The influence of discourse context on children’s ordering of “new” and “old” information

Abstract Adult speakers typically order referents that have been previously mentioned in the discourse (“old” referents) before newly introduced referents (“new” referents). But 3–5-year-olds acquiring German exhibit a “new-old” preference in a task involving question-answer sequences (Narasimhan, Bhuvana and Christine Dimroth. 2008. Word order and information status in child language. Cognition 107. 317–329). Here we ask whether we can change 4–5-year-olds’ new-old preference by manipulating the context in order to encourage connected discourse. Findings show that discourse context changes children’s new-old preference. Children produce the new-old order in fluent utterances and the old-new order in non-fluent utterances. Adult controls overwhelmingly prefer the old-new order, even more so when the weight (number of syllables) of the old referent label is greater than that of the new referent label. Our study demonstrates that although cognitive and communicative biases may influence children’s ordering patterns in non-adult-like ways, such patterns are not categorical, but are flexibly influenced by factors such as discourse context.

[1]  E. Bates Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics , 1976 .

[2]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: A cross-cultural developmental study , 1978 .

[3]  S. Pinker,et al.  Speakers' sensitivity to rules of frozen word order , 1979 .

[4]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production , 1980 .

[5]  T. Reinhart Pragmatics and Linguistics: an analysis of Sentence Topics , 1981, Philosophica.

[6]  P. Greenfield,et al.  The development of new and old information in young children's early language , 1988 .

[7]  A. Sorace,et al.  Animacy effects on the production of object-dislocated descriptions by Catalan-speaking children , 2000, Journal of Child Language.

[8]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering , 2015 .

[9]  F. Chang,et al.  “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language , 2001, Cognition.

[10]  W. Klein,et al.  Quaestio and L-perspectivation , 2002 .

[11]  J. Hay,et al.  Ladies first? Phonology, frequency, and the naming conspiracy , 2005 .

[12]  C. Dimroth,et al.  Word order and information status in child language , 2008, Cognition.

[13]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Basic notions of information structure , 2008 .

[14]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[15]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Mixed effect models for genetic and areal dependencies in linguistic typology , 2011 .

[16]  C. Dimroth,et al.  The Development of Linear Ordering Preferences in Child Language: The Influence of Accessibility and Topicality , 2012 .

[17]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[18]  J. Hay,et al.  Ladies First , 2019, Pastime Lost.