Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2025
Edited by Kristel Doreleijers, Remco Knooihuizen and Eva van Lier
[Nota Bene 2:2] 2025
► pp. 491–507

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Preschoolers’ word prediction in active and passive sentences

An eye‑tracking study

ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen
ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Groningen.

Published online: 31 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00045.roo
Abstract
Predicting upcoming words in a sentence is important in sentence processing. Previous research has shown that children’s vocabulary size and language production skills influence prediction speed. This study investigates whether syntactic complexity affects predictive processing using eye-tracking in a picture-selection task. Three conditions were tested: baseline (object recognition), active (syntactically simple) and passive sentences (syntactically complex). Data was collected for 29 four- and five-year-old Dutch children and 10 Dutch young adults. Results show that adults predict sentence endings quickly and accurately, regardless of complexity. Children predicted in both conditions, but less strongly in passive sentences. These findings suggest that while both adults and children engage in predictive processing, syntactic complexity weakens prediction in children.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Predictive processing
    • 1.2Predictive processing in children
    • 1.3Syntactic complexity and prediction
      • 1.3.1Developmental Language Disorder
      • 1.3.2Adult L2-learners
    • 1.4Present study
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials and design
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Statistical analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Active vs. passive sentences
    • 3.2Animacy effects
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Limitations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (28)
References
Alphen, Petra van, Susanne Brouwer, Nina Davids, Emma Dijkstra & Paula Fikkert. 2021. Word recognition and word prediction in preschoolers with (a suspicion of) a Developmental Language Disorder: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 641. 2005–2021. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altman, Meaghan N., Alexander L. Khislavsky, Michelle E. Coverdale & Jeffrey W. Gilger. 2016. Adaptive attention: How preference for animacy impacts change detection. Evolution and Human Behavior 37(4). 303–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. M. & Yuki Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3). 247–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Ewa Haman, Kristine Jensen de López, Magdalena Smoczynska, Kazuko Yatsushiro, Marcin Szczerbinski, Angeliek van Hout, Ineta Dabašinskienė, Anna Gavarró, Erin Hobbs, Laura Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė, Napoleon Katsos, Sari Kunnari, Chrisa Nitsiou, Lone Sundahl Olsen, Xavier Parramon, Uli Sauerland, Reeli Torn-Leesik & Heather van der Lely. 2016. A large-scale cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of passive. Language Acquisition 23(1). 27–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borovsky, Arielle, Jeffrey L. Elman & Anne Fernald. 2012. Knowing a lot for one’s age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1121. 417–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brodeur, Mathieu B., Katherine Guérard & Maria Bouras. 2014. Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS) Phase II: 930 new normative photos. PLOS ONE 9(9). e106953. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny, Danijel Koržinek, Dariusz Jakubowski & Przemysław Janikowski. 2024. Syntax, stress and cognitive load, or on syntactic processing in simultaneous interpreting. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 7(1). 22–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chun, Eunjin & Edith Kaan. 2019. L2 Prediction during complex sentence processing. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 31. 203–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chun, E., Si Chen, Shulin Liu & Angel Chan. 2021. Influence of syntactic complexity on second language prediction. In Kaan, Edith & Theres Grüter (eds.), Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning, 203–216. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Burkhart. 1992. Saccadic reaction time: Implications for reading, dyslexia, and visual cognition. In K. Rayner (eds.), Eye movements and visual cognition, 31–45. Springer, New York, NY. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harkness, Dominic L. & Ashima Keshava. 2017. Moving from the what to the how and where — Bayesian models and predictive processing. In Metzinger, Thomas & Wanja Wiese (eds.), Philosophy and Predictive Processing 161. 1–10. MIND Group. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild, Baila Epstein, Richard G. Schwartz & Valerie L. Shafer. 2022. Developmental Language Disorder as syntactic prediction impairment. Frontiers in Communication 61. 637585. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hohwy, Jakob. 2020. New directions in predictive processing. Mind & Language 351. 209–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ito, Aine, Martin Corly & Martin J. Pickering. 2018. A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(2). 251–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Samuel D. & Gert Westermann. 2021. Predictive processing and developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 641. 181–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köster, Moritz, Ezgi Kayhan, Miriam Langeloh & Stefanie Hoehl. 2020. Making sense of the world: Infant learning from a predictive processing perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science 15(3). 562–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenth, Russell. 2025. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.10.7. [URL]
Mani, Nivedita & Falk Huettig. 2012. Prediction during language processing is a piece of cake — But only for skilled producers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38(4). 843–847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Posit team. 2024. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. URL [URL]
R Core Team 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Rij, Jacolien van, Martijn Wieling, R. Harald Baayen & Hedderik van Rijn. 2022. “itsadug: Interpreting Time Series and Autocorrelated Data Using GAMMs.” R package version 2.4.1. [URL]
Schrimpf, Martin, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A. Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B. Tenenbaum & Evelina Fedorenko. 2021. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118(45). e2105646118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
SR Research Experiment Builder 2.3.1 [Computer software]. 2020. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tauroza, Steve & Desmond Allison. 1990. Speech rates in British English. Applied Linguistics 11(1). 90–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Jo, Guy De Pauw & Hanne Kloots. 2004. Speech rate in a pluricentric language: A comparison between Dutch in Belgium and the Netherlands. Language and Speech 47(3). 297–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wijnen, Frank & Maaike Verrips. 2011. The acquisition of Dutch syntax. In Gillis, Steven & Annick De Houwer (eds.), The acquisition of Dutch. (223–300). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2017. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R (2nd edn). Chapman and Hall/CRC. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zettersten, Martin. 2019. Learning by predicting: How predictive processing informs language development. In Busse, Beatrix & Ruth Moehlig-Falke (eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics (255–288). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue