Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-7865
  • E-ISSN: 1879-7873
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study examines the processing and interpretation of passive sentences in German-speaking seven-year-olds, ten-year-olds, and adults. This structure is often assumed to be particularly difficult to understand, and not yet fully mastered in primary school (Kemp, Bredel, & Reich, 2008), i.e. in children aged between six and eleven. Few studies provide empirical data concerning this age range; it is therefore unknown whether this assumption is warranted. Against this background, we tested whether the three age groups differed in their off-line comprehension of passive sentences. In addition, we employed Visual World eye-tracking to measure processing difficulties that may differ between age groups and may not be reflected in the final interpretations. Previous studies on adult language processing in German and English have documented a preference to interpret sentences according to an . Our results show that all three groups make use of this strategy, and that all of them are able to revise this interpretation once the first cue indicating a passive sentence is encountered (the auxiliary verb form ). We conclude that at least from age seven on, children have the linguistic and cognitive prerequisites to process the passive morphosyntax of German and to revise initial sentence misinterpretations.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H.
    (2006) How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbot-Smith, K., Chang, F., Rowland, C., Ferguson, H., Pine, J.
    (2017) Do two and three year old children use an incremental first-NP-as-agent bias to process active transitive and passive sentences?: A permutation analysis. PLoS ONE, 12(10): e0186129. 10.1371/journal.pone.0186129
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186129 [Google Scholar]
  3. Adani, F., & Fritzsche, T.
    (2015) On the relation between implicit and explicit measures of child language development: Evidence from relative clause processing in 4-year-olds and adults. InE. Grillo & K. Jepson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol.1, pp.14–26). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aschermann, E., Gülzow, I., & Wendt, D.
    (2004) Differences in the comprehension of passive voice in German- and English-speaking children. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63(4), 235–245. 10.1024/1421‑0185.63.4.235
    https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.63.4.235 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1989) Functionalism and the Competition Model. InB. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The Crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp.3–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Becker, T.
    (2006) Erwerb und Verarbeitung komplexer grammatischer Strukturen bei Grundschulkindern. InT. Becker & C. Peschel (Eds.), Diskussionsforum Deutsch: Bd. 20. Gesteuerter und ungesteuerter Grammatikerwerb (pp.156–173). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bever, T. G.
    (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. InJ. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp.279–362). New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brinker, K.
    (1971) Das Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Form und Funktion. Heutiges Deutsch Reihe 1: Vol. 2. München/Düsseldorf: Hueber/Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2010) Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 41–61. 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F.
    (2001) Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. doi:  10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752 [Google Scholar]
  14. Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F.
    (2010) Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 538–544.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dąbrowska, E., & Street, J.
    (2006) Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28(6), 604–615. 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.014 [Google Scholar]
  16. Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A.
    (2006) Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2037–2078. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
    (2008) Young German children’s early syntactic competence: A preferential looking study. Developmental Science, 11(4), 575–582. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2008.00703.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00703.x [Google Scholar]
  18. (2014) Familiar verbs are not always easier than novel verbs: How German pre-school children comprehend active and passive sentences. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 128–151. 10.1111/cogs.12066
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12066 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer, M. S.
    (1995) Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order. InP. A. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp.105–135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.30.06dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.30.06dry [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenberg, P.
    (2013) Der Satz (4., aktualisierte und überarb. Aufl.). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Bd. 2. Stuttgart: Metzler.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferreira, F.
    (2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. 10.1016/S0010‑0285(03)00005‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V.
    (2002) Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. doi:  10.1111/1467‑8721.00158
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D.
    (2007) The good enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00007.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R.
    (2004) The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language, 31(3), 661–681. 10.1017/S0305000904006269
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006269 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fritzenschaft, A.
    (1994) Activating passives in child grammar. InR. Tracy & E. Lattey (Eds.), Linguistische Arbeiten: Vol. 309. How tolerant is universal grammar?: Essays on language learnability and language variation (pp.155–184). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Givón, T.
    (1995) Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.74
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.74 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gogolin, I., & Lange, I.
    (2011) Bildungssprache und Durchgängige Sprachbildung. InS. Fürstenau & M. Gomolla (Eds.), Migration und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit (pp.107–127). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑531‑92659‑9_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92659-9_6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Grillo, N., Alexiadou, A., Gehrke, B., Hirsch, N., Paolazzi, C., & Santi, A.
    (2019) Processing unambiguous verbal passives in German. Journal of Linguistics, 55, 523–562. doi:  10.1017/S0022226718000300
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000300 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grimm, H.
    (1975) Verstehen, Imitation und Produktion von Passivsätzen. InH. Grimm, Scholer, H., & M. Wintermantel (Eds.), Zur Entwicklung sprachlicher Strukturformen bei Kindern (pp.73–99). Heinheim: J Beltz Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hartshorne, J. K., & Germine, L. T.
    (2015) When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the lifespan. Psychological Science, 26(4), 433–443. doi:  10.1177/0956797614567339
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567339 [Google Scholar]
  31. Huang, Y., Gerard, J., Hsu, N., Kowalski, A., & Novick, J.
    (2016) Cognitive-control effects on the kindergarten path: Separating correlation from causation. Poster presented at the29th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. March 3–5, 2016, Gainesville, FL.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Huang, Y. T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J.
    (2013) Children’s assignment of grammatical roles in the on-line processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 589–606. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jaeger, T. F.
    (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  34. Järvikivi, J., Pyykkönen-Klauck, P., Schimke, S., Colonna, S., & Hemforth, B.
    (2013) Information structure cues for 4-year-olds and adults: Tracking eye movements to visually presented anaphoric referents. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(7), 877–892. 10.1080/01690965.2013.804941
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.804941 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. T. M.
    (2003) Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 37–55. 10.1023/A:1021933015362
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021933015362 [Google Scholar]
  36. Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F.
    (2016) Good-enough linguistic representations and on-line cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040. doi:  10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kemp, K., Bredel, U., & Reich, H. H.
    (2008) Morphologisch-syntaktische Basisqualifikation. InK. Ehlich, U. Bredel, & H. H. Reich (Eds), Referenzrahmen zur altersspezifischen Sprachaneignung – Forschungsgrundlagen (pp.63–82). Bonn/Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kidd, E., Stewart, A. J., & Serratrice, L.
    (2011) Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 222–234. doi:  10.1017/S0305000909990316
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990316 [Google Scholar]
  39. Klein, W., & Perdue, C.
    (1997) The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. doi:  10.1191/026765897666879396
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897666879396 [Google Scholar]
  40. Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M. W., Scheepers, C., & Pickering, M. J.
    (2005) The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition, 95(1), 95–127. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Maratsos, M. P.
    (1974) Children who get worse at understanding the passive: a replication of Bever. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3), 65–74. 10.1007/BF01067222
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067222 [Google Scholar]
  42. Marinis, T.
    (2007) On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. InA. Belikova, L. Meroni, & M. Umeda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA) (pp.265–276). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Marinis, T., & Saddy, D.
    (2013) Parsing the Passive: Comparing children with specific language impairment to sequential bilingual children. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 155–179. 10.1080/10489223.2013.766743
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2013.766743 [Google Scholar]
  44. Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R.
    (1993) Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 53(4), 372–380. 10.3758/BF03206780
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206780 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mills, A. E.
    (1977) Parallel studies in first and second language acquisition. Ludwigsburg: R. O. U. Strauch Ludwigsburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (1985) The acquisition of German. InD. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp.141–254). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Novick, J. M., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. F.
    (2013) Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186–217. doi:  10.1080/01690965.2012.758297
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.758297 [Google Scholar]
  48. Patterson, C.
    (2012) The effect of local discourse coherence on pronoun resolution: an eye-tracking study. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics On-line, 13, 98–119. Colchester: Department of Language and Linguistics, 96. URL: https://www1.essex.ac.uk/langling/documents/research/egspll_vol13.pdf#page=98
    [Google Scholar]
  49. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rayner, K.
    (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  51. Rickheit, G.
    (1975) Zur Entwicklung der Syntax im Grundschulalter. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schouwenaars, A., Hendriks, P., & Ruigendijk, E.
    (2018) German children’s processing of morphosyntactic cues in wh-questions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(06), 1279–1318. doi:  10.1017/S0142716418000334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000334 [Google Scholar]
  53. Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. G.
    (1982) Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–265. 10.1016/0010‑0277(82)90033‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90033-6 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stromswold, K., Eisenband, J., Norland, E., & Ratzan, J.
    (2002) Tracking the acquisition and processing of English passives: Using acoustic cues to disam-biguate actives and passives. Paper presented at theCUNY Conference on Sentence Processing. New York, NY.
  55. 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. 10.1126/science.7777863
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863 [Google Scholar]
  56. Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G.
    (2001) Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, Ma. u.a.: Bradford Books. 10.7551/mitpress/6184.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6184.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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(2), 89–134. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00032‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00032-3 [Google Scholar]
  58. Turner, E. A., & Rommetveit, R.
    (1967a) The acquisition of sentence voice and reversibility, Child Development, 38, 649–660. 10.2307/1127243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1127243 [Google Scholar]
  59. Weighall, A. R.
    (2007) The kindergarten-path effect revisited : Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(2), 75–95. 10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M.
    (2005) German-speaking children’s productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: Local cues act locally. First Language, 25(1), 103–125. 10.1177/0142723705049120
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723705049120 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error