Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:51:11.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asymmetries in children's production of relative clauses: data from English and Korean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2015

CHAE-EUN KIM  and
WILLIAM O'GRADY
CHAE-EUN KIM
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, Korea University
WILLIAM O'GRADY*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaiiat Manoa
*
Address for correspondence: William O'Grady, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaiiat Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA96822. e-mail: ogrady@hawaii.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report here on a series of elicited production experiments that investigate the production of indirect object and oblique relative clauses by monolingual child learners of English and Korean. Taken together, the results from the two languages point toward a pair of robust asymmetries: children manifest a preference for subject relative clauses over indirect object relative clauses, and for direct object relative clauses over oblique relative clauses. We consider various possible explanations for these preferences, of which the most promising seems to involve the requirement that the referent of the head noun be easily construed as what the relative clause is about.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 1038 - 1071
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 672–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B. & Kidd, E. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects. Journal of Child Language 42, 239–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C. & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler–gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. (2005). Relative clause acquisition in Hebrew: towards a processing-oriented account. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: an investigation of young German- and English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics 20, 539–70.Google Scholar
Carnie, A. (2013). Syntax: a generative introduction, 3rd ed. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chan, A., Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses in Cantonese and Mandarin. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives, (pp. 197–225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chater, N. & Christiansen, M. H. (2010). Language acquisition meets language evolution. Cognitive Science 34, 1131–57.Google Scholar
Cho, S. (1999). The acquisition of relative clauses: experimental studies on Korean. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Contemori, C. & Belletti, A. (2014). Relative and passive object relatives in Italian-speaking children and adults: intervention in production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics 35, 1021–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2009). On the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of subject and non-subject relative clauses. In Givón, T. & Shibatani, M. (eds), Syntactic complexity, (pp. 251–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (no date). The emergence of relative clauses in early child language. Online: <http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~eivs/sympo/papers/Diessel.pdf> (last accessed 4 April 2015).+(last+accessed+4+April+2015).>Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11, 131–52.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81, 1–25.Google Scholar
Filipović, L. & Hawkins, J. A. (2013). Multiple factors in second language acquisition: the CASP model. Linguistics 51, 145–76.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119, 67–88.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 161–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gennari, S., Mirković, J. & MacDonald, M. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology 65, 141–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 69, 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A. & O'Neil, W. (eds), Image, language, brain, (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Wu, H.-H. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 125–55.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional–typological introduction, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, G. (2004). On the syntax and processing of wh-questions in Spanish. In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodrígues, A. & Schmeiser, B. (eds), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, (pp. 101–14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. & Stojanovic, D. (1996). The structure and acquisition of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5, 285–315.Google Scholar
Grodner, D. & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29, 261–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. (2011). Children's comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: the case of Basque. Language Acquisition 18, 176–201.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic early parser as psycholinguistics model. Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1–8). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in relation to language universals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 337–44.Google Scholar
Hsu, C.-C., Hermon, G. & Zukowski, A. (2009). Young children's production of head-final relative clauses: elicited production data from Chinese children. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18, 323–60.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Hawkins, S. (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In Keenan, E. L. (ed.), Universal Grammar: 15 essays, (pp. 60–85). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, W. & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: a cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing children's processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 860–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy—a reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic, (pp. 417–44). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and syntactic form: topic, focus and the representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., Lee, E., Gordon, P. & Hendrick, R. (2010). Commentary on Evans and Levison, the myth of language universals, language diversity, cognitive universality. Lingua 120, 2695–8.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106, 1126–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, R., Vasishth, S. & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10, 447–54.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. & Christiansen, M. (2002). Reassessing working memory: a comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters & Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109 35–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of grammar from perspective taking. In Pecher, D. & Zwann, R. (eds), Grounding cognition, (pp. 198–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mak, W., Vonk, W. & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: the hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 466–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mak, W., Vonk, W. & Schriefers, H. (2008). Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition 36, 170–81.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: processing and acquisition. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology and function, (pp. 13–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2015). Frequency effects and processing. Journal of Child Language 42, 294–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y. (2007). The consequences of variation in the acquisition of relative clauses: an analysis of longitudinal production data from five Japanese children. In Matsumoto, Y., Oshima, D. Y., Robinson, O. W. & Sells, P. (eds), Diversity in language: perspectives and implications (pp. 243–70). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications Google Scholar
Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y. (2010). Semantic bias in the acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese. Journal of Child Language 37, 197–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roland, D., Dick, F. & Elman, J. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: a corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57, 348–79.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Mauner, G., O'Meara, C. & Yun, H. (2012). Discourse expectations and relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 479–508.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Morris, R. & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 69–90.Google Scholar
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85, 79–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zukowski, A. (2009). Elicited production of relative clauses in children with Williams syndrome. Language and Cognition Processes 24, 1–42.Google Scholar