Word vs. World Knowledge: A developmental shift from bottom-up lexical cues to top-down plausibility.

Both 5-year-old children and adults infer the structure of a sentence as they are hearing it. Prior work, however, has found that children do not always make use of the same information that adults do to guide these inferences. Specifically, when hearing ambiguous sentences like "You can tickle the frog with the feather," children seem to ignore the aspects of the referential context that adults rely on to resolve the ambiguity-e.g., are there two frogs in the scene, one with a feather and one without? Or is there only one frog to be tickled by using a feather? The present study explored two hypotheses about children's failure to use high-level, top-down context cues to infer the structure of these ambiguous sentences: First, children may be less likely to use any top-down cue during comprehension. Second, children may only have difficulties with top-down cues that are unreliable predictors of which syntactic structure is being used. Thus, to disentangle these hypotheses, we conducted a visual world study of adults' and children's ambiguity resolution, manipulating a more reliable top-down cue (the plausibility of the interpretation) and pitting it against a robust bottom-up cue (lexical biases). We find that adults' and children's final interpretations are influenced by both sources of information: adults, however, give greater weight to the top-down cue, whereas children primarily rely on the bottom-up cue. Thus, children's tendency to make minimal use of top-down information persists even when this information is highly valid and dominates adult comprehension. We propose that children have a systematic propensity to rely on bottom-up processing to a greater degree than adults, which could reflect differences in the architecture of the adult and child language comprehension systems or differences in processing speed.