The eye movements of 24 children and 24 adults were monitored to compare how they read sentences containing plausible, implausible, and anomalous thematic relations. In the implausible condition the incongruity occurred due to the incompatibility of two objects involved in the event denoted by the main verb. In the anomalous condition the direct object of the verb was not a possible verb argument. Adults exhibited immediate disruption with the anomalous sentences as compared to the implausible sentences as indexed by longer gaze durations on the target word. Children exhibited the same pattern of effects as adults as far as the anomalous sentences were concerned, but exhibited delayed effects of implausibility. These data indicate that while children and adults are alike in their basic thematic assignment processes during reading, children may be delayed in the efficiency with which they are able to integrate pragmatic and real-world knowledge into their discourse representation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlytheH. I.LiversedgeS. P.JosephH. S. S. L.WhiteS. J.FindlayJ. M.RaynerK. (2006). The binocular co-ordination of eye movements during reading in children and adults.Vision Research46, 3898–3908.
2.
BrazeD.ShankweilerD.NiW.PalumboL. C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research31, 25–44.
3.
BuswellG. T. (1922). Fundamental reading habits: A study of their developmentChicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners.Applied Psycholinguistics27, 3–42.
5.
CooperR. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory and language processing.Cognitive Psychology6, 84–107.
6.
FelserC.MarinisT.ClahsenH. (2003). Children's processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment.Language Acquisition11, 127–163.
7.
HurewitzF.Brown-SchmidtS.ThorpeK.GleitmanL. R.TrueswellJ. C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children's syntactic choices in production and comprehension.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research29, 597–626.
8.
HyönäJ.OlsonR. K. (1995). Eye fixation patterns among dyslexic and normal readers: Effects of word length and word frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21, 1430–1440.
9.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.BrownC.TylerL. K. (1988). Lexical representations and language comprehension.Language and Cognitive Processes3, 1–16.
10.
McConkieG. W.ZolaD.GrimesJ.KerrP. W.BryantR. B.WolffP. M. (1991). Children's eye movements during reading.Vision and visual dyslexia. SteinJ. F.London: Macmillan.
11.
MeroniL.CrainS.On not being led down the kindergarten pathProceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MABeachleyB.BrownA.CoulinF.Cascadilla Press2003531–544.
12.
NationK.MarshallC. M.AltmannG. T. M. (2003). Investigating individual differences in children's real-time sentence comprehension using language-mediated eye movements.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology86, 314–329.
13.
NiW.FodorJ. D.CrainS.ShankweilerD. (1998). Anomaly detection: Eye movement patterns.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research27, 515–540.
14.
RaynerK. (1986). Beginning readers and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology41, 211–236.
15.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin124, 372–422.
16.
RaynerK.WarrenT.JuhaszB. J.LiversedgeS. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition30, 1290–1301.
SekerinaI. A.StromswoldK.HestvikA. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns?.Journal of Child Language31, 123–152.
19.
SnedekerJ.ThorpeK.TrueswellJ. C.On choosing the parse with the scene: The role of visual context and verb bias in ambiguity resolutionProceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJMooreJ.StenningK.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates2001964–969.
20.
TanenhausM. K.Spivey-KnowltonM. J.EberhardK.SedivyJ. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension.Science286, 1632–1634.
21.
TraxlerM. J. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children's processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55A, 75–96.
22.
TrueswellJ.SekerinaI.HillN.LogripM. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children.Cognition73, 89–134.
23.
WarrenT.McConnellK. (in press). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
