1887
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2950-189X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-1881

Abstract

Abstract

Predicting upcoming words in a sentence is important in sentence processing. Previous research has shown that children’s vocabulary size and language production skills influence prediction speed. This study investigates whether syntactic complexity affects predictive processing using eye-tracking in a picture-selection task. Three conditions were tested: baseline (object recognition), active (syntactically simple) and passive sentences (syntactically complex). Data was collected for 29 four- and five-year-old Dutch children and 10 Dutch young adults. Results show that adults predict sentence endings quickly and accurately, regardless of complexity. Children predicted in both conditions, but less strongly in passive sentences. These findings suggest that while both adults and children engage in predictive processing, syntactic complexity weakens prediction in children.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00045.roo
2025-10-31
2025-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nb.00045.roo.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00045.roo&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alphen, Petra van, Susanne Brouwer, Nina Davids, Emma Dijkstra & Paula Fikkert
    2021 Word recognition and word prediction in preschoolers with (a suspicion of) a Developmental Language Disorder: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research641. 2005–2021. 10.1044/2021_JSLHR‑20‑00227
    https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00227 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman, Meaghan N., Alexander L. Khislavsky, Michelle E. Coverdale & Jeffrey W. Gilger
    2016 Adaptive attention: How preference for animacy impacts change detection. Evolution and Human Behavior37(4). 303–314. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, Gerry T. M. & Yuki Kamide
    1999 Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition73(3). 247–264. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00059‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Ewa Haman, Kristine Jensen de López, Magdalena Smoczynska, Kazuko Yatsushiro, Marcin Szczerbinski, Angeliek van Hout, Ineta Dabašinskienė, Anna Gavarró, Erin Hobbs, Laura Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė, Napoleon Katsos, Sari Kunnari, Chrisa Nitsiou, Lone Sundahl Olsen, Xavier Parramon, Uli Sauerland, Reeli Torn-Leesik & Heather van der Lely
    2016 A large-scale cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of passive. Language Acquisition23(1). 27–56. 10.1080/10489223.2015.1047095
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2015.1047095 [Google Scholar]
  5. Borovsky, Arielle, Jeffrey L. Elman & Anne Fernald
    2012 Knowing a lot for one’s age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology1121. 417–436. 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brodeur, Mathieu B., Katherine Guérard & Maria Bouras
    2014 Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS) Phase II: 930 new normative photos. PLOS ONE9(9). e106953. 10.1371/journal.pone.0106953
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106953 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chmiel, Agnieszka, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny, Danijel Koržinek, Dariusz Jakubowski & Przemysław Janikowski
    2024 Syntax, stress and cognitive load, or on syntactic processing in simultaneous interpreting. Translation, Cognition & Behavior7(1). 22–47. 10.1075/tcb.00091.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00091.chm [Google Scholar]
  8. Chun, Eunjin & Edith Kaan
    2019 L2 Prediction during complex sentence processing. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science31. 203–216. 10.1007/s41809‑019‑00038‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00038-0 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chun, E., Si Chen, Shulin Liu & Angel Chan
    2021 Influence of syntactic complexity on second language prediction. InKaan, Edith & Theres Grüter (eds.), Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning, 203–216. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bpa.12.04chu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.12.04chu [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer, Burkhart
    1992 Saccadic reaction time: Implications for reading, dyslexia, and visual cognition. InK. Rayner (eds.), Eye movements and visual cognition, 31–45. Springer, New York, NY. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑2852‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2852-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Harkness, Dominic L. & Ashima Keshava
    2017 Moving from the what to the how and where — Bayesian models and predictive processing. InMetzinger, Thomas & Wanja Wiese (eds.), Philosophy and Predictive Processing161. 1–10. MIND Group. 10.15502/9783958573178
    https://doi.org/10.15502/9783958573178 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hestvik, Arild, Baila Epstein, Richard G. Schwartz & Valerie L. Shafer
    2022 Developmental Language Disorder as syntactic prediction impairment. Frontiers in Communication61. 637585. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.637585
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.637585 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hohwy, Jakob
    2020 New directions in predictive processing. Mind & Language351. 209–223. 10.1111/mila.12281
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12281 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ito, Aine, Martin Corly & Martin J. Pickering
    2018 A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition21(2). 251–264. 10.1017/S1366728917000050
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000050 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jones, Samuel D. & Gert Westermann
    2021 Predictive processing and developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research641. 181–185. 10.1044/2020_JSLHR‑20‑00409
    https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00409 [Google Scholar]
  16. Köster, Moritz, Ezgi Kayhan, Miriam Langeloh & Stefanie Hoehl
    2020 Making sense of the world: Infant learning from a predictive processing perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science15(3). 562–571. 10.1177/1745691619895071
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895071 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lenth, Russell
    2025emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.10.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mani, Nivedita & Falk Huettig
    2012 Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake — But only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance38(4). 843–847. 10.1037/a0029284
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029284 [Google Scholar]
  19. Posit team
    Posit team 2024RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. URLwww.posit.co/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2023R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rij, Jacolien van, Martijn Wieling, R. Harald Baayen & Hedderik van Rijn
    2022 “itsadug: Interpreting Time Series and Autocorrelated Data Using GAMMs.” R package version 2.4.1. https://cran.r-project.org/package=itsadug
  22. Schrimpf, Martin, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A. Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B. Tenenbaum & Evelina Fedorenko
    2021 The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(45). e2105646118. 10.1073/pnas.2105646118
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105646118 [Google Scholar]
  23. SR Research Experiment Builder 2.3.1 [Computer software]
    SR Research Experiment Builder 2.3.1 [Computer software] 2020 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.
  24. Tauroza, Steve & Desmond Allison
    1990 Speech rates in British English. Applied Linguistics11(1). 90–105. 10.1093/applin/11.1.90
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.1.90 [Google Scholar]
  25. Verhoeven, Jo, Guy De Pauw & Hanne Kloots
    2004 Speech rate in a pluricentric language: A comparison between Dutch in Belgium and the Netherlands. Language and Speech47(3). 297–308. 10.1177/00238309040470030401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470030401 [Google Scholar]
  26. Wijnen, Frank & Maaike Verrips
    2011 The acquisition of Dutch syntax. InGillis, Steven & Annick De Houwer (eds.), The acquisition of Dutch. (223–300). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.52.07wij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.52.07wij [Google Scholar]
  27. Wood, Simon N.
    2017Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R (2nd edn). Chapman and Hall/CRC. 10.1201/9781315370279
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279 [Google Scholar]
  28. Zettersten, Martin
    2019 Learning by predicting: How predictive processing informs language development. InBusse, Beatrix & Ruth Moehlig-Falke (eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics (255–288). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110596656‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-010 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00045.roo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00045.roo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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