Normal and Scrambled Grammar in Discrimination, Imitation, and Comprehension

Author(s): John Neil Bohannon III

Source: Child Development, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Sep., 1976), pp. 669-681
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1128181
Accessed: 10-06-2015 02:47 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Normal and ScrambledGrammarin Discrimination,

Imitation, and Comprehension
John Neil BohannonIII
EmoryUniversity

BOHANNON,
JOHNNEIL, III. Normal and ScrambledGrammarin Discrimination,Imitation, and
1976, 47, 669-681. Previousstudies suggested the possibilComprehension.CHILDDEVELOPMENT,
ity that5-7-year-oldchildrenmaynot be ableto discriminatebetweennormalandscrambledsyntax.This
andotherlanguageskillswith50 children
study examinedthe relationshipbetweensyntaxdiscrimination
each in kindergarten,first, and second grade. In additionto the discriminationtask, the childrenwere
askedto imitateandshowcomprehension(selecta criterionpicturefroman arrayafterhearinga stimulus
sentence)of normaland scrambledgrammarsentences. The results showedthat the percentageof discriminators(thosewho madeless than5 errorson the discrimination
task)changedsignificantlyover age
fromthe minority(22%)in kindergartento the majority(78%)in secondgrade.Whileminimaldifferences
existed between discriminatorsand nondiscriminators
in imitatingor comprehendingscrambledsencorrectsentenceswere superior
tences, childrenwho discriminatedbetween randomand grammatically
for both imitationand comprehensionof normalsentences.
As unlikely as it may seem, 5- and 6-year-old
children may be unable to tell the difference between normal and scrambled syntax. Previous
studies have shown that this age child (a) has failed
to express a listening preference for normal over
scrambled stories (Bohannon & Friedlander 1973;
Rileigh 1973), (b) has produced only grammatical
prepositional phrases (to the store) even when the
use of ungrammatical phrases (the store to) was
modeled (Liebert, Odom, Hill, & Huff 1969;
Odom, Liebert, & Hill 1968), (c) has imitated both
normal and scrambled sentences to an equally
poor degree (Frasure & Entwisle 1973; Weener
1971; McNeill, Note 1; Weener & Wright, Note
2), and (d) has failed to recognize grammaticalsentences when presented in a list containing both
normal and scrambled items (Vasta & Liebert
1973).
The reason why the above mass of data has
been ignored may be that the results were considered methodological artifacts. That is, 5- and
6-year-old children may have failed to distinguish
the grammatical from the ungrammatical in certain contexts; but it was no more than a parlor
trick, essentially unrelated to the mainstream of
language development.

Fortunately, recent work (Bohannon 1975)

has laid the artifact hypothesis to rest. This study
assessed both syntax discrimination and sentence
imitation, a measure gaining increasing acceptance for testing emerging language skills (Slobin
& Welsh, Note 3). The results from first-, second-,
and fifth-grade children (18 per grade) indicated
that (a) some children did not discriminate normal
from scrambled syntax in a successive discrimination task, (b) the ability to discriminate was a function of age (40% of first-grade, 75% of secondgrade, and 95% of fifth-grade children could learn
the discrimination task with five errors or less),
and (c) the ability to discriminate was related to
normal sentence imitations (r = .63, p< .01).
The results further suggested that at least two
variables were associated with the ability to imitate sentences: age and the ability to discriminate.
Weener (1971) has suggested that increased age
may provide increased memory capacity (such
capacity was reflected in an increased ability to
imitate scrambled sentences). Bohannon's data did
not provide the opportunity to examine the relative effects of these variables because only four of
his sample of 18 second graders failed to discriminate. Only by assessing a large number of second

This study was done in partialfulfillmentof the requirementsof the Ph.D. degree at the State
Universityof New Yorkat Stony Brook. The authorwishes to thank Dr. Gabriel Massaro,assistant
superintendentof the HarborfieldsSchoolDistrict;Dr. DonaldWhite, principalof EastSide School;Joan
Kolombotovich,principalof BroadwaySchool;MauriceBeulieau,principalof WashingtonDrive School;
andthe teachers,parents,andchildrenof these schoolsfortheirassistanceandcooperationin the courseof
this study. Thanksare also due Drs. FrancisPalmer, HerbertKaye, RogerSchwaneveldt,and Aaron
Lipton for their help in the preparationof the manuscriptand MeredithPublishingCorp., for their
permissionto use the picturesin LanguageLotto.Reprintrequestsshouldbe sent to Dr. J. N. Bohannon,
Departmentof Psychology,Emory University,Atlanta,Georgia30322.
[Child Development, 1976, 47, 669-681. @ by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved.]

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

670 Child Development

graders and identifying a substantial sample of
nondiscriminators at that age level could the relationship between age and the ability to discriminate syntax be examined. At the same time, a substantial population of kindergarten children could
be examined, thus extending the results to a
younger age group.
It was also the case that Bohannon used only
sentence imitation as a measure of language development. Although some investigators argue
that it is a valid assessment of production (McNeill
1970; Menyuk 1969; Slobin & Welsh, Note 3) and
comprehension (Carroll 1972; McNeill 1970), imitation remains a measure of productive speech. If
comprehension and production are different linguistic processes (Miller & Ervin 1964), their relationship to the ability to discriminate should be
examined independently.
A technique similar to the one used by Fraser, Bellugi, and Brown (1963) would provide an
independent measure of comprehension. In this
procedure the child listens to a sentence and
selects one picture from an array as the best representative of the meaning of the sentence. Since
the child need not speak to respond correctly, a
measure of comprehension is achieved relatively
independent of productive speech processes. Furthermore, if the stimulus sentences were both
normal and scrambled, the comprehension of each
type could be compared.
The present study examined the relationships
between the ability of children in kindergarten,
first, and second grade to discriminate between
random and normal syntax and the ability to imitate and comprehend both random and normal
sentence constructions. From previous work it
was assumed that the ability to discriminate and
age are positively related and that a large sample
of children were needed to provide substantial
groups of discriminators and nondiscriminators at
each age level. Given those samples and independent measures of imitation and comprehension, it
is hypothesized that (a) the proportion of children
who could discriminate syntax should increase
from ages 5 to 7, (b) there should be no differences
between discriminators and nondiscriminators in
imitating or in comprehending scrambled sentences, and (c) discriminators should be superior
to nondiscriminators in the imitation and comprehension of grammatical sentences.

Method
Design.--The design of this study was a 3
(kindergarten, first, and second grade) x 2 (dis?

criminator and nondiscriminator children) x 2

(random and normal sentences) for multiple measures (sentence imitation and comprehension).
Grades, ability to discriminate, and stimulus lists
were between-subject factors, and syntax was a
within-subject variable.
Subjects.--Children were from kindergarten,
first, and second grades (50 children per grade) in
two suburban Long Island school systems, for a
total of 150 children (77 females, 73 males). Mean
ages of the children were 5-9 (SD = 3.4 months),
6-9 (SD = 3.5 months), and 7-9 (SD = 3.7
months), kindergarten through second grade, respectively.
Materials.-The stimuli for the discrimination task were identical with those used by Bohannon (1975). They consistecd of 24 different sentences, five to 15 words in length, and requiring
3-9 sec of presentation time. Half the sentences
were in normal word order and half in scrambled
word order. The sentences were recorded on tape
cassettes (male narrator) by a Fisher RC70 tape
deck.
The imitation stimuli were identical with
those used by Weener and Wright (Note 2). Two
lists of six items were generated, half the items
with correct grammar and the other half with
scrambled word order. Each item consisted of two
five-word sentences. The normal grammar fiveword sentences had an adjective-plural nountransitive verb-adjective-plural noun structure
(e.g., Good girls wear pretty coats, Strong lions
climb tall trees). Sentences in the scrambled syntax condition had the word order randomized
within sentences (e.g., Girls pretty good wear
coats, Climb lions trees tall strong). Sentences
were assigned to the lists so that no two versions of
the same question occurred in the same list (see
table 1). Thus no child heard both versions of the
same sentence. The sentences were recorded by a
male narratoron tape cassettes with a Fisher RC70
tape deck. All stimuli were narrated with a lively
intonation pattern and had durations of between 7
and 8 sec.
The comprehension stimuli were: (1) 20 sentences, five to 15 words in length; (2) each sentence with a normal and scrambled version; and (3)
20 arrays of four pictures. Each array contained
only one picture which corresponded to the meaning of the stimulus sentence (see fig. 1). Pictures
for the arrays were simple line drawings taken
from Gotkin's Language Lotto.1 Twenty sentences, half normal and half scrambled, were randomly assigned to one of two lists with the stipula-

1966 by the Meredith Publishing Corp., New York. Used by permission.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

John Neil Bohannon II 671

TABLE 1
SENTENCE IMITATION STIMULI

List 1
In .............
2r .............
3n .............
4r .............
5n .............
6r .............

Good girls wear prettycoats. Stronglions climb tall trees.

Horses heavy big pull wagons. Soldiersbad brave men fight.
Cool waterswash dry sand. Hungrybears eat sweet apples.
Childrenhappy games play funny. Tools fresh meat sharpcut.
Little deer jump high fences. Nice peoplehelp sick boys.
Fish small ducks young like. Hair long wind warm blows.
List 2

In ..............
2r .............
3n .............
4r ...........
5n .............
6r .............

Happy childrenplay funny games. Sharptools cut fresh meat.

Girls prettygood wear coats. Climblions trees tall strong.
Big horsespull heavy wagons. Brave soldiersfight bad men.
Watersdry cool sand wash. Eat apples sweet bearshungry.
Young ducks like small fish. Warmwind blows long hair.
Fences jump high deer little. Nice help boys peoplesick.

tion that no two versions of the same sentence

occur in the same list.
Procedure.-The order of presentation of the
three tasks (discrimination, imitation, and com-

prehension) was randomized across children. All

subjects were tested in a single test session lasting
about 25 min by the same male examiner. Only
one child left the testing situation prior to completion of all tasks. He was dropped from the study.

CIDQ2

FIG. 1.-Example of picturearrayfor comprehensiontest. Normalversionof the stimulussentence:"Niceboys

beat loud drumsand other boys shakebells."The randomsyntaxversionwas, "Loudbeatdrumsboys nice bells and
boys other shake."CopyrightMeredithPublishingCorporation,all rights reserved.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

672 Child Development

Discrimination procedure.--Children were
tested individually and instructed in a conversational manner:
We'regoingto playa listeninganda guessinggameand
I'll tell you all aboutit. Youknowthat peopletalkdifferently. Not only do people sound different,but some
people may use differentwordsor sentencesto say the
samething. I havetwo friends,Normanand Ralph,who
talkdifferently.I went out and wrotedown some of the
things these guys have said and I put them on tape.
[Experimenterpointsto the tape recorder.]I'mgoingto
play these thingsfor you, one by one, and you have to
guess who said it. To makethe game easier, I have an
exampleof somethingthat Normanhas said and something that Ralphhas said. Listen closely. Here is Norman. [Experimenterplays the recordedexample sentence, "Mothertold you to washyourhands."]Did you
hear that? That was Norman.Now here's how Ralph
wouldsay the samething. Here is how Ralphwouldsay
that. [Examinerplays the recorded sentence, "Told
mother you hands to your wash."]Did you hear that?
That was Ralph.Now let's play the game.
Children were presented the stimulus sentences one by one via a Sharp cassette tape deck
and were required to respond "Norman" or
"Ralph" to each stimulus. All subjects received
appropriate feedback ("right" or "wrong") after
each response. The children were tested until
they gave eight consecutive correct responses or
until they completed 24 trials. They were classified as "discriminator" if they achieved eight
consecutive responses within 24 trials or made less
than five errors.
Imitation procedure.-Subjects were seated
in front of an acoustical speaker and a microphone.
Instructions were delivered in a conversational
manner:
We're going to playa listeningand a talkinggame.The
way to play is to listen here [experimenterpoints to
speaker]and to talk into here [experimenterpoints to
the microphone].When you hearsomething,I wantyou
to say the same thing. That is the game. I wantyou to
listen [experimenteragain points to the speaker]and
then to saythe samething [experimenteragainpointsto
the microphone].Don'tworryif you can'trememberall
of it. Just do the best you can. Do you thinkyou know
how to play? Good. Let's practice.What if you heard
"dog."What would you do?
Depending upon the child's response, the
experimenter appropriately instructed the child to
speak louder or talk into the microphone. Pretraining continued with the delivery of two other practice stimuli, "the big dog" and "big dogs chase
little cats." When the experimenter was satisfied
with the child's knowledge of the procedure, testing began. Half the children received list 1 and
half list 2.

During testing, the imitation stimuli were delivered by a Sharp cassette tape deck, and the
subjects' responses were recorded on a Fisher
RC70 cassette tape deck for later transcription and
scoring. Stimulus delivery depended upon the
child's responses in that subsequent items were
not presented until the child finished responding
to the previous stimulus. Responses were transcribed and scored using the Weener (1971)
method. Subjects' scores consisted of the number
of words imitated regardless of word order.
Comprehension procedure.--Children were
seated in front of the experimenter and were instructed in a conversational manner:
We'regoingto play a pictureguessinggame. I'm going
to say a sentenceand I wantyou to pointto the picture
that best goes with that sentence. Now look at these
pictures[the firstpracticearrayconsistedof picturesof a
coat,a puppetshow,a potholder,anda stringof beads].
What picturewould you pick if I said, "Whereis the
coat."[Afterthe child responded,the experimenterrevealedthe secondpracticearrayconsistingof picturesof
a doll, some bells, some blocksandsome cookies.]Now
what picturewould you pick if I said, "Everyonelikes
cookies."Now, do you thinkyou knowhow to playthe
game?Good. Let's begin.
No child needed extra instruction or failed to
perform the practice items. Therefore, upon completion of practice, each child began the comprehension test of 20 items. Half the children received stimulus sentence list 1 and half received
list 2. Prior to sentence stimulus delivery, children were allowed to view the appropriate picture
array. After stimulus narration, subjects were allowed as much time as they needed to respond. If
a child stated that he/she did not know the answer,
he was encouraged to guess. Regardless of the response, the experimenter responded positively
and warmly. A correct response was defined as the
selection of the picture corresponding to the
meaning of the normal syntax version of the stimulus sentence, regardless of delivered stimulus
word order. Subject scores consisted of the number of correct picture selections.

Results
Discrimination.-On the basis of five errors
or less to criterion performance, the kindergarten
children yielded 11 discriminators (22%)versus 39
nondiscriminators; first grade provided 29 discriminators (58%) versus 21 nondiscriminators;
and second grade provided 39 discriminators
(78%) versus 1ii nondiscriminators. Age and the
ability to discriminate syntax varied positively and
in the predicted direction, X2(2) = 31.12, p <
.001.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

John Neil BohannonIII 673

The relationship between the ability to discriminate syntax and age on the imitation and
comprehension of normal and scrambled sentences is examined below.
Imitation.-Sentence imitation scores were
analyzed by two separate 3 (grades) x 2 (discrimination) x 2 (lists) x 2 (syntax) ANOVAs. Grade,
discrimination, and lists were between-subject effects and syntax was a within-subject effect. The
first ANOVA, a least-squares analysis, yielded
several negative sum squares because of the
abrupt increase in the proportion of discriminators
over age. The grade x discriminator (G x D) interaction was influenced most, with the result that
all factors depending upon the G x D factor (G x
D x syntax, G x D x list and G x D x list x
syntax) were rendered meaningless. The error
terms were inflated as well and made the analysis
fairly conservative. It should be noted that the
sum squares of the other factors in the analysis not
dependent on the G x D interaction were unaffected. Therefore, as a check upon the significance
levels of the affected factors another unweighted
means ANOVA was computed on the means of the
G x D x L x S interaction.
This analysis treated each of the 24 means as a
single score, thus overestimating the four-way interaction and slightly underestimating the lowerorder factors. For example, the means for the
grade main effect in the least-squares analysis are
kindergarten = 3.88 words per sentence, first
grade = 4.62, and second grade = 5.23. The
grade means in the unweighted means analysis are
kindergarten = 4.04 words per sentence, first
grade = 4.56, and second grade = 5.12. Even
with this reduction of variance, the pattern of significant effects is the same for both the leastsquares analysis and the unweighted means analysis. Therefore, only the F ratios of the more appropriate least squares will be reported.
The least-squares analysis revealed significant
main effects for grades, F(2,138) = 11.89, p < .01;
discrimination, F(1,138) = 16.82, p < .01; lists,
F(1,138) = 5.32, p < .05; and syntax, F(1,138) =
266.59, p < .01. The results of individual t-test
comparisons show:
1. Second graders imitate all sentences better (p < .01) than first-grade and kindergarten
children (means = 5.23, 4.62, 3.88 words per sentence, respectively). First graders were also superior (p < .01) to kindergarten children.
2. All children imitate normal syntax sentences better than scrambled sentences (means =
5.80 vs. 3.45 words per sentence).

3. Discriminator children imitate better than

nondiscriminator children (means = 5.02 vs. 4.08
words per sentence).
4. List 1 was easier to imitate than list 2
(means = 4.84 vs. 3.86 words per sentence).
The significant grade x syntax interaction,
F(2,138) = 14.00, p < .01, subsequent t-test
comparisons revealed:
1. There were no significant increases over
age in the random syntax imitations (means =
3.27, 3.26, 3.83 words per sentence, for kindergarten, first, and second grade, respectively).
2. There was a significant (p < .01) increase
in normal syntax imitations between kindergarten
and first grade. First and second graders were not
significantly different (means = 4.49, 5.98, 6.63
words per sentence for kindergarten, first, second
grade, respectively).
The significant discriminator x syntax interaction, F(1,138) = 24.40, p < .01, and subsequent t-test comparisons revealed:
1. Discriminator children were superior (p <
.01) to nondiscriminators on normal syntax imitations (means = 6.46 vs. 4.85 words per sentence,
respectively).
2. But there were no significant differences
between discriminators and nondiscriminators
when imitating scrambled sentences (means
3.57 vs. 3.32 words per sentence). There were no
other significant effects.
Comprehension.-The comprehension scores
were analyzed by two 3 (grades) x 2 (discrimination) x 2 (lists) x 2 (syntax) ANOVAs, with grade,
discrimination, and lists the between-subjects factors and syntax the within-subject factor. The effect of the changing number of discriminators and
nondiscriminators over age on the sum squares of
the grade x discrimination interaction in the
least-squares analysis was similar to that in the
imitation analysis. The problem was dealt with in
the same manner by checking the spurious sum
squares by means of an unweighted means analysis. The pattern of significant effects was identical
over both analyses; therefore the more appropriate
least-squares F ratios will be reported.
The analysis revealed significant main effects
for grades, F(2,138) = 26.27, p < .01; discrimination, F(1,138) = 78.54, p < .01; lists, F(1,138) =
9.99, p < .01; and syntax, F(1,138) = 242.29, p <
.01. There were no other significant effects.
Further examination of the main effects using
t-test comparisons revealed:

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

674 Child Development

1. Second-grade children (mean = 8.26
items) comprehended significantly (p < .01) more
items than both first-grade (mean = 7.73 items)
and kindergarten children (mean = 6.81 items),
and first-grade subjects were significantly (p <
.01) better than kindergarten subjects.
2. Discriminator children (mean = 8.29
items) comprehended more items than nondiscriminator children (mean = 6.83 items).
3. The children's performance on list 2 (mean
= 7.86) was slightly superior to their performance
on list 1 (mean = 7.34 items).
4. All children comprehended more of the
normal syntax items (mean = 8.47 items) than
random syntax items (mean = 6.74 items).
Discussion
Discrimination and imitation.--Few 5-yearolds and most 7-year-olds discriminate between
normal and scrambled grammar under the conditions of this study. The age at which half the children can discriminate appears to be 6 (first grade).
This finding validates the author's previous work
(Bohannon 1975). Indeed, the comparative data
are highly consistent. The first study, conducted
during the first half of the school year, found that
40% and 71% of the first and second grades, respectively, could discriminate. This study conducted with children who were on the average 4
months older than the children of the first study
found 58% of first graders and 78% of second graders could discriminate syntax. These combined
data reflected the behavior of 204 children in three
different schools. The children were predominantly middle class, and the schools were almost
certainly above average in their educational program. Whether SES or the caliber of school systems would alter the percentages of discriminators
by gtade is, of course, an empirical question which
must be tested by further research.
Pertinent to the relationship between the
ability to discriminate and sentence imitation performance, figure 2 emphasizes a finding of consequence: the ability to discriminate syntax relates
only to the imitation of grammatical sentences.
Discriminators were no better at imitating scrambled sentences than nondiscriminating children.
However, the grade x syntax interaction
shows that other variables operate in the ability to
imitate. This finding is inconsistent with predictions by the author that the imitation of normal
syntax would be exclusively a function of the ability to discriminate. Had that been found, no increase in imitations of normal syntax would have

occurred with age among nondiscriminators. This

is clearly not the case (see fig. 2).
One possibility does exist for the original hypothesis. Some children may be able to discriminate syntax but fail to respond correctly on the
discrimination measure for other reasons. The reverse is unlikely as chance acts against a true nondiscriminator's misclassification as a discriminator.
Thus, if a percentage of those classified as nondiscriminators may have differentiated normal from
scrambled syntax but responded incorrectly, the
increase in normal syntax imitations of nondiscriminators over age seen in figure 2 could be explained. Several high imitation scores by misclassified discriminators would not greatly influence
the mean score for kindergarten nondiscriminators
(N = 39). But a few such scores in the smaller
sample of nondiscriminators in the first (N = 21)
and second grade (N = 11) could inflate those
means to produce results similar to figure 2.
To explore the possibility that some children
may have been misclassified as nondiscriminators,
and to assess the effect of more explicit instructions on the ability to discriminate, additional subjects were exposed to a modification of the original
instructions on the discrimination task. These
children were given the original measure of discrimination until 10 were identified as nondiscriminators by the original criteria. Eight were
kindergarteners and one each was in the first and
second grades. After these subjects had completed
the original measure and were unable to discriminate, they were rerun with the same materials but
with different instructions. They were told,
"Norman talks correctly like your teacher, and you
and I do; he makes sense [and the tape of Norman
was played again]. Ralph talks funny, mixes up his
words and does not talk like your teacher [and the
tape of Ralph was played again]."
With the additional instructions, three of the
10 children (the second grader and two kindergarteners) reached the original criterion of discriminating, but seven (the first grader and six kindergarteners) did hot. Those results suggest (1) that some
children may have distinguished word order but
responded incorrectly, and were misclassified as
nondiscriminators, and (2) that the inability to discriminate found with the original measure seems
relatively impervious to more explicit instructions.
Thus, the increased ability of nondiscriminators to imitate normal syntax with age may be an
artifact. Some children might have distinguished
word order but responded incorrectly, with the
result that they were misclassified. Imitation and
comprehension tests were not given to the addi-

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

John Neil BohannonIII 675

Discriminator

100

O Nondiscriminator

90
w

80
70
7)

Normal
Syntax

-)
*

60

50

40

Scrambled
Syntax

0
P

20

10
1

Kg

GRADES
FIG. 2.-Imitation scoresfor discriminatorand nondiscriminator
childrenover grades
tional sample of 10, so these additional data do not
provide information about possible differences between the seven and three with respect to their
sentence imitation ability.
The inability of the seven to discriminate
even with instruction appears to validate the original measure and to speak to the strength of the
phenomena. It is reasonable to assume that some
children are on the threshold of being able to discriminate and that, while on that threshold, they
are more aware of word-order differences than
those who have not approached it. But for seven to
be uninfluenced by the instruction implies that
the inability to discriminate is a more fundamental
phenomena than may have been previously supposed.
discussing the resultsComprehension.--Before
of the comprehension test some caveats
should be noted. The measurement tool was chosen for its independence from assessments of

productive speech. An identical comprehension

procedure has been shown to relate to other aspects of language development like spontaneous
speech (Fraser et al. 1963), but language comprehension is certainly more complex than what
this measure alone reflects.
Spearritt (1962) suggests listening comprehension involves attentional, motivational, auditory, memory, and semantic factors. The pick-apicture method may only involve a subset of these,
such as attentional, auditory, and semantic factors.
Syntax may not even have been a necessary factor
for responding correctly to all items. Correct performance on the sentence, "Big pianos make nice
music," could have been achieved by comprehending the word "piano" and matching that
with the picture of a piano in the array. Other
sentences, like "Mother says to put cups on top of
saucers," require comprehension of a grammatical
relationship rather than single words, particularly

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

676 Child Development

since the picture array provided pictures of both a
cup on a saucer and a saucer on a cup. Syntax was
presumably more critical for correct interpretation
of the second sentence.

ity in the imitation of scrambled sentences. Would

not brighter or more attentive children reproduce
more words from random word strings?
The answer may be in the comprehension test
itself. An analysis of discriminators' and nondiscriminators' performance on the easy and difficult
items of the test was conducted to determine
whether discriminator children performed better
on both. If they are brighter or more attentive,
should they not perform better on both easy and
difficult test items?

The pick-a-picture method may elicit responses dependent upon different levels of comprehension-some
grammatical, some lexical.
With this qualification on the measure, the results
of the comprehension procedures can be examined.
The measure of comprehension indicated that
children who discriminate syntax comprehend
both normal and scrambled sentences better than
nondiscriminators (see fig. 3). Were it not for the
scrambled sentence imitations one might suggest
that discriminators are simply "brighter" or more
"attentive," and the ability to discriminate is a
function of these general factors. For that hypothesis to hold, however, a reasonable explanation
must be found for the discriminators'nonsuperior-

Those items upon which children made 40 or

more errors were classified as difficult. Those with
31 or less errors were classified as easy.
For difficult items (see fig. 4) the comprehension results are very similar to the results of the
imitation test (fig. 1). Discriminators are superior
to nondiscriminators only on the normal syntax
items (means = 84% vs. 61.5% items correct,

100
Normal
Syntax

90
80
70

Scrambled
Syntax

0)
0
U

60

ct

50

H
4J

40'
0)

30'

Discriminator
Nondiscriminator

20

10

K9

GRADES
FIG. 3.--Comprehensionscores for discriminators
and nondiscriminators
over gradesfor all 20 items

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

John Neil BohannonIII 677

100
90
Normal
Syntax

80

U
0)

u0
o
U
U)

70

60
50"

Scrambled
Syntax

U)
U
uc

40"

NJ

30"
Discriminator
Nondiscriminator

20
1

Kg

GRADES
children over gradesfor eight
FIG. 4.-Mean comprehensionscores for discriminatorand nondiscriminator
difficultitems.

t(148) = 6.99, p < .001). No significant differences

existed for the comprehension of difficult scrambled items (means = 48.5% vs. 45% items correct
for discriminators and nondiscriminators respectively, t(148) = .88, N.S.). It was only the easy
scrambled items (fig. 5) on which discriminators
were superior and which provided the difference
between groups when all items were analyzed together. Presumably, discriminators should have
been superior on both easy and difficult items if
brightness or attentiveness was the cause.
Figure 5 reveals a ceiling effect. Discriminator children responded correctly almost 90%-97%
of the time in both normal and scrambled easy
items. Only the nondiscriminators' performance
on the scrambled items was under 80%.
Performance on difficult (fig. 4) and easy (fig.

5) items was similar except for discriminators' responding to random syntax. Discriminators comprehended more easy normal syntax items (means
= 97% vs. 85% items correct, t(148) = 6.68, p
< .001) and more easy scrambled syntax items
(89.5% vs. 72% items correct, t(148) = 6.68, p
< .001) than nondiscriminators. The last finding is
in contrast to the discriminators' performance on
difficult scrambled items, where they were no different from nondiscriminators.
An examination of the imitation (fig. 2) and
comprehension of difficult items (fig. 4) reveals
three levels of performance. Poorest was the imitation and comprehension of scrambled sentences
by both discriminators and nondiscriminators. Intermediate was the performance of nondiscriminators on normal syntax sentences. The highest level
was attained by discriminator children in com-

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

678 Child Development

Normal
Syntax

100
90

Scrambled
Syntax

80
4-

70'

4)
0

60

50
Discx imina tox
Nondiscriminator

40

30
20

10
1

Kg

GRADES
and nondiscriminators
over gradesfor the easy items
FIG. 5.--Comprehensionscores for discriminators
prehending and imitating grammatical sentences.
Three different processing levels or strategies may
be involved.
The first and poorest strategy is exhibited by
nondiscriminator children on all scrambled sentences and by discriminators on difficult scrambled sentences. The children seemed to use isolated words as the sole basis for response. For the
comprehension task, some individual words were
recalled and applied to the picture arrays. Occasionally this was correct, which accounts for responses above the level of chance. Support for this
is found in the imitation test where children would
often invent sentences, only one or two words of
which came from the imitation stimulus.
The second process was used by nondiscriminators when processing grammatical sentences. This may be similar to the first strategy
with the addition of extra cues supplied by the
structure of the sentence. These cues may serve

only as aids to lexical memory, since nondiscriminators seem to gain little from sentence
structure and cannot detect the absence of grammatical cues on the discrimination test.
Finally, discriminator children processing
grammatical constructions use their knowledge of
sentence structure to comprehend. sentences far
better than simple memory alone can provide. It is
the author's opinion that they alone are able
efficiently to combine linguistic skills with memory for better performance.
The discriminators' performance on the easy
scrambled sentences may have been a variation of
the third strategy. These children, when confronted with scrambled sentences, are aware of
the sentences' ungrammatical nature. They actively attempt to recover the structure of the
mixed up lexical elements. When the sentence is
long or its normal version complex, the meaning of
the original sentence is not attained. Thus, their

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

John Neil Bohannon III 679

imitation and comprehension performance on the
long scrambled sentences was no better than nondiscriminators'. But when the sentences were
shorter and grammatically simple as in the easy
comprehension items, this strategy regained most
of the meaning of the sentences. Since nondiscriminator children seem to be unaware of the ungrammaticality of the scrambled sentences, they
may not have tried to restructure the scrambled
items, and thus their performance was relatively
poor.
The comprehension strategy hypothesis conforms to the data and is preferable to a general
factor explanation. If discriminator children were
brighter or more attentive their comprehension
performance on the difficult scrambled items
should have been superior to that of nondiscriminator children. Indeed, the similarity between the pattern of imitation (fig. 2) and comprehension of difficult items (fig. 4) is striking. It
must be concluded that discriminators are distinguishable from nondiscriminators primarily in
their dealings with structured language.
Theoretical discussion.-Why do 6-year-old
children (nondiscriminators), considered language
sophisticates by some (Lennenberg 1967; McNeill
1970), fail to notice anything peculiar about sentences like, "Told mother you hands to your
wash?" There are at least two hypotheses that
would correctly identify such sentences during the
Norman-Ralph test: (1) Label ungrammaticalsentences with "Ralph." (2) Label incomprehensible
sentences with "Ralph."
Posttest questions about the nature of the discriminative stimuli revealed that discriminator
children selected either hypothesis (1) or (2) to
direct their responding. But it must be noted that
random responding does not exclude the possibility that nondiscriminators tried these hypotheses
during testing. It is conceivable that immature receptive grammars would be flexible enough to
permit considerable input distortion (a point to be
dealt with later). It is also possible that partial
comprehension is subjectively more similar to
fragmentary comprehension (nondiscriminator
comprehension scores, fig. 3) than full comprehension versus partial comprehension (discriminator scores, fig. 3). If either of the above is true, it
would have rendered the normal and scrambled
sentences sufficiently similar for the nondiscriminators to respond randomly. Yet what is really puzzling is the relationship between this "linguistic awareness" of word-order differences and
the ability to imitate and comprehend structured
grammar.
Relevant suggestions do exist in the litera-

ture. There are some (DeVilliers & DeVilliers

1972; Gleitman & Gleitman 1970; Gleitman,
Gleitman, & Shipley 1972; Shipley, Smith, &
Gleitman 1969) who state that for 2- and 3-year-old
children just such a relationship between recognition of grammaticality and other language skills
does exist. They agree with generative grammarians (e.g., Chomsky 1965) in assuming that the
child's recognition of grammaticality in his own
and others' speech is essential for language acquisition. It is not enough for the child to follow the
rules of grammar; the child must also be able to
reflect on those rules (Gleitman et al. 1972).
A corollary to the above would predict that a
child who recognizes grammaticality is at a higher
level of language development than one who does
not recognize this distinction. On this Gleitman et
al. (1972) and the present study agree. But these
authors insist children as young as 2 and 3 years
can distinguish grammaticality in sentences they
hear. If the Gleitman et al. (1972) position is
strictly interpreted, the nondiscriminators in this
study should have acquired only the rudiments of
language. This is clearly not the case, as nondiscriminator children did perform significantly better on normal syntax sentences than scrambled
sentences.
Perhaps children can acquire grammar in
productive speech without being aware of the
rules of grammar they use. Bloom (1974) has suggested that children may practice with grammatical structures in productive speech before complete mastery of those structures. This implies a
dual (receptive and productive) rule system of language. It accounts for the nondiscriminators' ability to use structure in productive speech yet remain unaware of the grammatical/ungrammatical
distinction in receptive speech. Thus, a child's
ability to discriminate syntax may not be a determining factor in language acquisition but may be a
result of attaining a certain level of grammatical
skill.
A similar suggestion has been made for concept acquisition. Vygotsky (1965) suggests a preintellective verbal stage in cognitive development
when the child acquires and uses concepts before
being aware of the rules determining them. He
argues that "a concept can become conscious only
[after] it has become part of a system ... [and] ...
becoming conscious of our operations . .. leads to
their mastery" (p. 92). In this way, Vygotsky sees
awareness as both a symptom and determinant.
After the child has used concepts he becomes
aware of the rules he used in their formation. He
will subsequently use that awareness in the formation of new concepts and in understanding old

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

680 Child Development

ones better. Vygotsky argues further that the
school experience facilitates focusing on the rules
of concept formation and accelerates awareness of
those rules.
If the rules of syntax are equated to concepts,
Vygotsky's position about concept acquisition appears relevant. The age of discrimination (or
awareness to Vygotsky) is 6 years, when the subjects of the present study entered their first year of
serious language instruction.
The research on the acquisition of linguistic
skills has to date largely emphasized the productive speech of the- preschool child (Brown &
Fraser 1964; Lennenberg 1967). Only a few investigators (Fodor, Bever, & Garrett 1974) have suggested that the comprehension process may be different from processes used in productive speech.
Fewer still (Bloom 1974) have suggested that
productive skills may precede receptive skills. The
data reported here lend substance to the argument
for separate processes.
A single-process theory must account for
these facts: (1) children who produce grammatical
sentences may not be able to discriminate between the presence or absence of grammarin sentences they hear, (2) children who can discriminate derive more information from grammatical
constructions in both comprehension and imitation, and (3) the age at which most children become discriminators exceeds considerably that at
which most researchers claim the rules of grammar are acquired. A dual- or multiple-process
theory would appear to conform better to those
facts.
A wealth of data from Brown (1973) and others shows that children readily utilize many
grammatical sentence constructions in productive
speech. Data from the present study suggest that
in the receptive mode of language the rules of
syntax do not completely control sentence comprehension. Two grammatical processes, reception and production, seem to be required. A
theory which restricts the child's understanding to
grammatical structures already mastered for productive speech must be questioned. If this were
the case, the holophrastic child could not comprehend structures exceeding one word in length.
There must be some heuristic process which allows the child to obtain meaning from complex
adult utterances about whose structure the child
knows but little.
Figure 3 shows that both discriminator and
nondiscriminator children comprehended about
65% of the scrambled sentences. Since these sentences had no intelligible structure, comprehen-

sion must have depended at least in part on some

process other than that of productive syntax-for
example, the child's knowledge of semantic relationships and general world knowledge. Fodor et
al. (1974) have argued that there is more to sentence comprehension in adults than can be explained by the constructs of generative (productive) grammar. If true for mature speaker/
listeners, it is probably more true for children.
The argument for separate processes for production and listening seems more deserving of serious
consideration than has been the case until now.
In summary, this study investigated the correlates of the 5-7-year-old child's ability to recognize grammaticality in the receptive mode of language. Discriminator children, those who readily
distinguished between the grammatical and ungrammatical, were consistently superior to nondiscriminators in the imitation and comprehension
of normal syntax. Yet there were minimal differences between these groups when asked to imitate
and comprehend random word strings. The results
suggest an important change in language development that occurs around the age of 6 years. This
change seems to enable discriminators to imitate
and comprehend roughly twice as much structured grammar (relative to baseline performance
on scrambled grammar) as nondiscriminator children.

Reference Notes
1. McNeill, D. Developmentof the semanticsystem.
Unpublishedmanuscript,CenterforCognitiveStudies, HarvardUniversity,1965.
2. Weener, P., & Wright,P. The effectsof linguistic
structureon the recall of verbalmessagesby children. Paperpresentedat the meetingof the Society
for Researchin Child Development,Philadelphia,
April 1973.
3. Slobin, D., & Welsh, C. Elicitedimitationas a researchtool in developmentalpsycholinguistics.Unpublished manuscript,Departmentof Psychology,
Universityof California,Berkeley, 1967.

References
Bloom, L. Talking, understandingand thinking. In
R. Schiefelbusch& L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language
perspectives:acquisition,retardation,and intervention. Baltimore:UniversityPark, 1974.
Bohannon,J. N. The relationshipbetween syntaxdiscriminationand sentence imitation in children.
Child Development,1975, 46, 444-451.
Bohannon,J. N., & Friedlander,B. Z. The effect of
intonation on syntax recognition in elementary
school children. Child Development, 1973, 44,
675-677.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

John Neil Bohannon III 681

Brown, R. Afirst language: the early stages. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Brown, R., & Fraser, C. The acquisition of syntax. In U.
Bellugi & R. Brown (Eds.), Acquisition of language.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 1964, 29(1, Serial No. 92), 43-79.
Carroll, J. B. Defining comprehension: some speculations. In J. B. Carroll & R. O. Freedle (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. New York: Wiley, 1972.
Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1965.
DeVilliers, D., & DeVilliers, J. Early judgements of
semantic and syntactic acceptability by children.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1972, 1, 209310.
Fodor, J.; Bever, T.; & Garrett, M. The psychology of
language. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
Fraser, C.; Bellugi, U.; & Brown, R. The control of
grammar in imitation, comprehension and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 1963, 8, 280-294.
Frasure, N. E., & Entwisle, D. R. Semantic and syntactic development in children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 236-245.
Gleitman, L., & Gleitman, H. Phrase and paraphrase.
New York: Norton, 1970.
Gleitman, L.; Gleitman, H.; & Shipley, E. The emergence of the child as grammarian. Cognition, 1972,
1, 137-164.
Gotkin, L. Language lotto. New York: Meredith, 1966.
Lennenberg, E. The biological foundations of language.
New York: Wiley, 1967.
Liebert, R.; Odom, R.; Hill, J.; & Huff, R. The effects
of age and role familiarity on the production of mod-

eled language construction. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 108-112.

McNeill, D. The acquisition of language: the study of
developmental psycholinguistics. New York:Harper
& Row, 1970.
Menyuk, P. Sentences children use. Cambridge, Mass.:
M.I.T. Press, 1969.
Miller, W., & Ervin, S. The development of grammarin
child language. In U. Bellugi & R. Brown (Eds.),
The acquisition of language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1964,
29(1, Serial No. 92), 9-34.
Odom, R. D.; Liebert, R.; & Hill, J. The effects of modeling cues, reward and attentional set on the production of grammaticaland ungrammatical syntactic
constructions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1968, 6, 131-140.
Rileigh, K. Children's selective listening to stories:
familiarity effects involving vocabulary, syntax and
intonation. Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 255266.
Shipley, E.; Smith, C.; & Gleitman, L. A study in the
acquisition of language: free responses to commands. Language, 1969, 45, 322-342.
Spearritt, D. Listening comprehension--a factorial
analysis. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research, 1962.
Vasta, R., & Liebert, R. Auditory discrimination of novel
prepositional constructions as a function of age and
syntactic background. Developmental Psychology,
1973, 9, 79-82.
Vygotsky, L. S. Language and thought. Cambridge,
Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1965.
Weener, P. Language structure and free recall of verbal
messages by children. Developmental Psychology,
1971, 5, 237-243.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions