The authors of this article report on a preliminary study of 18, 4- and 5-year-old children, followed by a longitudinal study of 44 children, who were tested in the first, second, and third grades. The children's ability to detect the ambiguity of lexically ambiguous sentences (e.g., “The children saw the bat lying by the fence”) and structurally ambiguous sentences (e.g., “The girl tickled the baby with the teddy bear”) was assessed in the preliminary study and in Experiments 1 and 2, which were conducted when the children were in the first and second grades, respectively. Ambiguity detection skill was found to be related to first-grade reading readiness and to second- and third-grade reading achievement. The results suggest that the detection of lexical ambiguity develops in first grade, correlates highly with reading readiness measures, and is a strong predictor of second-grade reading ability, indicating that it is a precursor of reading skill. In this study, the ability to detect structural ambiguity emerged in second grade and was a predictor of third-grade reading ability. Clinical implications for the use of ambiguity detection tasks to identify children who are at risk for reading difficulty are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bentin, S., Deutsch, A., & Liberman, I.Y. (1990). Syntactic competence and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 147—172.
2.
Bowey, J.A. (1986). Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing reading comprehension monitoring. Journal ofExceptional Child Psychology, 41, 282—299.
3.
Byrne, B. (1981). Deficient syntactic control in poor readers: Is a weak phonetic memory code responsible?Applied Psycholinguistics , 2, 201—212.
4.
Cairns, H.S. (1999). Psycholinguistics: An introduction. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
5.
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J.M. (1998). Syntactic reanalysis, thematic processing, and sentence comprehension. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 73—100). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
6.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1998). Sentence reanalysis and visibility. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 143— 176). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic .
7.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J.D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model . Cognition, 6, 291—325.
8.
Garnsey, S.M., Pearlmutter, N.J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M.A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory andLanguage, 37, 58—93.
9.
Goodman, K.S. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 497—508). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
10.
Gorrell, P. (1998). Syntactic analysis and reanalysis in sentence processing. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 201—246). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
11.
Gough, P.B., & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6—10.
12.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Gleitman, L.R., & Gleitman, H. (1978). What did the brain say to the mind? Study of the detection and report of ambiguity by young children. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella , & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The child's conception of language (pp. 97—132). New York: Springer Verlag.
13.
Hoover, W., & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127—160.
14.
Keil, F. (1980). Development of the ability to perceive ambiguities: Evidence for the task specificity of a linguistic skill. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 219—229.
15.
Lewis, R.L. (1998). Reanalysis and limited repair parsing: Leaping off the garden path. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 247—286). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
16.
Lively, S.E., Pisoni, D.B., & Goldinger, S.D. (1994). Spoken word recognition: Research and theory. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 265—302). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Love, T., Swinney, D., Bagdasaryan, S., & Prather, P. (1999). Real-time processing of lexical ambiguities by children. Proceedings of the 12th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York: City University of New York.
Menyuk, P., Chesnick, M., Liebergott, J., Korngold, G., D'Agostino, R., & Berlanger, A. (1991). Predicting reading problems in at-risk children . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 93—903.
20.
Metsala, J.L., & Walley, A.C. (1997). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In L. Ehri & J. L. Metsala (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89—120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Mitchell, D.C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375—410). New York: Academic Press.
22.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report (Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
23.
O'Donnell, M., & Wood, M. (1999). Becoming a reader: A developmental approach to reading instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
Peters, A.M., & Zaidel, E. (1980). The acquisition of homonymy. Cognition, 8, 187—207.
25.
Pritchett, B.L. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64, 539—576.
26.
Pritchett, B.L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Shultz, T.R., & Pilon, R. (1973). Development of the ability to detect linguistic ambiguity. Child Development, 44, 728—733.
28.
Simpson, G.B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words . In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 359—374). New York : Academic Press.
Snowling, S., Van Wagtendonk, B., & Stafford, C. (1988). Object-naming deficits in developmental dyslexia . Journal of Research in Reading, 11(2), 67—85.
31.
Stein, C.L., Cairns, H.S., & Zurif, E. (1985). Sentence comprehension related to syntactic deficits in reading disabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 305—322.
32.
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645—659.
33.
Swinney, D., & Prather, P. (1989). On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young children: Investigations into the development of mental modularity. In D. Gorfein (Ed.), Resolving semantic ambiguity (pp. 225— 238). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
34.
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.
35.
Tunmer, W.E., & Hoover, W.A. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175—214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
Waltzman, D.E., & Cairns, H.S. (2000). Grammatical knowledge of third grade good and poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 263—284.
37.
Wankoff, L.S. (1983). Selected metalinguistic variables as they relate to conservation and reading achievement in normal-achieving and some learning-disabled children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.
38.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P., & Piddle, K. (2001). Naming-speed processes, timing and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387—407.
