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. Eighty- Seven 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 (1 st 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 (2 nd 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 (3 rd 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. Training: Red Test one: Green Test Two: Blue BallsTruckPigs CatBunniesApples ShoesBottlesBoats DucksDogsChair Cats Ball Duck Shoe Puzzle OrdersSample Order: A

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 Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, Zapf, J.A., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Meaning matters in children’s plural productions. Cognition, 108,