Putting Together the Pieces:
Meaning Matters in Children’s
Plural Comprehension
Craig Van Pay, Areanna Lakowske &
Jennifer Zapf
Abstract
Previously, Zapf and Smith (2008) found that two-year-old children were more
likely to produce the plural when shown more items (four) compared to fewer
(two) and when shown identical compared to similar items. To determine whether
comprehension is also dependent on these same components of the meaning of the
plural, Zapf and Smith (2010) utilized a “puzzle task” in which children are
instructed to give the experimenter various pieces that fit into a puzzle. The
manipulation was the amount of instances (two or four) and the types of multiple
instances used (similar or identical). Contrary to their findings related to children’s
production of the plural form, children in this task did not show a difference in
plural understanding based upon meaning.
The question for the current study is whether children’s comprehension of larger
set sizes may be influenced by these same factors – number and similarity. EightySeven children completed the “puzzle task” and were shown one of four sets of
puzzles: those with six identical instances, eight identical instances, six similar
instances or eight similar instances of the same object respectively. The current
data reveals children are just as likely to comprehend the plural form for identical
and similar objects, independent of number.
Introduction
• Zapf and Smith (2008) conducted a study using set sizes of two and four
and identical and similar instances. They found children produced the
plural more often with larger set sizes and identical instances as opposed to
smaller sets of similar instances.
>
• Children have been shown to understand plurality before they can produce
it (Fraser, Bellugi & Brown, 1963). May the same manipulations of set size
and similarity affect children’s comprehension of the plural?
Current Study
Comprehension
?
• The current study examines children’s comprehension of varying set sizes
(six versus eight) and identical versus similar instances.
• It is hypothesized that identical set sizes of 8 instances will elicit correct
plural comprehension more than similar set sizes of 6 instances.
Methods: Participants
• 87 English Speaking Children
17 to 39 months of age; mean age = 27 months
• Experimental conditions were organized in four groups:
• Children received a book or toy car for participating
• Parents were asked to fill out an informed consent form and a standard
language vocabulary sheet (MCDI) of words that their child can
pronounce. (Fenson et al., 1994)
Methods: Procedure
There were three different color puzzle boards (red, green, and blue) that contained set
sizes of six or eight pictures of the noun (i.e. six or eight pictures of a dog). Every
puzzle had a picture of where the intended puzzle piece should go with a cut out spot
to put the puzzle piece in.
Training Session (1st Puzzle)
Experimenter places all the puzzle pieces in front of the child and will ask for all
eight puzzle pieces individually. The researcher is allowed to use the puzzle board
and correct the child if an incorrect answer is given.
Test 1 Session (2nd Puzzle)
Researcher will place all the puzzle pieces in front of the child but will not show the
puzzle board. Next, the researcher will ask for one singular and three plural puzzle
pieces. Neither the parents or researcher are allowed to help the child.
Test 2 Session (3rd Puzzle)
Experimenter will administer the final puzzle and place all pieces before the child
while concealing the board. Then the researcher will ask for one singular and three
plural puzzle pieces. The parents and researcher are unable to help the child.
Methods: Materials
Types of Puzzle Boards & Pieces
– Red: ball, cat, duck, and shoe
– Blue: pig, boat, chair, and
apple
– Green: bunny, bottle, dog, and
truck
Sample Puzzle & Pieces
Methods: Materials Cont.
Puzzle Orders
Sample Order: A
Training:
Red
Balls
Test one:
Green
Truck
Test Two:
Blue
Pigs
Cat
Bunnies
Apples
Shoes
Bottles
Boats
Ducks
Dogs
Chair
Cats
Ball
Duck
Shoe
Results
•
•
The mean ratio of correct singular responses for each condition were: S6 = .591; S8 = .625; I6 = .708;
and I8 = .7. The ratio of correct singular responses was submitted to a 2(set size; 6 or 8) x 2(similarity;
identical or similar) ANOVA, F(3,86) = .554, p = .647.
The mean ratio of correct plural responses for each condition were: S6 = .528; S8 = .473; I6 = .531;
and I8 = .511. The ratio of correct plural responses was submitted to a 2(set size; 6 or 8) x 2(similarity;
identical or similar) ANOVA, F(3,86) = .200, p = .896.
Singular
Plural
Results Cont.
•
Overall ratio of correct plural responses was moderately, but not significantly, correlated
with the children’s measure of productive vocabulary, r(87) = .200, p = .063.
Results Cont.
•
Overall ratio of correct plural responses was slightly, but not significantly, correlated with
the children’s age in months, r(87) = .152, p = .160.
Conclusion
These results suggest there is no significant difference between children’s
comprehension in set sizes of six or eight and that identical or similar instances
have no effect.
As children’s productive vocabulary increases, they are moderately, but not
significantly more likely to understand the plural.
As children get older, they are slightly better, but not significantly so, at
understanding the plural.
A child’s measure of productive vocabulary appears to be a better predictor of
plural comprehension than their age.
Discussion
Despite findings in children’s plural production, where the children are more likely
to produce the plural with an identical set size of four versus a set size of two for
similar instances, there appears to be no interaction of set sizes of 6 and 8 or
identical and similar sets upon children’s plural comprehension.
Limitations:
The sound structure of English may account for some plural differences (i.e.,
complex codas)(Ettlinger & Zapf, 2011)
Zapf & Smith’s findings were with 3-dimensional objects, there may be a difference
in the comprehension of 2-dimensional objects
Future Studies:
To test production in set sizes of 6 and 8
To test comprehension using 3-dimensional objects
Change the way in which the experimenter asks for various objects or pieces
References
Ettlinger, M. & Zapf, J.A. (2011). The role of phonology in children’s acquisition of
the plural. Language Acquisition, 28.
Fenson, L., et al. (1994). Variability in early communicative development.
Monograph Society for the Research of Child Development, 59:1-173; discussion
174-185.
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation,
comprehension, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2,
121-135.
Zapf, J.A., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Meaning matters in children’s plural productions.
Cognition, 108, 466-474