Use of context in question answering by 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 397-415

  Ryder, Nuala ^a   Leinonen, Eeva ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Context; Language development, questions; Pragmatics; Relevance theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

CHILD LANGUAGE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 3543040703     PISSN: 00906905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024847529077     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bishop, D. V. M. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development and disorders of language comprehension. Sussex: Psychology Press.
2. Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1992). Comprehension problems in children with specific language impairment: Literal and inferential meaning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 35, 119-129.
3. Blakemore, D. (1990). Constraints on interpretations. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Parassession on the Legacy of Grice, 363-370.
4. Carston, R. (1998.) The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from Relevance Theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 1-30.
5. Clark, E. V. (1973). Non-linguistic strategies and the acquisition of word meaning. Cognition, 2, 161-182.
6. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1971). An overview of theories of grammatical development. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogensis of grammar (pp. 189-212). New York: Academic Press.
7. Leinonen, E., & Kerbel, D. (1999). Relevance theory and pragmatic impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 34 (4), 367-390.
8. Leinonen, E., & Letts, C. (1997). Why pragmatic impairment? A case study in the comprehension of inferential meaning. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 35-51.
9. Milosky, L. M. (1992). Children listening: The role of world knowledge in comprehension. In R. Chapman (Ed.), Processes in language acquisition and disorders. St Louis: Mosby.
10. Nicholle, S. (1997). Criteria for the identification of linguistically encoded procedural information. In G. Marjolein (Ed.), Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshire Relevance Theory Workshop. Chelmsford: Peter Thomas and Associates.
11. Oakhill, J. V., & Yuill, N. M. (1986). Pronoun resolution in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders: Effects of memory load and inferential complexity. Language and Speech, 29, (1), 25-37.
12. Parnell, M. M., & Amerman, J. D. (1983). Answers to WH-questions: Research and applications. in T. M. Gallagher, & C. A. Prutting, Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in language (pp. 129-150). San Diego: San Diego College Hill.
13. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
14. Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills in reading and writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 245-256.
15. Strohner, H., & Nelson, K. E. (1974). The young child's development of sentence comprehension: Influence of event probability, nonverbal context, syntactic form and strategies. Child Development, 45, 567-576.
16. Tyack, D. & Ingram, D. (1977). Children's production and comprehension of questions. Journal of Child Language, 4, 211-224.
17. Umstead, R. S., & Leonard, L. B. (1983). Children's resolution of pronominal reference in text. First Language, 4 (2), 11, 73-84.
18. Yuill, N. M., & Oakhill, J. V. (1991). Children's problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
20. Waddell, M. & Granström, B. (1997). Ben's bring-your-bear party. Swindon: Walker Books.