This article describes two experiments examining how 6- and 7-year-old Standard American English-speaking children interpret 3rd person present —s as a tense marker, as compared to lexical items and past tense —ed. Because —s corresponds to multiple meanings, unlike —ed, it may result in later acquisition. Using an offline picture-choice task (Experiment 1), the study found that while all children successfully comprehended —ed, only the 7-year-olds successfully comprehended —s. Eye-tracking measures (Experiment 2) revealed that the 6-year-olds are actually sensitive to —s, but that it is not yet a particularly strong cue for them. The article argues that offline tasks may underestimate children's developing knowledge.
Aslin, R.N. & McMurray, B. (2004). Automated corneal-reflection eye tracking in infancy: Methodological developments and applications to cognition. Infancy, 6, 155-163.
2.
Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & Wulfeck, B. (2001). Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective . Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 369-398.
3.
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies . In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences conference on native and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
4.
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157-193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2003). PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.1.13)[Computer program]. Retrieved 22 October 2003 from: http://www.praat.org/
6.
Brown, R.W. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFLteacher's course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
8.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist paradigm. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
de Villiers, J.G. & de Villiers, P.A. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 267-278.
11.
de Villiers, J.G. & Johnson, V.E. (2007). The information in third-person /s/:acquisiton across dialects of American English. Journal of Child Language , 34, 133-158.
12.
Eberhard, K.M., Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Sedivy, J.C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409-436.
13.
Enç, M. (1996). Tense and modality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 345-358). Oxford: Blackwell.
14.
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Singer, M.A. (2003). From children's hands to adult's ears: Gesture's role in the learning process. Developmental Psychology, 39, 509-520.
15.
Harner, L. (1980). Comprehension of past and future reference revisited . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 170-182.
16.
Herriot, P. (1969). The comprehension of tense by young children. Child Development, 40, 103-110.
17.
Hirtle, W. (1967). The simple and progressive forms: An analytical approach. Quebec: Laval University Press.
18.
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L.R., & Trueswell, J.C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children's syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 597-626.
19.
Johns, J. (2001). Basic reading inventory. Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
20.
Johnson, V.E., de Villiers, J.G., & Seymour, H.N. (2005). Agreement without understanding? The case of third person singular /s/. First Language, 25, 317-330.
21.
Keeney, T.J. & Wolfe, J. (1972). The acquisition of agreement in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 698-705.
22.
Leech, R., Aydelott, J., Symons, G., Carnevale, J., & Dick, F. (2007). The development of sentence interpretation: Effects of perceptual, attentional and semantic interference. Developmental Science, 10, 794-813.
23.
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127-150.
24.
McMurray, B. & Aslin, R.N. (2004). Anticipatory eye movements reveal infants' auditory and visual categories. Infancy, 6, 203-229.
25.
Piestrup, A.M. (1973). Black dialect interference and accommodation of reading instruction in first grade. Monographs of the Language Behavior Research Laboratory, 4. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
Slobin, D.I. (1971). Developmental psycholinguistics. In W. O. Dingwall (Ed.), A survey of linguistic science (pp. 279-410). College Park, MA: University of Maryland.
27.
Slobin, D.I. (1985). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition . Volume 1: The data. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Tanenhaus, M.K., Magnuson, J.S., Dahan, D., & Chambers, C. (2000). Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 557-580.
29.
Tanenhaus, M.K., Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Eberhard, K.M., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information during spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
30.
Trueswell, J.C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N.M., & Logrip, M.L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89-134.
31.
Valian, V. (2006). Young children's understanding of present and past tense. Language Learning and Development, 2, 251-276.
