Development of pragmatic language comprehension in Finnish-speaking children

Abstract

???The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, First Language, 27 (3) , 2007, Copyright SAGE Publications Ltd at: http://fla.sagepub.com/ " DOI: 10.1177/0142723707076568 [Full text of this article is not available in the UHRA]This research explores the development of pragmatic comprehension within the framework of relevance theory. Participants were 210 typically developing Finnish children aged from 3 to 9 years. The children were asked questions targeting the pragmatic processes of reference assignment, enrichment and implicature, as proposed by relevance theory. Results indicate that increasing ability to use contextual information in comprehension is related to age. The largest increase in correct answers occurred between the ages of 3 and 4 years. Answering reference assignment questions was not problematic for any of the age groups. Answering enrichment and implicature questions reflected the children's increasing ability to use more complex contextual information in the comprehension process. This supports the processing model suggested by relevance theory

Understanding Contextual and Social Meaning in Typically Developing Finnish-Speaking Four- To Eight-Year-Old Children

“…Previous studies have shown that the ability to answer questions that demand complex contextual processing, such as understanding implicit meanings, develops with age (Loukusa et al, 2007;Loukusa, Ryder, & Leinonen, 2008;. At around eight years of age children begin to pay greater attention to all of the available relevant cues, including paralinguistic aspects of communication, and they no longer focus substantially on propositional content (Bosco, Angeleri, Colle, Sacco, & Bara, 2013;Morton & Trehub, 2001).…”

“…At around eight years of age children begin to pay greater attention to all of the available relevant cues, including paralinguistic aspects of communication, and they no longer focus substantially on propositional content (Bosco, Angeleri, Colle, Sacco, & Bara, 2013;Morton & Trehub, 2001). An earlier study by Loukusa et al (2007) showed that at the age of seven children can connect different kinds of contextual information in order to infer the implicit meaning of an utterance. Nevertheless, even if young children cannot yet resolve the implicit meanings of contextually complex utterances, they can utilize contextual information when identifying the object of references from the context (Bezuidenhout & Sroda, 1998;Loukusa, et al, 2007; or interpreting simple indirect utterances (Bucciarelli, Colle, & Bara, 2003).…”

“…An earlier study by Loukusa et al (2007) showed that at the age of seven children can connect different kinds of contextual information in order to infer the implicit meaning of an utterance. Nevertheless, even if young children cannot yet resolve the implicit meanings of contextually complex utterances, they can utilize contextual information when identifying the object of references from the context (Bezuidenhout & Sroda, 1998;Loukusa, et al, 2007; or interpreting simple indirect utterances (Bucciarelli, Colle, & Bara, 2003). Compared to older children, the younger ones experience more challenges in understanding the intentions of utterances when there is a discrepancy between the literal meaning and the intended one as, for example, in deceitful and ironic expressions (Bosco et al, 2013;Bosco & Gabbatore, 2017a;Bucciarelli et al, 2003;Filippova & Astington, 2010;Glenwright & Pexman, 2010;Happé, 1993;Harris & Pexman, 2003;Wilson, 2013).…”

“…Compared to older children, the younger ones experience more challenges in understanding the intentions of utterances when there is a discrepancy between the literal meaning and the intended one as, for example, in deceitful and ironic expressions (Bosco et al, 2013;Bosco & Gabbatore, 2017a;Bucciarelli et al, 2003;Filippova & Astington, 2010;Glenwright & Pexman, 2010;Happé, 1993;Harris & Pexman, 2003;Wilson, 2013). It has been suggested that this could reflect the level of contextual complexity and inferential processes involved in different types of contextually demanding expressions (Bosco et al, 2013;Bucciarelli et al, 2003;Loukusa et al, 2007;. The developmental trend shown in children's performance on different types of pragmatically challenging tasks (e.g.…”

“…In the last decade the study of social and pragmatic abilities has increased substantially (e.g. Angeleri & Airenti, 2014;Bosco & Gabbatore, 2017;Loukusa, Leinonen, & Ryder, 2007), which has led to the possibility to develop new research-based methods for assessing the development of such capabilities in typically developing (TD) children. The adopted approach, involving a close integration of social and pragmatic comprehension skills in structured assessment, is based on previous studies that suggest a strong relationship between ToM and communicative abilities (Lohmann, Tomasello, & Meyer, 2005;Miller, 2006;Nelson, 2005; see also Hyter, 2017;Perkins, 2011).…”