LINGUIST List 22.2674 Mon Jun 27 2011 Qs: Lang Acq: Comprehension versus Production Editor for this issue: Brent Woo <bwoolinguistlist.org> We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm. Directory         1.     Zahra Rastegar Haghighi Shirazi , Lang Acq: Comprehension versus Production Message 1: Lang Acq: Comprehension versus Production Date: 18-Jun-2011 From: Zahra Rastegar Haghighi Shirazi <zrastegargmail.com> Subject: Lang Acq: Comprehension versus Production E-mail this message to a friend Dear LINGUIST subscribers, I have conducted research on the asymmetry between comprehension and production of verb inflection in children aged 4 to 6 years old in Persian. The children took part in two different tasks: production and comprehension. In the first phase of the experiment on production, each child was presented with 8 pictures which elicited verb inflections. One week later, the same children were asked to listen to an orally presented utterance describing a picture and point to the relevant picture. For each sentence, a pair of similar simple colored drawings was presented which differed only in terms of the number of the agents depicted. It is worth noting that 2 different sets of pictures were employed in production and comprehension tasks. The following are some examples of the sentences in the test: Non pro-drop: 1. dokhtær be ayne negah mikone The girl at the mirror looks PRESENT-3SG 'The girl looks at the mirror.' 2. una be gola ab midæn They the flowers water. PRESENT-3PL 'They water the flowers.' Pro-drop: 3. hendoone mikhore Water melon eats. PRESENT-3SG 'He eats watermelon Both prodrop and non prodrop singular and plural sentences were used. I found an interesting result. There was an asymmetry between comprehension and production of inflection in children. In other words, they could produce it but had problems with comprehension. I think that the complex morphological inflections in Persian including -ha, the allomorphs like -an,-gan, -yan, -van, -at, -jat, and -yat, together with the Arabic origin inflections (-in, -at, a-) all have created a quite complex situation for the child to deal with and they, therefore, contribute to the difficulty in the interpretation of verb inflections. However, in production children just use an inflection (-a) as an umbrella term to cover all these inflections which is quite acceptable in informal language. But I need more persuasive reasons concerning this asymmetry because many other researchers including Johnson, de Villiers, and Seymour (2005) too conducted similar studies and found similar results concerning the asymmetry between comprehension and production. Johnson, V. E., J. De Villiers, H. N. Seymour. (2005). Agreement without understanding? The case of third person singular /s/. First Language, 25 (3): 317-330 I want to know whether there is a global justification for this asymmetry or it is related to the characteristics of Persian Language. Why can children produce verb inflection in Persian, but they are not successful in comprehension? I really need useful suggestions. How can I justify my results? Perhaps a very experienced linguist (Persian or non Persian) can help me solve the puzzle of why Persian children produce verb inflections but they have difficulty in comprehension? Respectfully yours, Zahra Linguistic Field(s): Language Acquisition Subject Language(s): Persian, Iranian (pes) Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 27-Jun-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.