Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects on sentence recall of varying age : mean depth, and sentence type. Mitchell, Diana Lee 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 M53.pdf [ 2.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302482.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302482-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302482-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302482-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302482-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302482-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302482-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302482-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302482.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS ON SENTENCE RECALL OF VARYING AGE, MEAN DEPTH,AND SENTENCE TYPE by DIANA LEE MITCHELL . E d . , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OE MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o lumbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n -t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r pub 1 i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date yy Jt^W-^™^ <yv / 2o, 1(>? ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to invest igate the e f f e c t s on r e c a l l of varying sentence complexity, sentence type, and age of the subjec ts . The measure of sentence complexity used was Martina and Roberts 1 (I966) adaptation of Yngve's (i960) depth. The s i x sentence types involved were kernel (K) , neg-a t i v e ( N ) , passive ( P ) , negative-passive ( N P ) , passive trun»-cated (Prjv), and negative-passive truncatedd (NP.p) . One hundred twenty c h i l d r e n , and one hundreddtwenty a d u l t s , were exposed, ten at a time, to an o r a l l y - p r e s e n t e d example of each sentence type. . A f t e r hearing the six: senten-ces, the subjects were ins t ruc ted to write as many as they could r e c a l l . Six such t r i a l s were ef fec ted with each subject . Twelve sets of s ix sentences each were used such that s ix sets were of the l e s s e r mean depth ( 1 . 2 9 ) and s ix sets were of the greater mean depth ( 1 . 7 1 ) . S ixty subjects of each age were exposed to one of e i t h e r the s ix sets of sentences having mean depth 1 . 2 9 , or to one of the s ix sets of sentences having mean depth 1 . 7 1 . The data supported two of three stated hypotheses, that i s : i ) The l i k e l i h o o d of r e c a l l of a sentence i s inverse ly r e -l a t e d to the mean depth of that sentence when both c h i l d r e n and adults are subjects . i i ) More sentences of a l l types and of e i t h e r depth are r e -c a l l e d by adults than by c h i l d r e n . A t h i r d hypothesis that:: i i i ) Kernel sentences are re c a l l e d better than non-kernel sentences by children and adults, was not supported by the data* It was found, rather, that both adults and children c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d sentences involving the negative better than those which did not. This f i n d i n g , although supported by neither psycholinguistic theory nor by the experimental l i t e r a t u r e , was i n t e r e s t i n g . It was suggested that a study be performed i n an attempt to reproduce these r e s u l t s , and that an i n v e s t i -gation be made to determine i f a tendency to respond corr e c t l y more often to negative s t i m u l i Is a culturally-determined f a c t o r . Further, i t was suggested that study be made of the significance of the mean depth factor, of transformations, and of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . 1 Chomsky and a generative grammar . . . 1 Transformations and sentence d e r i v a t i o n s . 4 Yngve's "depth hypothesis" . . . . . . 6 Mean depth • • • • • • • • • • • 8 The depth hypothesis v s . the transformation hypothesis 1 1 Statement of problem . 1 3 Hypotheses 14 I I . METHOD 1 5 The design 1 5 Mater ia ls 1 5 Subjects 1 6 Procedure . . . . . 1 7 I I I . RESULTS 1 9 Correct r e c a l l s a n a l y s i s . . . . . . 1 9 Errors a n a l y s i s . . . . . . . • . . . 22 Adults v s . c h i l d r e n re t o t a l responses . 28 IV. DISCUSSION 29 Hypotheses 1 and 3 2 9 A f f i r m a t i o n - n e g a t i o n . . • . . . . 3 0 Some poss ible explanations of r e s u l t s . . 3 1 Suggestions f o r f u r t h e r research . . . 3 ^ V'. SUMMARY . . . . . . .- .. . . - 35 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . .- .- .• .- . 38 APPENDICES A. Stimulus sentences • . ^0 B. S c o r i n g procedures . . . . ^ L I S T OF TABLES TABLES. PAGE 1 . Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f C o r r e c t R e c a l l S c o r e s . . . 20 2 . T e s t on A l l O r d e r e d P a i r s o f T o t a l C o r r e c t R e c a l l s o f E a c h S e n t e n c e Type by A l l S u b j e c t s . 23 3 . E r r o r s i n R e c a l l Made by G r o u p s 9 ( 1 * 2 9 ) and 9 ( 1 . 7 1 ) C l a s s i f i e d by S e n t e n c e Type o f t h e P r e s e n t e d S e n t e n c e . .. 25 4 . E r r o r s i n R e c a l l Made by Graups 3 0 ( 1 . 2 9 ) and 3 0 ( 1 . 7 1 ) C l a s s i f i e d by S e n t e n c e Type o f t h e P r e s e n t e d S e n t e n c e . 27 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. A fragment of E n g l i s h grammar, phrased i n terms of r e w r i t i n g r u l e s , i l l u s t r a t i n g a generative grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Graph i n d i c a t i n g r e l a t i o n s among eight types of sentences formed by negative (N), Passive ( P ) , and I n t e r r o g a t i v e (Q), transformations .. . .. 5 3. P h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s and Yngve's measure of sentence depth • . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Mean c o r r e c t r e c a l l s of 9 year o l d and 30 year o l d Ss f o r 6 sentence types . . • . . . . .. 21 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I n r e c e n t y e a r s , c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t h a s a r i s e n o v e r changes i n d e s c r i p t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s d e s i g n e d to p r o v i d e p s y -c h o l o g i s t s w i t h more a d e q u a t e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e t h a n were p r e v i o u s l y a v a i l a b l e . The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s a n a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e f i n d i n g s w h i c h may c o n t r i b u t e t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f l a n g u a g e b e h a v i o r . I n o r d e r t h a t t h e p r o b l e m t o be d i s -c u s s e d may be u n d e r s t o o d by t h o s e who a r e u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c domain-, c e r t a i n i m p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e s w i l l f i r s t be i n t r o d u c e d . Noam Chomsky i s g e n e r a l l y a c k n o w l e d g e d as h a v i n g p i o n e e r -ed t h e p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c movement i n t h e 1 9 5 0 * s by i n t r o d u c i n g h i s p r i n c i p l e s f o r a g e n e r a t i v e grammar. E s s e n t i a l l y , Chomsky p r o p o s e d t h a t a grammar " c a n be v i e w e d a s a d e v i c e o f some s o r t f o r p r o d u c i n g t h e s e n t e n c e s o f t h e l a n g u a g e u n d e r a n a l y s i s " (Chomsky, 1 9 5 7 , p . 1 1 ) . The grammar e s t a b l i s h e s a s m a l l s e t o f r u l e s f r o m w h i c h a r e g e n e r a t e d an i n f i n i t e number o f g r a m -m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e s o f t h e l a n g u a g e and no n o n - s e n t e n c e s . Chomsky p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e r e a r e t h r e e b r o a d c l a s s e s o f r u l e s t h a t c a n be e s t a b l i s h e d . The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s c h i e f l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g t w o : ( a ) f o r m a t i o n r u l e s — f r o m w h i c h t h e t e r m i n a l s t r i n g s u n d e r l y i n g t h e k e r n e l o f b a s i c s e n t e n c e s a r e d e r i v e d , and (b) t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e s — w h i c h c o n v e r t t e r m i n a l s t r i n g s 2 to v a r i o u s sentence types which are d e r i v a t i v e s of the underlying k e r n e l . M i l l e r ( 1 9 6 2 , p. 7 ^ 9 ) described how Chomsky's formation r u l e s can be used to d e r i v e the termi n a l s t r i n g u nderlying the sentence,, " B i l l h i t the b a l l " . The c o n s t i t u e n t u n i t s used; im the a n a l y s i s are symbolized^as f o l l o w s : T = a r t i c l e ; W= noun;; NP = no um phrase; V/= verb1,; VP = verb phrase; S. = sentence. Figu r e 1 i l l u s t r a t e s how a small fragment of E n g l i s h grammar might be expressed i n t h i s manner. The b a s i c axiom i s S. The r e w r i t i n g r u l e s F l - 7 permit us to form the sentence " B i l l h i t the b a l l " i n a sequence of steps. F i r s t S i s r e w r i t t e n as NE + VP,, according to r u l e F l . Then we can r e w r i t e NP as " B i l l " according to r u l e F4. Since there i s not any r u l e a v a i l a b l e f o r r e w r i t i n g " B i l l " , we are f o r c e d to stop at t h i s p o i n t . We can, however, r e -w r i t e VP according to r u l e F3, thus g e t t i n g " B i l l " + V + NP. In t h i s way we can proceed as Ind i c a t e d by the tr e e graph on the r i g h t u n t i l the d e s i r e d sentence i s d e r i v e d . . . The set of r e w r i t i n g r u l e s on the l e f t of Figure 1 can be conveniently r e f e r r e d to as the grammar, and the set of sentences that the grammar generates d e f i n e s the language. I t i s an important f e a t u r e of t h i s k i n d of grammar that there are t e r m i n a l symbols that cannot be r e w r i t t e n , and these comprise what we o r d i n a r i l y recognize as the vocab-u l a r y of the language. According to t h i s way of repre-senting i t , the vocabulary i s i n c l u d e d c i n the grammar. Such r u l e s as are used by M i l l e r i n the preceding quotation are c a l l e d "phrase s t r u c t u r e " r u l e s by Chomsky ( 1 9 5 7 ) , and may only be used to r e w r i t e s i n g l e symbols, never s t r i n g s of symbols. Transformation r u l e s , however, are used to w r i t e a s t r i n g of sym-bo l s so that i t may be transformed i n t o another k i n d of s t r i n g . Chomsky ( 1 9 5 7 ) proposes a v a r i e t y of transformation r u l e s , each appl y i n g to s t r i n g s of c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s . C l i f t o n and Odom ( 1 9 6 6 , p. 2 ) give an example of how one k i n d of transformation rule may be applied: The passive transformation sp e c i f i e s that a s t r i n g of symbols (morphemes or names of classes of morphemes) having the structural description NP-, - Aux; - V/ - NPo can be rewritten as _NP_2 - Aux - V - JSP2 en - V/ - By + NPj_. The transformation can be used to rewrite the st r i n g of symbols that underlies, f o r instance, the sentence "John h i t the b a l l " into the s t r i n g that underlies "The b a l l was h i t by John". S F l . s:-—>NP + VP F2. NP -—> T + N F 3 . VP -—> V + NP F 4 . NP > B i l l , John F5. T -—>the, a F6. N -—>boy, g i r l , F7. V -—>hlt NP VP B i l l V, h i t T the NP N b a l l FIG. 1. A fragment of English grammar, phrased i n terms of rewriting rules, i l l u s t r a t i n g a generative grammar. ( M i l l e r , 1962, p. 7^9) Although there are d i f f e r e n t forms of transformation rules, a detailed description f a l l s outside the scope of t h i s paper. What i s important i s to explain the role played by what Chomsky has described as the "terminal s t r i n g s " underlying "kernel" sentences (Chomsky, 1 9 5 7 ) . Phraserstructure rules plus the appropriate transformation rules together w i l l generate t e r -minal strings which, Chomsky states, are the fundamental basis of the simplest form of sentence, the kernel. A kernel sentence i s commonly referred to i n English usage as a simple active, dec-l a r a t i v e s e n t e n c e s u c h a s " B i l l h i t t h e " b a l l " . A c c o r d i n g t o Chomsky, a p p l i c a t i o n o f v a r i o u s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e s t o t h e t e r m i n a l s t r i n g u n d e r l y i n g any k e r n e l s e n t e n c e w i l l g e n e r a t e s t r i n g s u n d e r l y i n g more complex s e n t e n c e s . These complex s e n -t e n c e s — t h e p a s s i v e (P) , t h e n e g a t i v e (N), t h e n e g a t i v e - p a s s i v e (NP)* t h e q u e s t i o n (Q), t h e n e g a t i v e q u e s t i o n (NQ), t h e n e g a -t i v e - p a s s i v e q u e s t i o n (NPQ), t h e p a s s i v e q u e s t i o n (PQj, a l o n g w i t h t h e k e r n e l ( K ) — go t o make up s e n t e n c e f a m i l i e s . M i l l e r (1962, p . 760) g r a p h i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s be tween t h e members o f a s e n t e n c e f a m i l y i n a way w h i c h p a r a l l e l s C h o m s k y ' s d e s c r i p t i o n . M i l l e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e r e -l a t i o n s h i p s i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 2. The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t h e o r y p r o p o s e s t h a t , as t h e s t r i n g u n d e r l y i n g t h e K a l s o u n d e r l i e s t h e o t h e r s e n t e n c e t y p e s , v a r y -i n g numbers o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s must be made upon t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r i n g i n o r d e r t o g e n e r a t e t h e o t h e r s e n t e n c e t y p e s . The c l o s e n e s s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n any two s e n t e n c e t y p e s i s i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 2 by t h e number o f l i n e s i n t h e s h o r t e s t p a t h c o n n e c t i n g them. T h u s , t o move f r o m a K t o a P r e q u i r e s a p p a r e n t l y one t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , whereas t o move f r o m a K t o a NP r e q u i r e s t w o . The s t e p - w i s e p r o p e r t y o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar i s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d i n t h i s d i a g r a m . * T h r o u g h o u t t h i s p a p e r , NP r e f e r s t o noun p h r a s e whereas NP r e f e r s t o n e g a t i v e p a s s i v e s e n t e n c e t y p e . P I G . 2. G r a p h i n d i c a t i n g r e l a t i o n s among e i g h t t y p e s o f s e n t e n c e s f o r m e d by n e g a t i v e ( N ) , p a s s i v e ( P ) , and i n t e r r o -g a t i v e (Q) t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . ( M i l l e r , 1962, p . 760) M i l l e r h y p o t h e s i z e s t h a t : . . . w h a t p e o p l e remember i s t h e k e r n e l s e n t e n c e , b u t t h a t when y o u a s k them t o r e c i t e t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e e x a c t l y , t h e y s u p p l e m e n t t h e i r memory o f t h e k e r n e l w i t h a f o o t -n o t e a b o u t t h e s y n t a c t i c , s t r u c t u r e ( M i l l e r , 1962, p . 760). The r e s u l t s o f a number o f c u r r e n t s t u d i e s seem t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h i s h y p o t h e s i s ( M e h l e r , 1963; Menyuk, 1963; Gough, 1965; S l o b i n , 1966). The a p p a r e n t s i m p l i c i t y o f t h e K , a l o n g w i t h t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t i t i s e a s i e r t o r e c a l l t h a n any o t h e r s e n -t e n c e t y p e , w i l l be shown l a t e r i n t h i s p a p e r to be q u e s t i o n a b l e . C e r t a i n l y t h e r e i s more t h a n one t h e o r y r e g a r d i n g t h e d e r i v a -t i o n o f s e n t e n c e s . L e e s ( i 9 6 0 ) , as w e l l as K a t z and P o s t a l (1964) s u g g e s t t h a t t h e k e r n e l , t h e p a s s i v e , and t h e n e g a t i v e have s e p -a r a t e d e r i v a t i o n s . K a t z s a n d P o s t a l a r g u e t h a t t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n morphemes w h i c h a r e " u n i v e r s a l " . To be " u n i v e r s a l " , t h e y s a y , a morpheme must he s p e c i f i e d by a g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f l i n g u i s t i c d e -s c r i p t i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g a morpheme s p e c i f i c o n l y t o c e r t a i n l a n g u a g e s . The n e g a t i v e morpheme, t h e p a s s i v e morpheme, and t h e q u e s t i o n morpheme a r e examples o f " u n i v e r s a l morphemes" , a s t h e y a r e most l i k e l y i n c l u d e d i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f many l a n g u a g e s . T h u s , K a t z and P o s t a l see t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s be tween s e n t e n c e s as d e p e n d i n g upon t h e number o f u n i v e r s a l morphemes s e p a r a t i n g t h e m . The a c t i v e and t h e p a s s i v e , d i f f e r i n g i n o n l y one u n i v e r s a l morpheme, a r e s u p p o s e d l y v e r y c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e k e r n e l , t h e n e g a t i v e , and t h e p a s s i v e have s e p a r a t e d e r i v a t i o n s has been e x p o s e d t o v e r y l i t t l e e x -p e r i m e n t a t i o n ( L e e s , I 9 6 0 ; K a t z a n d P o s t a l , 1964) i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s p u t f o r t h by Chomsky (1957). N e v e r t h e l e s s , as t h i s q u e s t i o n o f d e r i v a t i o n has as y e t n o t b e e n s e t t l e d , b o t h h y p o t h e s e s have h e u r i s t i c v a l u e . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f a n o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f modern l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y s h o u l d p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t b a c k g r o u n d f r o m w h i c h t o e x p l o r e t h e p r o b l e m t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s p a p e r . I n I960, V i c t o r Yngve d e s c r i b e d M A model and an h y p o t h e s i s f o r l a n g u a g e s t r u c t u r e " w h i c h d e a l t w i t h g e n e r a t i v e grammar i n a d i f f e r e n t manner , and w i t h d i f f e r e n t e m p h a s i s t h a n d i d C h o m s k y ' s m o d e l . The d i f f e r e n c e s , b e i n g o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l n a t u r e , w i l l n o t be d e a l t w i t h h e r e . What i s i m p o r t a n t , i s t o d e s c r i b e what Yngve c a l l s t h e " d e p t h h y p o t h e s i s " ( Y n g v e , i960; 1964) and t h e manner i n w h i c h d e p t h o f s e n t e n c e s i s a s s i g n e d . Yngve s t a t e s (1964): I t seems, t h a t as we s p e a k , we i n c u r commitments t o f i n i s h o u r s e n t e n c e s i n c e r t a i n ways i n o r d e r t o make them g r a m m a t i c a l . As a n example o f what t h e s e c o m m i t -ments a r e , t a k e t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e : "When t h e p r e s i -d e n t s p o k e , t h e p e o p l e l i s t e n e d " . As we s t a r t t h i s s e n -t e n c e w i t h t h e word " w h e n " we have two commitments , one t o f i n i s h a dependent c l a u s e "when t h e p r e s i d e n t s p o k e " , and t h e o t h e r t o f o l l o w t h i s w i t h an i n d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e " t h e p e o p l e l i s t e n e d " . Then , as we s t a r t t o f u l f i l l t h e f i r s t commitment w i t h t h e word " t h e " , we have two new commitments making a t o t a l of three; the o r i g i n a l one, that i s to f i n i s h up with an independent clause,.another to f i n i s h the subject of the dependent clause we s t a r t e d w i t h the word "the", and the t h i r d to f o l l o w t h i s w i t h a pr e d i c a t e l i k e "spoke". Apparently we cannot cope with more than about seven such commitments at any one time without f o r g e t t i n g what i t was we were going to say... The maximum number of commitments at any one time i n a sentence i s c a l l e d the depth of the sentence. To complete Yngve's depth a n a l y s i s of the sentence "When the p resident spoke, the people l i s t e n e d " , observe that when the speaker says " p r e s i d e n t " he commits himself to f i n i s h up w i t h an independent clause, as w e l l as to supply a pr e d i c a t e f o r the dependent cla u s e . Thus, "president" can be s a i d to be embedded i n t h i s sentence to the depth of 2. Upon saying "spoke", however, the speaker i s committed only to completing the sentence w i t h an independent clause, so that "spoke" i s embedded to the depth of 1. But, upon saying "the", the speaker commits himself f u r t h e r . He must f u r n i s h a subject of the independent clause, as w e l l as f o l l o w t h i s w i t h a p r e d i c a t e , thus i n v o l v i n g "the" to the depth of 2. "People" r e q u i r e s only that a p r e d i c a t e f o l -low, and so i s embedded to the depth of 1, and " l i s t e n e d " , being that p r e d i c a t e , f i n i s h e s the independent clause, so f u l f i l l i n g the f i n a l commitment of the speaker. Voice i n t o n a t i o n i n d i c a t e s that there i s nothing to f o l l o w the independent clause, and the speaker's commitments are met. Therefore, " l i s t e n e d " i s embedded to the depth of 0. The words of the sentence "When the president spoke, the people l i s t e n e d " can thus be s a i d to possess the Yngve numbers 8 2,3,2,1.2,1,0, r e s p e c t i v e l y . (By d e f i n i t i o n ( Y n g v e , I 9 6 0 ; 1964), t h e d e p t h o f t h i s s e n t e n c e i s 3.) M a r t i n and R o b e r t s (1966) p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e mean o f t h e Yngve numbers be t a k e n a s b e i n g a measure o f t h e " s t r u c t u r a l c o m p l e x i t y " o f t h e s e n t e n c e a s a w h o l e . T h u s , t h e "mean d e p t h " , o r s t r u c t u r a l c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e s e n t e n c e "When t h e p r e s i d e n t s p o k e , t h e p e o p l e l i s t e n e d " i s 1.57. A l w a y s , when d e t e r m i n i n g d e p t h o f words i n a s e n t e n c e , p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s must be a p p l i e d t o d i s c o v e r t h e c o n s t i t -u e n t s i n v o l v e d . F o r e x a m p l e , F i g u r e 3 r e p r e s e n t s t h e f o r m a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e n t e n c e "When t h e p r e s i d e n t s p o k e , t h e p e o p l e l i s t e n e d " . The f i g u r e assumes t h e f o r m o f a p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e t r e e w h i c h was f i r s t p r e s e n t e d by L u k a s i e w i c z and T a r s k i (1930) and l a t e r a d o p t e d by Chomsky (1957). Yngve (i960), M i l l e r (1962) and o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y p s y c h o l i n g u i s t s t o d i a g r a m t h e c o n s t i t u -e n t s o f E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e s . The p r i n c i p a l u n i t s a r e w r i t t e n o n t h e h o r i z o n t a l " n o d e s " o f t h e t r e e , and a p p r o p r i a t e examples o f t h e s o r t s o f w o r d s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e s e u n i t s a r e w r i t t e n a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e v e r t i c a l " b r a n c h e s " . Yngve s t a t e s (i960, p . 455) t h a t t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e w o r k s i n s u c h a way as t o l i m i t d e p t h . The mechanism t h a t E n g l i s h u s e s t o l i m i t d e p t h i s a r e s t r i c t e d r e l a b e l i n g scheme i n v o l v i n g s e n t e n c e , c l a u s e , noun p h r a s e , p r i m a r y a t t r i b u t e ( a d j e c t i v a l ) , s e c o n d a r y a t t r i b u t e ( a d v e r b i a l ) , and t e r t i a r y a t t r i -b u t e ( a d v e r b i a l ) . S e c o n d a r y u n i t s i n t h e s y s t e m a r e v e y b p h r a s e s , v e r b s , a d j e c -t i v e s , a d v e r b s , a r t i c l e s ( l a b e l e d " T " on t h e t r e e ) , and c o o r -d i n a t o r s ( C o ) . C o o r d i n a t o r s s e r v e t h e f u n c t i o n o f j o i n i n g what 9 c i c i Co NP CI VP NP VP T Ni Whem ( 2 ) the president spoke the people ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 1 ) l i s t e n e d ( 0 ) FIG. 3» Phrase-structure a n a l y s i s and Yngve's measure of sentence depth. are analysable as two separate sentences. For example, i n the sentence "She h i t him when he laughed* 1, "when" i s the coordina-t o r (symbolized as Co on the t r e e ) . T e r t i a r y a t t r i b u t e s , secon-dary a t t r i b u t e s , and primary a t t r i b u t e s are i n v o l v e d i n sentences such as "When very n e a t l y d r e s s e d c c h i l d r e n rose, she smiled". The t e r t i a r y a t t r i b u t e i s "very",, which modifies the adverb " n e a t l y " . The secondary a t t r i b u t e comprises " n e a t l y " , together w i t h the t e r t i a r y a t t r i b u t e . The primary a t t r i b u t e comprises the secondary a t t r i b u t e plus the a d j e c t i v e "dressed". This pat-t e r n of subsuming c o n s t i t u e n t s under broader c o n s t i t u e n t s i s what Yngve means by a " r e s t r i c t e d r e l a b e l i n g scheme". I t i s p o s s i b l e to determine the depth of a sentence by counting o f f the number of p r i n c i p a l c o n s t i t u e n t s i n v o l v e d i n i t s makeup. 10 As c a n be s e e n i n F i g u r e 3» t h e p r i n c i p a l c o n s t i t u e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e example s e n t e n c e a r e marked o f f by nodes l a b e l e d S ( S e n t e n c e s ) , CL ( C l a u s e ) , NP (Noun p h r a s e ) . T h u s , t h e d e p t h o f t h i s s e n t e n c e i s 3» The mean d e p t h i s computed by summing t h e d e p t h s f o r each w o r d and d i v i d i n g t h i s sum by t h e number o f words i n t h e s e n t e n c e (11 /7 = 1 . 5 7 ) . Y n g v e , a f t e r i n t r o d u c i n g h i s c o n c e p t o f d e p t h , h y p o t h e s i z e d " t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be an e a s i l y o b s e r v a b l e e f f e c t o f t h e d e p t h l i m i t a t i o n i n t h e grammar o f E n g l i s h . " E x p l i c i t l y , he expands t h i s h y p o t h e s i s t h u s ( Y n g v e , I 9 6 0 , p . 452): a) A l t h o u g h a l l l a n g u a g e s have a grammar b a s e d o n c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e , t h e s e n t e n c e s a c t u a l l y u s e d i n t h e s p o k e n l a n g u a g e have a d e p t h t h a t does n o t e x c e e d a c e r t a i n number e q u a l o r n e a r l y e q u a l t o t h e s p a n o f i m m e d i a t e memory ( p r e s e n t l y assumed t o be 7 - 2). The grammars o f a l l l a n g u a g e s w i l l i n c l u d e methods f o r r e s t r i c t i n g r e g r e s s i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s so t h a t most s e n t e n c e s w i l l n o t e x c e e d t h i s d e p t h , and t h e y w i l l i n c l u d e a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f l e s s e r d e p t h t h a t w o u l d m a i n t a i n t h e power o f e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e . F o r a l l l a n g u a g e s , much o f t h e g r a m m a t i c a l c o m p l e x i t y o v e r and above t h e minimum needed f o r t h e s i g n a l i n g f u n c t i o n c a n be a c c o u n t e d f o r o n t h i s b a s i s . g) When l a n g u a g e s c h a n g e , d e p t h phenomena w i l l f r e q u e n t l y be i n v o l v e d , and w i l l o f t e n p l a y a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e . Yngve goes on t o s t a t e t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f l e s s e r d e p t h a r e e x p e c t e d t o be p r e f e r r e d o v e r e q u i v a l e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f g r e a t e r d e p t h . T h i s i s a v e r y e x c i t i n g h y p o t h e s i s , f o r i t 11 p r e d i c t s what t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t h e o r i e s do n o t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Y n g v e ' s h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d p r e d i c t t h a t , g i v e n two s e n t e n c e s o f t h e same t y p e , b u t o f d i f f e r e n t d e p t h s , t h e s e n t e n c e o f l e s s e r d e p t h w o u l d be more l i k e l y , s a y , t o be s p o k e n by a s p e a k e r o r r e c a l l e d by a l i s t e n e r . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n t h e o r i e s ( i e . , Chom-s k y ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar) p r e d i c t ease o f one s e n t e n c e t y p e o v e r a n o t h e r , b u t make no p r e d i c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e ease o f r e c a l l o f a s e n t e n c e o f a g i v e n t y p e o v e r a n o t h e r s e n t e n c e o f t h e same t y p e . I n o r d e r t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t d e p t h r a t h e r t h a n s e n t e n c e t y p e m i g h t be t h e s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n a s e n -t e n c e r e c a l l s i t u a t i o n , M a r t i n and R o b e r t s ( 1 9 6 6 ) d e v i s e d a n I n t e r e s t i n g s t u d y . 1 2 0 c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o one o f two t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . The f i r s t c o n d i t i o n i n v o l v -ed t h e r e c a l l o f s e t s o f s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1 . 2 9 , whereas t h e s e c o n d i n v o l v e d t h e r e c a l l o f s e t s o f s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1 . 7 1 . E a c h s e t o f s e n t e n c e s i n c l u d e d one each o f s i x s e n t e n c e t y p e s : K e r n e l ( K ) , N e g a t i v e ( N ) , P a s s i v e ( P ) , N e g a t i v e P a s s i v e ( N P ) , P a s s i v e T r u n c a t e d (P<r), and N e g a t i v e - P a s s i v e T r u n -c a t e d (NPIJO. (A P T s e n t e n c e i s one i n w h i c h t h e a g e n t i s n o t s p e c i f i e d , a s i n " L i g h t s a r e t u r n e d o f f i n t h e e v e n i n g " ) . S e n -t e n c e l e n g t h was h e l d c o n s t a n t . A s e t o f s e n t e n c e s o f e i t h e r mean d e p t h was r e a d t o a g r o u p o f t e n s u b j e c t s , who were t h e n i n s t r u c t e d t o w r i t e down as many o f t h e s e n t e n c e s as t h e y c o u l d remember. T h i s p r o c e d u r e was r e p e a t e d w i t h t h e same s e t o f s u b -12 j e c t s and sentences u n t i l s ix f r e e - l e a r n i n g t r i a l s were e f f e c t e d , Martin and Roberts found that sentences of l e s s e r mean depth were r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more of ten than were sentences of greater mean depth, regardless of sentence type. Further , kernel sentences were l e s s e a s i l y remembered than were non-kernel sen-tences. The conclusion that the l i k e l i h o o d of r e c a l l of a sen-tence was inverse ly r e l a t e d to mean depth of that sentence s trong-l y corroborates Yngve's depth hypothesis . However, the conclusion that kernel sentences were harder to r e c a l l than non-kernel sen-tences i s d i r e c t l y opposed to the r e s u l t s discussed e a r l i e r (Mehler, 1963; Menyuk, 1963; Gough, 1965; S l o b i n , 1966) which seemed to corroborate Chomsky's transformation hypothesis . Fur ther , Martin and Roberts' f i n d i n g of no d i f f e r e n c e s between the various non-kernel sentence types i s c u r i o u s , i n l i g h t of the r e s u l t s mentioned i n the previous sentence. Considering the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s to be found i n the data with respect to both the depth hypothesis and the transformation hypothesis , as w e l l as the paucity of data regarding t h e i r i n t e r -a c t i o n , f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n seemed merited. I t i s poss ible that i n v e s t i g a t i o n along these l i n e s could contr ibute to a bet ter understanding of language development. I f t h i s goal i s to be achieved, data must be gathered regarding both c h i l d r e n ' s and a d u l t ' s language behavior . Some of the questions which might be answered by such research are : 1. I s t h e r e any one s e n t e n c e t y p e w h i c h i s e a s i e r t h a n o t h e r s f o r a d u l t s t o r e c a l l ? 2. I s t h e r e any one s e n t e n c e t y p e w h i c h i s e a s i e r t h a n o t h e r s f o r c h i l d r e n t o r e c a l l ? 3. I s s e n t e n c e mean d e p t h a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n s e n t e n c e r e c a l l when a d u l t s a r e s u b j e c t s ? 4. I s s e n t e n c e mean d e p t h a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n s e n t e n c e r e c a l l when c h i l d r e n a r e s u b j e c t s ? 5 . What i s t h e e f f e c t o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f mean d e p t h and s e n t e n c e t y p e o n r e c a l l o f s e n t e n c e s by b o t h a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n ? 6. W i l l a d u l t s c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l more s e n t e n c e s t h a n w i l l c h i l d r e n ? W i t h r e s p e c t t o q u e s t i o n s 1 and 2, one w o u l d e x p e c t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e w e a l t h o f s u p p o r t i v e d a t a , t h a t K e r n e l s w o u l d be t h e s i m p l e s t s e n t e n c e s t o r e c a l l f o r b o t h a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n w o u l d have to be m a d e , a t l e a s t u n -t i l M a r t i n and R o b e r t s ' (1966) r e s u l t s were r e p l i c a t e d . C o n s i d e r i n g Y n g v e ' s d e p t h h y p o t h e s i s and t h e r e s u l t s o f M a r t i n and R o b e r t s ' s t u d y , one w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t s e n t e n c e s o f a l e s s e r mean d e p t h w o u l d be r e c a l l e d more o f t e n t h a n t h o s e o f a g r e a t e r mean d e p t h r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s u b j e c t ' s a g e . A s a n s w e r s t o any o r a l l o f t h e above q u e s t i o n s w o u l d be i l l u m i n a t i n g , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y was p r o p o s e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t s o n r e c a l l o f v a r y i n g s e n t e n c e mean d e p t h and s e n -t e n c e k i n d when s e n t e n c e l e n g t h i s c o n t r o l l e d . Two age g r o u p s were c o n s i d e r e d i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e i f , i n t h e c o n t r o l l e d s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i b e d , t h e r e were age d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c a l l o f s e n t e n c e s a t two mean d e p t h s and o f v a r y i n g k i n d . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t s The l i k e l i h o o d o f r e c a l l o f a s e n t e n c e i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e mean d e p t h o f t h a t s e n t e n c e when b o t h c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s a r e s u b j e c t s . K e r n e l s e n t e n c e s a r e r e c a l l e d b e t t e r t h a n n o n - k e r n e l s e n t e n c e s by c h i l d r e n and by a d u l t s . More s e n t e n c e s , r e g a r d l e s s o f d e p t h , a r e r e c a l l e d by a d u l t s t h a n by c h i l d r e n . CHAPTER II METHOD On each o f s i x f r e e - l e a r n i n g t r i a l s , t h e same s i x s e n -t e n c e s were r e a d t o t h e s u b j e c t s ( S s ) , who t h e n p r o c e e d e d i m m e d i a t e l y t o r e c a l l them as b e s t t h e y c o u l d . The e x p e r i -m e n t a l d e s i g n was a 2 x 2 x 6 f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n c o m p r i s i n g s i x s e n t e n c e t y p e s and two age g r o u p s w i t h i n S s , and two l e v e l s o f s e n t e n c e d e p t h b e t w e e n S s , M a t e r i a l s T w e l v e s e t s o f s i x s e n t e n c e s each were c o n s t r u c t e d s u c h t h a t any one s e t c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s i x s e n t e n c e k i n d s : k e r n e l ( K ) , p a s s i v e ( P ) , p a s s i v e t r u n c a t e d ( P ^ ) , n e g a t i v e ( N ) , n e g a t i v e - p a s s i v e ( N P ) , and n e g a t i v e - p a s s i v e t r u n c a t e d ( N P ^ ) . The s e n t e n c e s were a l l s e v e n words l o n g and w i t h i n each s e t were u n r e l a t e d i n meaning i n t h e judgment o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r . The t w e l v e s e t s o f s e n t e n c e s a p p e a r i n A p p e n d i x A . The T h o r n d i k e - L o r g e ( 1 9 4 4 ) c o u n t s f o r a l l s e t s o f s e n t e n c e s was u n i f o r m l y h i g h so as t o m a x i m i z e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e w o r d s ' b e i n g e q u a l l y f a m i l i a r t o a l l S s . The words o f a l l s e n -t e n c e s a p p e a r i n t h e C o p p - C l a r k r e a d e r s , G r a d e s 1 t h r o u g h 3 , w h i c h a r e u s e d i n t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a s c h o o l s . Of t h e t w e l v e s e t s o f s e n t e n c e s , s i x were made up o f s e n -t e n c e s e a c h o f w h i c h had Yngve numbers 1 , 3 , 2 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 f o r t h e 16 s e v e n w o r d s , hence mean d e p t h 1.29. The o t h e r s i x s e t s had Y n g v e numbers 1,4,3,2,1,1,0, and hence mean d e p t h 1.71. D e p t h o f each word was computed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p h r a s e - s t r u c t u r e r u l e s d e s c r i b e d by Yngve (i960). Mean d e p t h o f each s e n t e n c e was computed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e method d e s c r i b e d by M a r t i n and R o b e r t s (1966). S u b j e c t s The Ss were 120 c h i l d r e n who were a t t e n d i n g e i t h e r M o r l e y -B r a n t f o r d E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l o r K i t c h e n e r E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l i n B u r n a b y , B . C . , d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r 1966-67 and 120 a d u l t s who were a t t e n d i n g summer s c h o o l a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a d u r i n g J u l y and A u g u s t , 1967. A l l t h e Ss were a t l e a s t s e c o n d -g e n e r a t i o n C a n a d i a n s who spoke E n g l i s h a s a f i r s t l a n g u a g e . The c h i l d r e n ' s p a r e n t s were a l l e i t h e r engaged i n p r o f e s s i o n a l work o r s k i l l e d l a b o u r . No c h i l d was c l a s s i f i e d by h i s s c h o o l as b e i n g i n n e e d o f r e m e d i a l work i n any s u b j e c t . The mean age o f t h e c h i l d r e n was 9 y e a r s 5 m o n t h s , and t h e mean I . Q . was 115. A l l t h e a d u l t s were t e a c h e r s i n e i t h e r t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a e l e -m e n t a r y o r s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s y s t e m s . The mean age o f t h e a d u l t s was 30 y e a r s 3 m o n t h s . I . Q . d a t a were a v a i l a b l e o n l y f o r y o u n g e r S s . Ss were r u n i n g r o u p s o f t e n . Ten Ss f r o m e a c h age g r o u p were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o each o f t h e 12 s e t s o f s e n t e n c e s . A l -t o g e t h e r , t h e r e were f o u r m a i n g r o u p s o f 60 Ss e a c h . The g r o u p s were named a c c o r d i n g t o t h e age o f t h e Ss as w e l l as t h e mean 17 d e p t h o f t h e s e n t e n c e s b e i n g p r e s e n t e d t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p . T h u s , t h e g r o u p s were named: 9 ( 1 . 2 9 ) ; 9 ( 1 . 7 1 ) ; 30 ( 1 . 2 9 ) ; 30 ( 1 . 7 1 ) . P r o c e d u r e Ten Ss a t a t i m e were s e a t e d i n s t a n d a r d c l a s s r o o m desk c h a i r s i n an o t h e r w i s e empty room ( e x c e p t f o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s t a b l e ) . E a c h S was g i v e n one s h e e t o f b l a n k p a p e r and t h e f o l -l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s were r e a d a l o u d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ( E ) : I am g o i n g t o r e a d s i x o r d i n a r y E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e s t o y o u . When I am f i n i s h e d r e a d i n g , I w i l l say " s t a r t " a t w h i c h t i m e I want y o u t o w r i t e o r p r i n t a s many o f t h e s e s e n t e n c e s as y o u c a n remember. D o n ' t w r i t e b e f o r e I say " s t a r t " . I am n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n how y o u s p e l l t h e words o r i n y o u r h a n d w r i t i n g . I f y o u d o n ' t know how t o s p e l l a w o r d , w r i t e i t down t h e way i t s o u n d s , and t h a t w i l l be f i n e . I f I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d i t , I w i l l a s k y o u l a t e r t o e x p l a i n . A r e t h e r e any q u e s t i o n s ? . A r e y o u r e a d y ? F o l l o w i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e E r e a d s i x s e n t e n c e s a l o u d t o t h e S s , a f t e r w h i c h t h e y w r o t e them on t h e i r p a p e r s , t a k i n g a s much t i m e a s t h e y w i s h e d . A s soon as an S f i n i s h e d w r i t i n g , t h e E p i c k e d up t h e s h e e t on w h i c h t h e r e c a l l e d s e n t e n c e s were w r i t t e n . A f t e r a l l t e n Ss had f i n i s h e d , f r e s h s h e e t s o f p a p e r were d i s t r i b u t e d , and t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s were r e a d t o t h e Ss by t h e E.:"' I am g o i n g t o r e a d t h e same s i x s e n t e n c e s a g a i n . T h i s t i m e t h e y w i l l be i n a d i f f e r e n t o r d e r , b u t t h a t d o e s n ' t m a t t e r . I want y o u t o l i s t e n t o them and when I say " s t a r t " , w r i t e down as many o f them a s y o u c a n remember. We w i l l do t h i s h more t i m e s a f t e r t h i s . A r e t h e r e any q u e s t i o n s ? A r e y o u r e a d y ? ; 18 In a l l , six t r i a l s were effected with each group of ten Ss. A L a t i n square was used to regulate ordering of sentences. As a r e s u l t , every sentence occured i n each ordinal position over six t r i a l s , and no sentence followed another i n the same order twice. CHAPTER III RESULTS Correct r e c a l l s For each combination of sentence mean depth, sentence type, and age, the mean number of correct r e c a l l s over six t r i a l s per group of Ss was computed (see scoring procedures, Appendix B). These r e s u l t s are presented i n Table 1. Each mean correct r e c a l l s score represents 60 Ss. A 2 x 2 x 6 analysis of variance was performed (age X mean depth X sentence type) with repeated measures on sentence type (see Winer, 1962, p. 337). It was found that older Ss made s i g -n i f i c a n t l y more correct r e c a l l s , regardless of the depth or the kind of sentence, than d i d younger Ss (F = 35.92, df = I/236, p< . 0 0 0 l ) . It was also found that a l l Ss r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more sentences, regardless of kind, at mean depth 1.29 than they did at mean depth 1.71 (F = 47.904, df = I/236, p <.0001). Fur-ther, sentence type was s i g n i f i c a n t (F = 12.102, df = 5/1180, p<.0001), as was the in t e r a c t i o n between age and sentence type (F = 4.749, df = 5/1180, p <.001). The i n t e r a c t i o n between mean depth and sentence type, however, was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F = .918. df = 5/H80, p > .25). Figure 4 represents the age X type interaction and indicates that sentences vary i n t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r immediate r e c a l l , depending upon the S*s age. Simple Negative sentences were re-TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CORRECT RECALL SCORES N=60 K N P T NP T P NP GROUP X SD X SD x SD x SD x SD x SD 9(1.29) 2 . 97 1 . 3 7 3 .33 1 . 7 3 2 . 62 1 . 39 3.32 1 .35 2 .33 1 .35 3 . 4 0 2.03 9 ( 1 . 7 1 ) 1 . 97 1.81 2.93 1.62 2 . 1 7 1 .91 2.22 1 .94 1.30 1 . 57 2 . 5 0 1.91 3 0 ( 1 . 2 9 ) 3 . 9 7 1 . 7 0 4-23 1 . 4 4 3 - 4 3 1.60 4 . 2 7 1 .39 3 . 9 3 1 .45 4.72 1 . 50 3 0 ( 1 . 7 1 ) 3 . 1 2 1.31 2 . 7 5 1.31 2 . 5 2 1 . 7 0 3-33 1 .67 2.93 1 .73 3 . 4 5 1.63 Age 9 SENTENCE TYPE F I G ^ k. Mean c o r r e c t r e c a l l s o f 9 y e a r o l d and 30 y e a r o l d Ss f o r 6 s e n t e n c e t y p e s n = 120. 22 c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y most often by 9 years o ld Ss (mean correct r e-c a l l s = 3*40), whereas Negative-Passive sentences were re c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y most often by 30 years old Ss (mean correct r e c a l l s = 4 .09). In view of the significance of sentence types a Tukey (b) test on ordered pairs of correct r e c a l l scores f o r each sentence type was computed (see Winer, 1962, p. 87)• The r e s u l t s of the Tukey analysis are presented i n Table 2. Negative-Passive and simple Negative sentences were re c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more often than Passive Truncated, Passive, and Kernel sentences (p< . 0 1 ) . Negative-Passive Truncated sentences were r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more often than were Passive Truncated sentences (p< .01) or Passive sentences (p<»05). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences i n ease of r e c a l l of K vs. NPT; K vs. P; K vs. P^; N vs. N P T j; N V S . P; or NP T vs. NP (p >.05). Errors Table 3 summarizes the number and kinds of errors a r i s i n g from each combination of mean depth and sentence type f o r Groups 9(1.29) and 9(1.71). For example, i n the f i r s t column, out of the (60 Ss) x (6 t r i a l s ) = 360 response opportunities f o r r e c a l -l i n g a K of mean depth 1.29, there occurred 182 errors. Of these errors, 71 occurred i n Ks (errors of the same type as pre-sented sentence), 1 occurred as a N transformation, 2 were P Ts, 65 were Incomplete sentences, 7 were Ungrammatical sentences, and 36 were Omissions of sentences. There were no NPT, P, or NP errors where a K of mean depth 1.29 was presented. TABLE 2 Tukey (b) Test on A l l Ordered Pairs of Total Correct Recalls of Each Sentence Type By A l l Subjects N=240 Total Number Correct Recalls 644 693 721 791 831 844 Sentence Type Passive Truncated Passive Kernel Negative-Passive Truncated Negative Negative Passive Passive Truncated 49 77 147** 187** 200** Passive 28 98* 138** 151** Kernel - 70 110** 123** Neg. Pass. Truncated 40 53 Negative - 13 Negative Passive ** p < . 0 1 * p < . 0 5 24 The most f r e q u e n t e r r o r s were o m i s s i o n s , f o l l o w e d by e r r o r s o f t h e same s e n t e n c e t y p e a s t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e , and t h e n by i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s . E x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d when K s o f mean d e p t h 1.71, NP^s o f mean d e p t h 1.29, and Ps o f mean d e p t h 1.71 were p r e s e n t e d . Where K s o f mean d e p t h 1.71 and N P T S o f mean d e p t h 1.71 were p r e s e n t e d , t h e most f r e q u e n t e r r o r s were e r r o r s o f t h e same s e n t e n c e t y p e , f o l l o w e d by o m i s s i o n s , and t h e n by i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s . W h i l e o m i s s i o n s were t h e most f r e q u e n t e r r o r s where P s o f mean d e p t h 1.71 were p r e s e n t e d , i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s were t h e n e x t most f r e q u e n t e r r o r s , f o l l o w e d by e r r o r s o f t h e same s e n t e n c e t y p e . Where K s o f mean d e p t h 1.29 were p r e -s e n t e d , e r r o r s o f t h e same t y p e were most f r e q u e n t , f o l l o w e d by i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s , and t h e n by o m i s s i o n s . A l s o , when K s o f mean d e p t h 1.71 and NPijs o f mean d e p t h 1.29 were p r e s e n t e d , t h e most f r e q u e n t e r r o r s were a g a i n t h o s e o f t h e same s e n t e n c e t y p e as t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e . R e c a l l e r r o r s o f t h e same s y n t a c t i c t y p e as t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e a r e e n t e r e d o n t h e m a i n d i a g o n a l and a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e c h i e f l y t o s u b s t i t u t i o n s o f p r o n o u n s , n o u n s , and v e r b : t e n s e s . A l l g r a m m a t i c a l , c o m p l e t e - s e n t e n c e e r r o r s o f f t h e m a i n d i a g o n a l a r e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e . To d e t e r m i n e a t w h i c h mean d e p t h l e v e l t h e g r e a t e s t number o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o c c u r r e d , a p r o p o r t i o n a n a l y s i s was made ( F e r g u s o n , p . 177). The p r o p o r t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l , c o m p l e t e - s e n t e n c e e r r o r s t h a t a r e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i s . 2 4 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1.29 TABLE 3 ERRORS IN RECALL MADE BY GROUPS 9(1.29) AND 9(1.71) CLASSIFIED BY SENTENCE TYPE OF THE PRESENTED SENTENCE N=60 K N Type of Group 9 9 9 9 Error (1.29) (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) Presented Sentence P T NP T P 9 1 9 9 9 9 (1.29) (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) (1*29) NP 9 9 9 (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) K N NPm p NP Incomplete Ungrammati c a l Omissions Total 71 110 1 3 32 13 5 2 13 30 1 11 1 2 43 66 1 1 7 19 0 0 11 17 2 10 0 0 53 55 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 64 67 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 46 49 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 5 0 59 65 65 30 23 16 32 37 15 23 29 65 14 24 7 5 5 6 12 7 9 4 9 6 3 9 36 35 50 34 66 114 53 107 35 101 53 79 132 242 127 134 203 230 161 227 190 252 156 210 26 and .22 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1.71. T h i s d i f f e r -ence i s n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( z = .74, p > . 0 5 ) . When t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f o f f - d i a g o n a l e r r o r s ( t r a n s f o r m a t i o n e r r o r s ) o f any one t y p e f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1,29 i s compared w i t h t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f o f f - d i a g o n a l e r r o r s o f t h e same t y p e f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1.71. no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a r e f o u n d ( p > . 0 5 ) . T a b l e 4 summarizes t h e number and k i n d s o f e r r o r s a r i s i n g f r o m e a c h c o m b i n a t i o n o f mean d e p t h and s e n t e n c e t y p e f o r Groups 30 (1.29) and 30 (1.71). When K s and P^s o f b o t h mean d e p t h s , Ns o f mean d e p t h 1.71. and NPs o f mean d e p t h 1.29 were p r e s e n t e d , t h e most f r e q u e n t e r r o r s were o f t h e same t y p e as t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s f o l l o w e d by o m i s s i o n e r r o r s . I n a l l o t h e r c a s e s , t h e most f r e q u e n t e r r o r s were o m i s s i o n s , f o l l o w e d by e r r o r s o f t h e same t y p e as t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s . The p r o p o r t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l , c o m p l e t e - s e n t e n c e e r r o r s t h a t a r e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i s .34 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1.29, and .39 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1.71. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( z = 1.62, p > . 0 5 ) . Of t h e t o t a l number o f o f f - d i a g o n a l e r r o r s ( t r a n s f o r -m a t i o n e r r o r s ) , t h e p r o p o r t i o n t h a t a r e NPs i s .02 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1.29, and .19 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1.71. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (z= -4.94, p.<.001). Of t h e t o t a l o f f - d i a g o n a l e r r o r s , t h e p r o p o r t i o n t h a t a r e N P T s i s .22 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean TABLE 4 ERRORS IN RECALL MADE BY GROUPS 30(1.29) AND 30(1.71) CLASSIFIED BY SENTENCE TYPE OF THE PRESENTED SENTENCE N=60 Presented Sentence K N Pm NPm P NP Type of Group 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 1 30 30 30 30 30 Error (1.29) (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) (1.29) (1.71) K 69 67 13 2 5 21 2 6 5 6 9 23 2 1 N 4 12 29 87 1 2 6 2, 2 0 3 9 N? T 7 6 2 1 57 82 9 15 2 6 3 2 2 3 0 11 27 4 30 41 0 7 0 0 P 1 1 2 0 0 2 16 2 3 46 48 9 12 NP 0 6 1 7 0 8 0 14 2 12 36 45 Incomplete 12 22 1 2 4 6 2 3 3 14 1 8 Ungrammat i c a l 1 3 0 5 0 4 3 2 2 0 0 7 Omission 26 52 57 57 42 61 47 71 58 71 23 69 Total 122 173 103 195 154 209 104 157 124 181 77 153 28 d e p t h 1.29, and .10 f o r p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1 . 7 1 . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e , a l s o , i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( z = 3 . 0 0 , p < . 0 0 l ) . No o t h e r c o m p a r i s o n s o f t h i s t y p e r e a c h e d s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ( p > . 0 5 ) . When c o m p a r i n g t h e t o t a l number o f w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s made by c h i l d r e n w i t h t h o s e made by a d u l t s ( t h a t i s , t o t a l c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s + e r r o r s - o m i s s i o n s ) , i t was f o u n d t h a t a d u l t s made p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more r e s p o n s e s o u t o f a t o t a l p o s s i b l e o f 8640 r e s p o n s e s t h a n c h i l d r e n ( z = 5*00, p < « 0 0 1 ) . The p r o p o r t i o n o f a l l w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s made by c h i l d r e n t h a t a r e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n e r r o r s i n .07, whereas f o r a d u l t s t h i s p r o p o r t i o n i s . 1 0 . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( z = 4 . 2 8 , p < . 0 0 1 ) . CHAPTER IV, DISCUSSION; The p r e s e n t e x p e r i m e n t c o r r o b o r a t e s t h e f i n d i n g o f M a r t i n and R o b e r t s ( 1 9 6 6 ) t h a t s e n t e n c e mean d e p t h i s a d e f i n i t i v e f a c -t o r i n s e n t e n c e r e t e n t i o n . B o t h age Ss= c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c a l l e d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1 . 29 c o r r e c t l y more o f t e n t h a n t h e y d i d s e n t e n c e s o f mean d e p t h 1 . 7 1 . F u r t h e r m o r e , as was h y p o t h e s i z e d , o l d e r Ss c o n s i s t e n t l y s c o r e d more c o r r e c t r e c a l l s o v e r a l l s e n -t e n c e t y p e s , r e g a r d l e s s o f s e n t e n c e mean d e p t h , t h a n d i d y o u n g e r S s . I n f a c t , a d u l t s made more r e s p o n s e s o v e r a l l t h a n d i d c h i l -d r e n . The a d u l t p a t t e r n o f r e s p o n d i n g , h o w e v e r , d i f f e r e d some-what f r o m t h a t o f t h e c h i l d r e n . The most f r e q u e n t r e s p o n s e s , o t h e r t h a n c o r r e c t o n e s , made by a d u l t s were e r r o r s o f t h e same t y p e as t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e ( s y n t a c t i c a l l y - c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s ) f o l l o w e d by t r a n s f o r m a t i o n e r r o r s . The most f r e q u e n t r e s p o n s e s made by c h i l d r e n , a f t e r c o r r e c t r e c a l l s and e r r o r s o f t h e same t y p e as t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e , were i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a d u l t s a t t e m p t e d more r e s p o n s e s , made q u i t e a few t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l e r r o r s , b u t w r o t e v e r y f e w i n c o m p l e t e r e s p o n s e s . C h i l d r e n a t t e m p t e d f e w e r r e s p o n s e s , made f e w e r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l e r r o r s , b u t w r o t e many more i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s t h a n d i d t h e a d u l t s . A l l o f t h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e e i t h e r t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o w r i t e down s o m e t h i n g t h e y a r e n ' t s u r e o f t h a n 30 a d u l t s , or perhaps that c h i l d r e n ' s memory spans are considerably shorter than a d u l t s 1 i n s i t u a t i o n s such as i s described i n the present study. The p o s s i b i l i t y that c h i l d r e n are more conservative i n t h e i r responding behavior i n sentence r e c a l l s i t u a t i o n s such as was described by t h i s experiment should be invest igated f u r t h e r . This i s true also f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y that c h i l d r e n ' s memory spans f o r sentence r e c a l l tasks are shorter than a d u l t s ' , P i a g e t ' s developmental theory implies that increased memory span i s r e -quired f o r tasks performed r e g u l a r l y by o l d e r c h i l d r e n than i s required by tasks r e g u l a r l y performed by younger c h i l d r e n ( F l a v e l l , 1964), More experimental evidence i s required before conclusions can be f i r m l y drawn from such r e s u l t s as are presented here r e -garding e i t h e r the "conservat ive" hypothesis or the memory-span hypothesis . The data also indicated that the semantic v a r i a b l e of a f -f i rmat ion-negat ion was extremely important. A l l sentence types i n v o l v i n g the negative were r e c a l l e d best by younger Ss, while NPs and NP T s were r e c a l l e d best by o l d e r Ss . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that , when a l l the data f o r both age groups were analyzed! (ex-c l u d i n g P T and NP T data f o r the sake of comparison with other s t u d i e s ) , the sentence types i n order from that r e c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y most of ten to that r e c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y l e a s t of ten were: Ni = NP> K = P. 31 Although Martin and Roberts found that kernels were r e c a l -l e d c o r r e c t l y l e s s f requently than non-kernels , they d i d not f i n d a s i m i l a r , strong negative f a c t o r as d i d t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r . Nor i s t h i s r e s u l t one which would be predicted by e i t h e r the t rans -formational grammar model or the phrase s tructure model. There are several p o s s i b l e explanations: 1 . Even though the i n s t r u c t i o n s emphasized the non-test aspects of the experimental s i t u a t i o n , the Ss, a l l of whom came to the experimental s i t t i n g s d i r e c t l y from classroom s i t u a t i o n s , may have been unconvinced that they were not expected to meet some undefined standard. They thus may have been personally motivated to "pass* on what they indeed f e l t was a t e s t . I f t h i s were so, the negative morpheme, so c l e a r l y l a c k i n g i n am-b i q u i t y , may have been an obvious a i d to r e c a l l of those sen-tences i n which i t was heard. Although t h i s i s conjecture on the E* s par t , i t i s both a l o g i c a l and tes table hypothesis . 2. As there were three sentences out of every group of s i x which included some form of negation, an induced response bias may have existed toward the Negative, Negative-Passive, and Negative-Passive Truncated sentences which was s o l e l y due to the presence of negation. I f the induced-response-bias hypothesis i s t rue , then i t i s curious that Martin and Roberts* data d i d not show a s i m i l a r t r e n d . 3 . Katz and P o s t a l ' s separate-derivat ions hypothesis with regard to Ks , Ns, and Ps may be c l o s e r to r e a l i t y than Chomsky's 32 transformation hypothesis . The r e s u l t s of the present study indica te that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a f f i r m a t i v e and nega-t i v e sentences i s very c lose , but that , contrary to what Katz and Posta l ( 1 9 6 4 ) propose, the negative sentence i s simpler than the a f f i r m a t i v e sentence. 4 . Perhaps, i f the r e s u l t s regarding ease of r e c a l l of negative sentences were r e p l i c a t e d , i t might be shown that t h i s i s a c u l t u r a l l y - d e t e r m i n e d tendency. I t may be that there are cul tures i n which the negative morpheme plays a very small r o l e . Ss l i v i n g i n such cul tures may respond qui te d i f f e r e n t l y i n a r e c a l l s i t u a t i o n such as was described i n t h i s study. A comparison might be made, then, of the responses to sentences i n a sentence family of Ss drawn from a community i n which the negative morpheme seldom occurs , and the responses of Ss drawn from such a community as was described i n the present study. One might hypothesize that Ss from that cul ture i n which the negative plays a minor r o l e would c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l a f f i r m a t i v e sentences much more f requently than negatives . This could be an i n t e r e s t i n g l i n e of i n v e s t i g a t i o n to pursue. Although each of these explanations i s poss ible and t e s t -a b l e , i t i s the opinion of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r that much can be gained here from pursuing yet another argument. Martin and Roberts ( 1 9 6 6 ) descr ibe a study i n which " s t r u c t u r a l complexity" , or s t r u c t u r a l embeddedness, rather than sentence type, inf luenced behavior : 33 F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e on t h e s e m a t t e r s comes f r o m a s t u d y by t h e p r e s e n t w r i t e r s i n w h i c h Ss made judgments as t o w h i c h o f two s e v e n - w o r d s e n t e n c e s t h e y t h o u g h t w o u l d be e a s i e r t o remember i f t h e y had t o r e l a y one o f them t o someone e l s e a f t e r a d e l a y o f s e v e r a l m i n -u t e s . S i n c e t h e s e n t e n c e p a i r s were i n w r i t i n g i n f r o n t o f them, and s i n c e t h e i r judgments were n o t p a c e d , Ss need n o t have s t o r e d any i n f o r m a t i o n i n ~ memory; o n l y t h e i r i n t u i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g o r d i n a r y E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e s p r e s u m a b l y were i n e f f e c t . T w e l v e K s were p a i r e d w i t h 12 Ns and w i t h 12 P s , t h u s g i v - -i n g 144 K - N and 144 K - P s e n t e n c e p a i r s . Of t h e 12 s e n t e n c e s o f e a c h k i n d , t h e r e were two each o f mean d e p t h s 1.00, 1.14, 1.29, 1.43, 1.57, and 1.71. Thus t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n mean d e p t h s f o r p a i r s o f s e n t e n c e s r a n g e d f r o m -.71 t o .71; a d i f f e r e n c e o f -.71 o b -t a i n e d when, f o r e x a m p l e , t h e K member o f a K - N p a i r had mean d e p t h 1.00 and t h e N member had mean d e p t h 1.71. W h i c h k i n d o f s e n t e n c e o c c u r r e d f i r s t i n a p a i r was b a l a n c e d o v e r t h e m a g n i t u d e s o f d i f f e r e n c e i n mean d e p t h . The judgments were made i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e f r e e - l e a r n i n g e x p e r i m e n t , and by t h e same S s . The s e n t e n c e s o f t h e two e x p e r i m e n t s were c o m p l e t e l y u n r e l a t e d s e m a n t i c a l l y . W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e s u l t i n g judgments o f r e t a i n -a b i l i t y as a f u n c t i o n o f s e n t e n c e k i n d , Ns were c h o s e n o v e r K s 5*$ ° f t n e t i m e and Ps were c h o s e n o v e r K s $0% o f t h e t i m e . As f o r judgments as a f u n c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e i n s e n t e n c e mean d e p t h s , Ss c o n s i s t e n t l y chose t h e s e n t e n c e o f l e s s e r mean d e p t h as e a s i e r t o remember: f o r K - N p a i r s , K e n d a l l ' s t a u b e t w e e n p r o p o r t i o n o f c h o i c e s o f K o v e r N and t h e -.71 t o .71 r a n g e o f mean d e p t h d i f f e r e n c e s i s .54 (p = .01); f o r K - P p a i r s , t a u i s .85 ( p < . 0 0 l ) . I n a s i m i l a r s t u d y c o m p a r i n g P s and P T S , P S were j u d g e d e a s i e r t o remember t h a n P T S 51$ o f t h e t i m e ; t h e c o r -r e s p o n d i n g t a u i s .93 (p<.001). T h u s , i n a s i t u a t i o n where Ss a r e a s k e d t o make j u d g -ments r e g a r d i n g s t o r a g e and s u b s e q u e n t r e p r o d u c t i o n , t h a t i s , t o e x e r c i s e t h e i r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t a n a c t u a l t e s t o f a b i l i t y , one a g a i n f i n d s t h a t i t i s s t r u c t u r a l c o m p l e x i t y and n o t s e n t e n c e k i n d p e r se t h a t a c c o u n t s f o r b e h a v i o r . T h i s i s v e r y c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , s e e m i n g l y I n d i c a t i n g t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e d e p t h f a c t o r . F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e 34 depth hypothesis i s given by Martin and Roberts ( 1 9 6 6 ) . When the K, N„ P„ and NP sentences used by Mehler ( 1 9 6 3 ) were ana-l y z e d f o r mean depth, i t was found that the order i n which sen-tences had been r e c a l l e d (from easiest to hardest ) , that i s , K< P'< N< NP, was a d i r e c t r e f l e c t i o n of the mean depths of the sentences: 1 . 1 7 , 1 » 3 8 » 1 . 4 3 , and 1 . 6 7 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t does not seem u n l i k e l y , then, that the mean depth f a c t o r played a p a r t , perhaps even a very s i g n i f i c a n t par t , i n determining the r e s u l t s of other studies which have helped to b u i l d the theories that p r e d i c t K < N< P< NP or that K < P< N< NP. It i s advisable to recommend that-not only should a r e p l i -c a t i o n of the present study be attempted, but a l s o , an a n a l y s i s of the stimulus sentences used by some of the inves t igators mentioned i n t h i s paper should be made using the mean depth measure. Perhaps, then, the r o l e s of both sentence kind and sentence depth and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l appear c l e a r e r . CHAPTER V. SUMMARY A study was performed which u t i l i z e d Martin and Roberts* adaptation of Yngve*s depth measure. Subjects aged 9 and 30 were exposed to sentences of e i t h e r one of two mean depths and of s i x d i f f e r e n t types. Four groups, comprising 60 Ss each were named according to the age of the Ss i n the group as w e l l as f o r the depth of the sentences to which the members of the group were exposed. Ten Ss at a time from the groups 9(1.29), 9(1.71), 30 (1.29), and 3 ° ( l » 7 l ) heard the E read s ix sentences out l o u d . Each set of s ix sentences comprised a Kernel (K) , a Negative (N), a Passive (P) , a Negative-Passive (NP), a Passive Truncated ( P T ) , and a Negative-Passive Truncated (NPT) sentence. There were 12 sets of sentences — six* sets at mean depth 1.29 and s ix sets at mean depth 1 .71. A f t e r hearing the set of sentences once, the Ss were asked to wri te as many of the sentences as they could remember. Six such t r i a l s were ef fec ted per 10 SS; with a d i f f e r e n t set of sentences being used f o r every 10 Ss . I t was found that a l l Ss r e c a l l e d sentences of mean depth 1.29 c o r r e c t l y more of ten than sentences of mean depth 1.71. Further , Ss aged 30 scored more correct r e c a l l s at both mean depths and on each sentence type than d i d Ss aged 9» I t was 36 also found that , when the four main sentence types (K, N, P, NP) were considered, negatives of both types were r e c a l l e d bet ter than were non-negatives by both aged Ss, The f i r s t - m e n t i o n e d f i n d i n g corroborates r e s u l t s of the Martin and Roberts (1966) study and indicates that sentence depth i s a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n a sentence r e c a l l s i t u -a t i o n . The second f i n d i n g appears to give some i n d i c a t i o n that c h i l d r e n aged 9 have e i t h e r a shorter memory span i n sentence r e c a l l s i t u a t i o n s than a d u l t s , or else are l e s s l i k e l y to put J down "answers 1 1 unless they are sure of being " c o r r e c t " than adults a re . I t was suggested that both the memory span hypothe-s i s and the "conservatism" hypothesis be invest igated f u r t h e r . In the case of the l a s t f i n d i n g — that regarding the a f f i r m a -t ion-negat ion dichotomy found to ex is t between sentence types — i t was suggested that a mean depth a n a l y s i s of the sentences used i n the Gough, 1965, and S l o b i n , 1966 s tudies be made. I t was f e l t that such a depth a n a l y s i s might reveal that the Gough and S l o b i n r e s u l t s (that K sentences were easier to r e c a l l than Ns, which were eas ier than Ps, which i n turn were easier than NPs) may have occurred as a r e s u l t of the Ks having l e s s e r mean depths than the other sentence types. The Katz and Posta l hypothesis that Ks , Ns, and Ps had separate d e r i v a t i o n s was considered as a poss ible explanation, but i t was suggested that i f t h i s were so, the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-37 tween a f f i r m a t i v e and n e g a t i v e s e n t e n c e s was more s i g n i f i c a n t t h a n r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n o t h e r s e n t e n c e s s e p a r a t e d by o n l y one " u n i v e r s a l morpheme" . I t was f u r t h e r s u g g e s t e d t h a t a r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e -s e n t s t u d y be a t t e m p t e d and t h a t a n o t h e r s t u d y be d e v i s e d t o t e s t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e s t r o n g t e n d e n c y t o r e s p o n d c o r r e c t l y t o n e g a t i v e s e n t e n c e s i s c u l t u r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d . 38 REFERENCES Chomsky, N. Syntact ic s t r u c t u r e s . The Hague: Mouton, 1.957 • On the "not ion r u l e of grammar". In R. Jakobson ( E d . ) , Structure of language and i t s mathematical  aspects" (Proceedings 12th symposium i n appl ied mathematics) Providence, R . I . : American Mathe-matical Society , 1961, 6-24. C l i f t o n , C . , and Odom, P. S i m i l a r i t y r e l a t i o n s among c e r t a i n E n g l i s h sentence const ruc t ions . Psych. Monog., 1966, 80, I-35. Ferguson, G . A . S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n Psychology and Edu- c a t i o n . New York, McGraw-Hil l , 1959. F l a v e l l , J . H . The developmental psychology of Jean Plaget . Toronto, Van Nostrand, 1964. Gough, P . B . Grammatical transformations and speed of under-standing. J . verb. Learn , verb . Behav;.. 1965. 4, 107-111. Harman, G . H . Generative grammars without transformation r u l e s . Language. 1963, 22, 597-616. K a t z , J . J . , , and P o s t a l , ' P . M . An Integrated theory, of l i n g u i s -t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s . Cambridge: M . I . T . Press, 1964. Lees, R . B . The grammar of E n g l i s h nominal lzat ions , In ter -n a t i o n a l J . Amer. L i n g u i s t i c s , i960, 2&* 1-25. Lukasiewicz , J . , and T a r s k i . Untershungen uber den Aussag-enkalkul , Comptes Rendus des Seances de l a Societe  des Sciences et des L e t t r e s de Varsovie . 23. CI I I I : 31-32, 1930. Mart in , E . , and Roberts, K . H . Grammatical f a c t o r s i n sentence r e t e n t i o n . J . verb . Learn , verb . Behav. . 1966, i , 211-218. Mehler, J . Some e f f e c t s of grammatical transformations on the r e c a l l of E n g l i s h sentences. J . verb . L e a r n . v e r b . Behav. . 1963. 2, 346-351. Menyuk, P. Syntact ic s t ructures i n the language of c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development. 1963. J4. 407-422. 39 M i l l e r , G . A , Some p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s o f grammar. A m e r . P s y c h o l . . 1962, 1?_, 748-762. S l o b i n , D.I. G r a m m a t i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and s e n t e n c e com- . p r e h e n s i o n i n c h i l d h o o d and. a d u l t h o o d . J . v e r b . L e a r n , v e r b . B e h a v . . I966, 219-227. T h o r n d i k e , E . L . , and L o r g e , I. The t e a c h e r ' s word book o f  30.000 w o r d s . New Y o r k , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1944. W i n e r , B . J . S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . New Y o r k , M c G r a w - H i l l , 1962. Y n g v e , V . H . A model and an h y p o t h e s i s f o r l a n g u a g e s t r u c t u r e . P r o c . A m e r . P h i l . S o c . i960, 104, 444-466. I m p l i c a t i o n s o f m e c h a n i c a l t r a n s l a t i o n r e s e a r c h . P r o c . Amer . P h i l . S o c , 1964, 108, 275-281. 40 APPENDIX A STIMULUS SENTENCES SETS I - V I Mean D e p t h 1 . 29 I 1 . B o y s k i c k s t o n e s h a r d w i t h t h e i r b o o t s . 2 . C a t s c a n n e v e r e s c a p e f r o m my d o g . 3. D o o r s a r e a l w a y s l d c k e d i n o u r h o u s e . 4. Eggs were n o t l a i d i n t h e h a y s t a c k . 5 . B a l l i s o f t e n p l a y e d i n t h e s t r e e t . 6 . F i r e s a r e n o t s e t by a f i r e m a n . I I 1 . Men p i l e b r i c k s f a s t on t h e w a l l . 2 . She was n o t d r e s s e d f o r t h e c o l d . 3. Eggs were somet imes l a i d i n t h e h a y s t a c k . 4. D o o r s were n o t l o c k e d i n o u r h o u s e . 5 . B e e t s a r e o f t e n grown by a f a r m e r . 6 . B a l l i s n e v e r p l a y e d i n t h e s t r e e t . I l l 1 . P i g s wash t h e m s e l v e s c l e a n i n t h e t u b . 2 . They were n o t p r e p a r e d f o r r a i n y w e a t h e r . 3. B o a t s a r e o f t e n l e f t a t t h e r i v e r . 4. M e a l s were n e v e r e a t e n i n t h e k i t c h e n . 5 . P r i z e s a r e somet imes g i v e n by t h e s c h o o l . 6 . F r o g s a r e n o t l i k e d by my s i s t e r . I V 1 . He s i n g s songs l o u d l y i n t h e n i g h t . 2 . He i s n o t swimming i n o u r p o o l . 3. Wood was b u r n e d q u i c k l y i n t h e s t o v e . 4. B o a t s a r e n o t l e f t on t h e b a n k . 41 5. We were o f t e n met by o u r c h i l d r e n . 6. O r d e r s were n o t g i v e n by t h e b o s s . V/ 1. Baby d r i n k s m i l k s l o w l y f r o m a c u p . 2. J o h n was n e v e r happy i n t h e r a i n . 3. M e a l s were a l w a y s e a t e n i n t h e k i t c h e n . 4. B e l l s were n o t r u n g on 9 Monday. 5. O r d e r s were q u i c k l y g i v e n by t h e b o s s . 6. We were n o t met by o u r c h i l d r e n . VI 1. He b o u g h t m i l k y e s t e r d a y a t t h e s t o r e . 2. I c o u l d n e v e r jump o v e r t h e d i t c h . 3. M u s i c was somet imes p l a y e d o n t h e r a d i o . 4. Bags were n o t made f o r c a r r y i n g s t o n e s . 5. Songs were l o u d l y sung by t h e c l a s s . 6. Candy i s n o t made by a b a k e r . 42 SETS V I I - X I I Mean D e p t h 1.71 V I I 1. C h i l d r e n w i l l sometimes go o u t a f t e r d a r k . 2 . We c a n n o t make d iamonds f r o m c o a l . 3. She was g l a d l y g i v e n h e l p by B o b . 4. Webs were n o t spun c a r e f u l l y by s p i d e r s . 5. D i n n e r i s s e r v e d l a t e h e r e f o r g u e s t s . 6. H e l p i s n e v e r h i r e d h e r e i n summer. V I I I 1. Men were b u s i l y m a k i n g f i r e s f r o m t r a s h . 2 . I c a n n o t w i n money a t c a r d s . 3. J o b s were c h e e r f u l l y f i n i s h e d t o d a y by M a r y . 4. L u n c h was n o t e a t e n q u i c k l y by B i l l . 5. C h i l d r e n a r e somet imes a l l o w e d o u t a f t e r d a r k . 6. B o o k s were n e v e r s t a c k e d up i n p i l e s . I X 1. We c a n somet imes w i n money a t c a r d s . 2 . Hens w i l l n o t l a y two eggs d a i l y . 3. L u n c h was e a t e n q u i c k l y t o d a y by B i l l . 4. L i g h t s a r e n o t p u t o u t by m o t h e r . 5. H e l p i s o f t e n h i r e d h e r e i n summer. 6. P r i z e s were n o t g i v e n o u t a t s c h o o l . X 1. Hens w i l l somet imes l a y two eggs d a i l y . 2 . He w i l l n o t t h r o w s t o n e s a t y o u . 3. Webs a r e spun c a r e f u l l y h e r e by s p i d e r s . 4. She was n o t g i v e n h e l p by B o b . 43 5. Books were c a r e f u l l y stacked up In p i l e s . 6. Dinner i s not served l a t e f o r gu e s t s . XI 1 . Animals w i l l o f t e n creep about a t n i g h t . 2. C h i l d r e n do not go out a f t e r dark. 3. L e t t e r s o f t e n come here now f o r Jane. 4. Jobs were not f i n i s h e d today by Mary. 5. P r i z e s were g i v e n out f a i r l y at s c h o o l . 6. Boys should not set f i r e s i n barns. X I I 1 . He was c e r t a i n l y throwing stones at you. 2. B i r d s do not f l y around at n i g h t . 3. L i g h t s are put out here by mother. 4. L e t t e r s never come here now f o r Jane. 5. S k i e s everywhere are l i t up by r o c k e t s . 6. C h i l d r e n are not allowed out a f t e r dark. kk APPENDIX B: SCORING PROCEDURES A . C o r r e c t R e c a l l s 1. Any s e n t e n c e w h i c h , word f o r w o r d , matches t h e s t i m u l u s s e n t e n c e , i s a c o r r e c t r e c a l l . 2. S e n t e n c e s i n w h i c h t h e f o l l o w i n g changes o c c u r a r e c o r r e c t r e c a l l s : a ) where " a " was p r e s e n t e d and " t h e " was w r i t t e n by t h e S , and v i c e v e r s a . b ) where a n a u x i l i a r y ( i e . , " i s " ) was p r e -s e n t e d and a n o t h e r f o r m o f t h e a u x i l i a r y ( i e . , " w a s " ) was w r i t t e n by t h e S . c) where " n e v e r " was p r e s e n t e d and " n o t " was w r i t t e n by t h e S , and v i c e v e r s a . d) where two words were p r e s e n t e d b u t were w r i t t e n as g r a m m a t i c a l l y c o r r e c t c o n t r a c -t i o n s by t h e S ( i e . , " c a n ' t " ) . e) where p e r s o n a l p r o n o u n ( i e . , " s h e " ) was p r e s e n t e d and a d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l p r o -noun was w r i t t e n by t h e S ( i e . , " h e " ) . f ) where a p o s s e s s i v e p r o n o u n was p r e s e n t e d ( i e . , " h e r " ) and a d i f f e r e n t p o s s e s s i v e p r o n o u n was w r i t t e n by t h e S ( i e . , " t h e i r ) . B . E r r o r s 1. A s e n t e n c e i s s c o r e d a s a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n e r r o r i f i t i s , f o r e x a m p l e , p r e s e n t e d a s a K and r e p r o d u c e d : 1 as a N by t h e S . 2. A s e n t e n c e i s s c o r e d as a n e r r o r o f t h e same t y p e a s t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e i f , f o r e x a m p l e , a K i s p r e s e n t e d and a d i f f e r e n t K i s r e p r o d u c e d by t h e S . ( " D i f f e r e n t " i n t h a t a change has b e e n made w h i c h was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e changes l i s t e d u n d e r " C o r r e c t r e c a l l s " 2.) 45 3» A s e n t e n c e i s marked as b e i n g i n c o m p l e t e i f t h e r e a r e words d e l e t e d w h i c h were i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r e -s e n t e d s e n t e n c e . 4. A s e n t e n c e i s marked as b e i n g u n g r a m m a t i c a l i f i t does n o t f o l l o w t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s o f t r a d i t i o n a l E n g l i s h grammar ( s e e Chomsky, 1957) s u p p o s e d l y e x -e m p l i f i e d I n t h e p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e s , 5» O m i s s i o n s o c c u r when a p r e s e n t e d s e n t e n c e I s n o t i n c l u d e d a t a l l i n t h e s e n t e n c e s r e p r o d u c e d by t h e S . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0302482/manifest

Comment

Related Items