015, The development of reasoning about the temporal and causal relations among past, present, and future events, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 138, 54, 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.008 · DOI
  43. Magimairaj, 2012, Children’s verbal working memory: role of processing complexity in predicting spoken sentence comprehension, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 669, 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0111) · DOI
  44. McCormack, 2011, Children’s reasoning about the temporal order of past and future events, Cognitive Development, 26, 299, 10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.10.001 · DOI
  45. Montgomery, 2008, Role of working memory in typically developing children’s complex sentence comprehension, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 331, 10.1007/s10936-008-9077-z · DOI
  46. Morey, 2011, Bayes Factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses, Psychological Methods, 16, 406, 10.1037/a0024377 · DOI
  47. Morey, 2014, Simple relation between Bayesian order-restricted and point-null hypothesis tests, Statistics and Probability Letters, 92, 121, 10.1016/j.spl.2014.05.010 · DOI
  48. Münte, 1998, When temporal terms belie conceptual order, Nature, 395, 71, 10.1038/25731 · DOI
  49. Pyykönen, 2003, Sentence structure, temporal order and linearity: slow emergence of adult-like syntactic performance in Finnish, SKY Journal of Linguistics, 16, 113
  50. Rankin, 2013, The temporal priority principle: At what age does this develop, Frontiers in Psychology, 4
  51. Rouder, 2009, Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225, 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Stevenson, 1987, The acquisition of temporal terms, Journal of Child Language, 14, 533, 10.1017/S0305000900010278 · DOI
  53. Sweetser, 1990, From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure, Cambridge University Press
  54. Trosborg, 1982, Children’s comprehension of “before” and “after” reinvestigated, Journal of Child Language, 9, 381, 10.1017/S0305000900004773 · DOI
  55. Wetzels, 2011, Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: an empirical comparison using 855 t tests, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 291, 10.1177/1745691611406923 · DOI · Paper page
  56. White, 2017, The relationship between executive functioning and language: examining vocabulary, syntax, and language learning in preschoolers attending Head Start, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 164, 16, 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.06.010 · DOI
  57. Zelazo, 2006, The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): a method of assessing executive function in children, Nature Protocols, 1, 297, 10.1038/nprot.2006.46 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Zufferey, 2015, A cross-linguistic perspective on the acquisition of causal connectives and relations, International Review of Pragmatics, 7, 22, 10.1163/18773109-00701002 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
de Ruiter, L. E., Theakston, A. L., Brandt, S., & Lieven, E. V. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
171
Pages
202-224
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2763330617
Cited by
57
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
7.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • International Centre for Language and Communicative Development
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L008955/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
sentence comprehension, complex sentences, adverbial clauses, iconicity, children's language development, clause order, input frequency, working memory, connectives, individual differences, mental models, image selection
MeSH terms
Adult, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Speech Perception, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review