Abstract
Previous work has shown that sentences with actional verbs (e.g., to hit) are better understood by children than sentences with nonactional verbs (e.g., to see). This effect is accounted for in contrasted ways in the literature. These explanations are analyzed and found wanting both theoretically and empirically. An alternative suggestion is made. It is based on new data as well as on a reanalysis of previously published ones. Accordingly, actional verbs favor the construction of mental images that serve as supports for the operations involved in processing sentences.