Influence of causal language on causal understanding: A comparison between Swiss German and Turkish

• Published in: Journal of experimental child psychology 2021-10, Vol.210, p.105182-105182, Article 105182
• Main Authors: Ger, Ebru, Stuber, Larissa, Küntay, Aylin C., Göksun, Tilbe, Stoll, Sabine, Daum, Moritz M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Causal language; Causal understanding; Causative constructions; Children; Crosslinguistic; Lexical; Morphological
• ISSN: 0022-0965; 1096-0457
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105182

•Structural cues of causal language facilitate young children’s causal understanding.•Children benefit from both syntactic and verbal morphological cues.•No evidence for the influence of crosslinguistic differences. Young children have difficulties in understanding untypical causal relations. Although we know that hearing a causal description facilitates this understanding, less is known about what particular features of causal language are responsible for this facilitation. Here, we asked two questions. First, do syntactic and morphological cues in the grammatical structure of sentences facilitate the extraction of causal meaning? Second, do these different cues influence this facilitation to different degrees? We studied children learning either Swiss German or Turkish, two languages that differ in their expression of causality. Swiss German predominantly uses lexical causatives (e.g., schniidä [cut]), which lack a formal marker to denote causality. Turkish, alongside lexical causatives, uses morphological causatives, which formally mark causation (e.g., ye [eat] vs. yeDIr [feed]). We tested 2.5- to 3.5-year-old children’s understanding of untypical cause–effect relations described with either noncausal language (e.g., Here is a cube and a car) or causal language using a pseudo-verb (e.g., lexical: The cube gorps the car). We tested 135 Turkish-learning children (noncausal, lexical, and morphological conditions) and 90 Swiss-German-learning children (noncausal and lexical conditions). Children in both language groups performed better in the causal language condition(s) than in the noncausal language condition. Furthermore, Turkish-learning children’s performance in both the lexical and morphological conditions was similar to that of Swiss-German-learning children in the lexical condition and did not differ from each other. These findings suggest that the structural cues of causal language support children’s understanding of untypical causal relations regardless of the type of construction.