Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T16:44:46.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic complexity and performance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Carlota S. Smith  and
Anne van Kleeck
Carlota S. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Anne van Kleeck
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports an experimental investigation of the influence of linguistic factors on linguistic performance. The factors studied were interpretive complexity and surface length; they were expected to affect performance differentially, depending on the demands of the task. The stimulus sentences were three temporal adverbial structures wherein sentences high in interpretive complexity were low in surface length and vice versa. The experiment presented a toy-moving and an imitation task to children aged 3;6–6;0. The results show an interaction between type of linguistic complexity and type of linguistic performance. Sentences high in interpretive complexity were the most difficult in the toy-moving task and the easiest in the imitation task, and vice versa. The experiments suggest that different abilities are tapped by imitation and toy-moving tasks.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 389 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Amidon, A. & Carey, P. (1972). Why five-years-olds cannot understand before and after. JVLVB 11. 417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrie-Blackley, S. (1973). Six-year-olds' understanding of sentences with time adverbs. JPsycholingRes 2. 153–65.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1973). How children describe time and order. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Coker, P. (1978). Syntactic factors in the acquisition of before and after. JChLang 5. 261–77.Google Scholar
Daneman, M. & Case, R. (1981). Syntactic form, semantic complexity, and short-term memory: influences on children's acquisition of new linguistic structures. DevPsych 17. 367–79.Google Scholar
Feagans, L. (1974). Children's comprehension of some temporal and spatial structures. Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1970). Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. PercepPsychophys 8. 215–21.Google Scholar
French, L. A. & Brown, A. L. (1977). Comprehension of before and after in logical and arbitrary sequences. JChLang 4. 247–56.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. (1979). A deletion ahead of its time. Unpublished paper. University of California at Irvine.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development, Vol. 1. Syntax and semantics. Hilisdale, NJ: Eribaum.Google Scholar
Hull, C. H. & Nie, N. H. (1981). Statistical package for the social sciences update 7–9: new procedures and facilities for releases 7–9. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Eisenberg, K. & Straus, S. (1968). Comprehension: relation between perceived actor and Logical subject. JVLVB 7. 527–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, H. L. (1975). The meaning of before and after for preschool children. JExpChPsych 19. 88–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Keller-Cohen, D. (1975). The acquisition of temporal reference. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kessel, F. D. (1970). The role of syntax in children's comprehension from ages six to twelve. MonogSocResChDev 35. 6.Google ScholarPubMed
Legum, S. (1975). Strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses. Southwest Regional Laboratory Technical Note, TN2–75–19. Austin, TX: Southwest Regional Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Solan, L., Flynn, S., Cross, C. & Shuetz, E. (1981). A comparison of null and pronominal anaphora in first language acquisition. In Burke, V. & Pustejovsky, J. (eds), Proceedings of the New England Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1970). An experimental approach to children's linguistic competence. In Hayes, J. (ed.), The acquisition of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1978). The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Ling&Phil 2. 43–100.Google Scholar