III Language development in children

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

3.1 Developmental changes in language

Language is largely made up of four main components: phonology (e.g., sounds used to create speech), semantics (e.g., the meaning of words), grammar (e.g., how words are arranged in a sentence or the expression of tense), and pragmatics (e.g., the rules of communication such as turn taking or implicatures). These language skills develop throughout childhood and into adolescence and are important for supporting children in communicating their experiences as well as understanding the questions asked of them.

Children’s vocabulary quickly develops during toddlerhood with 16-month-olds having approximately 50 words in their expressive vocabulary and by 2.5 years of age children have over 400 words in their vocabulary (Urm & Tulviste, 2016). However, during these early developmental years, children do not have the necessary understanding of grammar or pragmatics to support them in clearly expressing or reporting their experiences. Children’s understanding of semantics continues to increase throughout childhood. Typically, children comprehend words before they use them, however, this is not always the case. Sometimes production proceeds comprehension (Hendriks, 2014). For example, children produce third-person object pronouns (e.g., him) and temporal words prior to understanding them correctly. Similarly, the early development of children’s use of the terms “ask and tell”can result in children interchanging or misusing the terms (Stolzenberg, McWilliams, & Lyon, 2017a). Stolzenberg et al. (2017a) examined maltreated 6- to 11-year-olds’ understanding of the terms “ask and tell” and found that children initially comprehend “telling” more broadly as saying. As a result, they may misunderstand asking as a form of telling (this was particularly problematic when asked yes/no questions). This linguistic confusion is of concern in the legal setting because children’s misunderstanding or misuse of the terms may result in a report that an adult “told” the child what happened (i.e., coaching), rather than “asked.” In sum, it cannot be assumed that because a child uses a word that they understand what it means. This highlights the importance of asking follow-up questions to clarify a child’s statements.

During the preschool (3 to 5 years of age) and elementary (6 to 10 years of age) years, children continue to increase their vocabulary and begin to understand the rules of communication. Around 4 years of age children can produce sentences with 3 to 4 words, allowing for a basic expression of their daily experiences. One of the largest factors that influences children’s language development is language exposure at home and school (Cabell, Justice, McGinty, DeCoster, & Forston, 2015; Huttenlocher, 1998; Levickis et al., 2014) and child maltreatment has been found to negatively impact language development (Allen & Oliver, 1982; Elgsti & Cicchetti, 2004; Hwa-Froelich, 2012). Generally, the amount of detail provided in reports increases with age into adolescence (e.g., Lamb, Sternberg, & Esplin, 2000), with younger children reporting fewer details and requiring more support when being questioned compared to older children (see Section VI for recommendations on questioning children), while adolescents can provide more detail (see Section V for reasons for reluctance and limited details provided in their reports).

3.2 Children’s developing language skills and potentials for miscommunication

Children’s developing communication skills pose challenges for the legal system in obtaining the most detailed and accurate reports. Failure to acknowledge the developmental differences between children and adults can lead to unjust outcomes (Park & Renner, 1998).

Children are regularly asked age-inappropriate questions, with questions exceeding their cognitive ability or failing to support them in providing accurate and detailed reports (Evans et al., 2009; Park & Renner, 1998; Wylie et al., 2024; Zajac & Hayne, 2003; Zajac et al., 2003). The questions lawyers ask, and the language lawyers use, can influence the accuracy of children’s testimony, and in turn trial outcomes (Evans et al., 2009; Wylie et al., 2024; Zajac & Hayne, 2003; Zajac et al., 2003). For example, Evans and colleagues (2009) found that when defence lawyers asked more syntactically complex questions to child witnesses in child sexual abuse cases, the trial was more likely to result in a conviction. Wylie and colleagues (2024) examined Canadian court transcripts of 95 children (5 to 17 years old) testifying in court in cases of child sexual abuse for the types of questions lawyers asked, how detailed children’s responses were, and whether it was related to trial outcome. They assessed the use of open-ended invitations (“Tell me everything that happened”) and wh- questions (e.g., wh- and how), and closed-ended questions including yes/no questions (i.e., questions that ask for a yes or no response), option-posing questions (i.e., questions that provide options), declarative questions (i.e., a statement phrased as a question), and suggestive questions. The most common question format used by lawyers was declaratives, which resulted in the lowest rate of children providing unelaborated responses (i.e., few details were provided by the child). In contrast, open-ended invitations and wh- questions tended to result in more details being provided (compared to just yes or no responding). Yet only 13% of all questions were open-ended invitations and wh- questions, with prosecutors being more likely to ask them than defence lawyers. Importantly, the use of such questions was related to case outcome with more invitations and wh- questions being related to convictions; perhaps this is due to the child witness appearing more credible when they provide details themselves (but further studies are needed).

Given that the questions lawyers ask and how children respond can impact the trial outcome, it is important to understand the relation between the two. When there is a disconnect between the question being asked by a lawyer and a child’s response, this can lead to miscommunication. Miscommunication can result from several factors including, a child not understanding a question, a child interpreting the question differently from an adult, or an adult interpreting a child’s response differently than the child intended.

Under-informative responding: When a simple “yes” is not enough. The majority of questions posed to children during testimony are closed-ended and can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” response (Stolzenberg et al., 2020; Wylie et al., 2024). These questions tend to elicit under-informative responses – children simply say “yes”, “no”, or proffered responses (e.g., selecting one of the options from a question stem; Stolzenberg et al., 2017b, or an easily accessible guess such as colour or number; McWilliams et al., 2021). Given this, researchers have posited a theory of formal reticence which proposes that children tend to produce easily retrievable and minimally sufficient responses, based on the question form, and such responses can lead to misunderstanding the child’s response (Stolzenberg et al., 2017a; Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2017b; Stolzenberg et al., 2020). Additionally, children may prematurely answer questions without realizing or considering that the question may have dual meanings (Garden Path theory, Anderson et al., 2011; Keysar et al., 1998; Kidd et al., 2011; Snedeker & Trueswell, 2004; Weighall, 2008; Woodard et al., 2016). Below we review examples of situations where formal reticence and premature answering can result in miscommunication including (1) when children don’t understand, (2) questions about touch or body mechanics, and (3) referentially ambiguous or implied questions.

1. When children don’t understand the question or don’t know the answer. When asked a question, young children tend to guess if they don’t know the answer and they fail to say, “I don’t know”, sometimes even to non-sensical questions (Lamb & Brown, 2006; Waterman, Blades, & Spencer, 2000). Children’s unwillingness to note when they don’t know the answer can result in miscommunication. Importantly, and related to the above-noted research on the importance of open-ended questions, children are less likely to indicate they don’t know when asked yes/no and option-posing questions compared to when asked wh- questions (Andrews & Lamb, 2017; Earhart et al., 2014; Geddie et al., 2001; Gee & Pipe, 1999; McWilliams et al., 2021; Waterman, Blades, & Spencer, 2000; Waterman et al., 2001, 2004). These differences in children’s willingness to say “I don’t know” based on question type are likely due to response availability (i.e., it is easy to generate a response when the question just asks for a yes or no [“Did the man have a beard?”] compared to when it requires the child to generate a more detailed response [“What did the man look like?”]). For example, Waterman and colleagues (2000) asked 5- to 8-year-olds nonsensical yes/no (e.g., “Is a box louder than a knee?”) or wh- (e.g., “What do bricks eat?”) questions. Children were more likely to say they didn’t know the answer when the question was asked as a wh- question compared to a yes/no question. Similarly, McWilliams and colleagues (2021) found that children were more likely to guess to wh- questions about colour and number (which are easy to generate answers to: “What colour was his shirt?”) compared to other wh- detail questions (e.g., “What did he pick up?”). The ease of guessing proffered by these types of questions is one reason for the superiority of open-ended prompts in eliciting children’s information (see Section VI Question types).

   Researchers have attempted to find methods to support children in stating when they don’t understand a question or don’t know the answer, such as delivering instructions (“ground rules”; see Section 6.1) or training children to identify tricky questions. Results of this research have been somewhat mixed (Brubacher & Brown, 2025). Some studies have found little effect of these procedures on children’s reports, while others find benefits in children being able to identify problematic questions but sometimes also reducing responding (e.g., Brubacher, Poole, & Dickinson, 2015; Gee & Pipe, 1999 [Study 1]; McWilliams et al., 2021; Saywitz & Moan-Hardie, 1994 [Study 1]; Nesbitt & Markham, 1999;). Given that instructions do not eliminate children’s errors, it is important that factfinders ask questions in age-appropriate formats (i.e., avoid yes/no questions and use open-ended invitations) to support children’s accuracy.

2. Spatial language: The importance for understanding clothing placement and touch. Understanding the placement of clothing during an adult-child interaction can help distinguish between non-abusive and abusive touch as well as the severity of abuse. For example, if a child’s clothing is described as fully on, then penetrative sexual abuse is less likely to have occurred. Questions about clothing placement and touch are regularly asked of child witnesses both in court and in forensic interviews (Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2017; Sullivan, George, Stolzenberg, Williams, & Lyon, 2022); however, these questions require children to understand spatial terms such as on/off, inside/outside, and under/over. Stolzenberg and colleagues (2017c) examined children’s ability to describe clothing and sticker placement on a human figure and found that children as young as three were able to describe simple clothing and sticker placement (on/off, under/over, in/out), but struggled when the placement became more complex (i.e., the clothing was in an intermediate location such as around the ankles – partly on and off). This is concerning as children sometimes described intermediate placements as “on”, and sometimes as “off”. Such inaccurate descriptions may result in misunderstandings about how the suspected abuse could have occurred. For example, if a child’s pants were at their ankles and they reported their pants as “on” (rather than the appropriate intermediate placement of at their ankles) then how could penetration have occurred? The form of question asked has been found to influence the accuracy of children’s descriptions of clothing placement. Asking children “where” questions (e.g., “Where were your clothes?”) improves children’s accuracy with intermediate clothing placement descriptions compared to asking yes/no (e.g. “Is the shirt on?”), forced-choice (e.g., “Is the shirt on or off?”), or open-choice (e.g., “Is the shirt on or off or something else?”) questions (Stolzenberg et al., 2017c; Wylie, Stolzenberg, & Evans, 2021).

   When testifying about sexual abuse, children must also be able to describe touch and body mechanics. To answer questions about touch, children must have an understanding of the word touch. Young children often begin with a more restrictive definition of words (Clark, 1995; Dromi, 1987; Jay, 2002). This has been found to be true of the word touch (Hashima et al., 1988; Sullivan et al., 2022a; 2022b), with children (4 to 7 years old) endorsing the use of the word touch to describe manual touch (i.e., touch with hands) but less likely to do so for non-manual touch (i.e., touch with other body parts). While older children (8- to 9-year-olds) were better able to extend the word touch to non-manual touch, their definitions of touch often failed to include touch that occurred with objects (Sullivan et al., 2022b). As a result, a child may deny touch that occurred with an object or something other than the accused’s hand, resulting in miscommunication. Another factor that can influence children’s ability to describe touch or body mechanics is the sexual terminology used (Sullivan et al., 2022a). The use of terminology that is imprecise such as “somewhere you don’t like” or “private parts,” or technical such as “penis” or “pornography” may limit a child’s ability to clearly describe mechanics (Sullivan et al., 2022a). Similar to questioning children about clothing placement, it is recommended that children be asked about touch using wh- questions (although how questions should be avoided such as “How did he touch you?” as children often have difficulty with how questions, Sullivan et al., 2022a; also see Henderson et al., 2023; Wylie et al., 2021). Yes/no questions should be avoided as they may lead to higher rates of denial when touch did in fact occur (Sullivan et al., 2022b).

3. Ambiguities in questions and children’s responses that result in miscommunication. As children are still learning the rules of grammar and pragmatics, how they interpret and answer adults’ questions may not always align with adults’ interpretations of those same questions. When the question being asked–or the child’s response–is ambiguous, this leaves room for misinterpretation and can lead to errors in understanding what occurred. For example, the word “time” can be ambiguous as it refers both to a particular episode (“tell me about the time it happened?”) or to temporal information (“tell me what time it happened?”). While adults can easily make this distinction (Wylie et al., 2024), children often default to providing temporal information to questions that use the word “time”, even when the question is requesting information about an event (“tell me about the time..?”; Friend, Henderson, & Lyon, 2022; McWilliams, Williams, Henderson, Evans, & Lyon, 2023). To avoid such confusions, it is recommended to ask children, “Tell me what happened the time….?” as this supports children in identifying that the question is asking about what happened rather than temporal information, reducing potential ambiguity (McWilliams et al., 2023).

   A particularly problematic type of question that can lead to children providing ambiguous responses are “Do you know/remember if/whether” questions. For example, “Do you remember if he was wearing a black t-shirt?”. These questions explicitly ask if/whether the child knows the information, and at the same time implicitly request that information. Given that these questions are in the format of a yes/no question, children often provide a simple yes or no response to these questions (Evans et al., 2017; Evans, Stolzenberg, Lee, & Lyon, 2014). This is concerning for several reasons. First, a yes or no response is unclear as to whether the child is answering whether they know or confirming/disconfirming the requested information (e.g., the shirt was not black). Furthermore, when children do clarify their responses to follow-up questions, they are inconsistent in whether they are answering the first or second half of the question (i.e., about half the time answering whether they know versus responding to the requested information). This means we cannot make assumptions about what part of the question children are answering. Second, both lawyers and lay adults fail to recognize that children’s responses are unclear (Wylie, Lyon, O’Connor, Lapytskaia, & Evans, 2019; Wylie, Stolzenberg, McWilliams, Evans, & Lyon, 2021) and inconsistently interpret the child’s response as answering either one of the questions asked. As a result, “do you know/remember if/whether” questions can lead to miscommunications between children and adults and should be avoided.

   Children are also susceptible to miscommunication when asked ambiguous questions that imply suggestive influence (e.g., coaching). Implied questions are commonly used by lawyers in the courtroom (St. George et al., 2022; Sobrilsky, Wylie, McWilliams, Evans, & Stolzenberg, 2025) in an attempt to discredit a child witness. For example, defence lawyers may use implied questions to suggest that a child’s report was altered or coached by others such as “Did your mom help you remember?”. A child may fail to recognize the implied meaning (that the mother coached the child’s report) and instead interpret the question as the mom being helpful or supportive of the child’s disclosure. Wylie and colleagues (2022; 2023) have found that children are likely to agree to these questions, falsely affirming coaching. Although rates of saying “yes” to implied coaching questions decreased with age, even 9- to 10-year-olds were susceptible to falsely affirming subtle ambiguous questions (e.g., “Did your mom help you practice?”).

   Other types of implied questions are commonly used in court. The topics of such questions range from credibility concerns due to ulterior motives for the allegations, to concerns about disclosure (Sobrilsky et al., 2025). Only 11% of implied questions result in a rebuttal from a child or adolescent witness, meaning that children assent or dissent to the asked question and do not clarify or challenge the implied attack. As such, lawyers should be prepared to identify and avoid questions that may have subtly implied meanings that are difficult for children to detect.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page