Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:52:23.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkish-learning children's conversational interactions: a cross-linguistic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2019

Berna A. UZUNDAĞ  and
Aylin C. KÜNTAY
Berna A. UZUNDAĞ*
Affiliation:
Koç University, Turkey Kadir Has University, Turkey
Aylin C. KÜNTAY
Affiliation:
Koç University, Turkey
*
*Corresponding author. Koç University – Psychology, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Istanbul 34450, Turkey. E-mail: buzundag13@ku.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a cross-linguistic approach, we investigated Turkish-speaking children's acquisition and use of relative clauses (RCs) by examining longitudinal child–caregiver interactions and cross-sectional peer conversations. Longitudinal data were collected from 8 children between the ages of 8 and 36 months. Peer conversational corpus came from 78 children aged between 43 and 64 months. Children produced RCs later than in English (Diessel, 2004) and Mandarin (Chen & Shirai, 2015), and demonstrated increasing semantic and structural complexity with age. Despite the morphosyntactic difficulty of object RCs, and prior experimental findings showing a subject RC advantage, preschool-aged children produced object RCs, which were highly frequent in child-directed speech, as frequently as subject RCs. Object RCs in spontaneous speech were semantically less demanding (with pronominal subjects and inanimate head nouns) than the stimuli used in prior experiments. Results suggest that multiple factors such as input frequency and morphosyntactic and semantic difficulty affect the acquisition patterns.

Keywords

relative clausesTurkishcorpuslanguage acquisitioncross-linguistic approachtypological comparisons
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 46 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 1142 - 1168
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

‡

The online version of this article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the changes has also been published at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000922000150.

References

Aksu-Koç, A., Küntay, A., Acarlar, F., Maviş, İ., Sofu, H., Topbaş, S., & Turan, F. (2009). Türkçe'de Erken Sözcük ve Dilbilgisi Gelişimini Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Çalışması Türkçe İletişim Gelişimi Envanterleri: TİGE-I ve TİGE-II. TÜBİTAK'a sunulmuş rapor, Proje No: 107K058 [The assessment and evaluation of early lexical and grammatical development in Turkish: the Turkish Communicative Development Inventories, TIGE-I and TIGE-II. Final report of Project Proje No: 107K058, submitted to Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Foundation].Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The cross linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1 (pp. 839–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Altınkamış, F., & Altan, A. (2016). A usage-based approach into the acquisition of relative clauses in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 69-91.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–73.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. (2010). Rethinking child difficulty: the effect of NP type on children's processing of relative clauses in Hebrew. Journal of Child Language, 37(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. (2011). Relative clause acquisition in Hebrew and the learning of constructions. In Kidd, E. (Ed.), Acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function (pp. 81–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The acquisition of German relative clauses: a case study. Journal of Child Language, 35(2), 325–48.Google Scholar
Chen, J., & Shirai, Y. (2015). The acquisition of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 394–422.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 12 (pp. 6–24). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society; reprinted with slight revision in Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (Eds.), The structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 155–210). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1998a). Attributive clauses in Asian languages: towards an areal typology. In Boeder, W., Schroeder, C., Wagner, K. H., & Wildgen, W. (Eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit, In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Band 2 (pp. 51-60). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1998b). Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design, 0, 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (2002). Typology and language acquisition: the case of relative clauses. In Ramat, A. Giacalone (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 19–37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. H. (2006). Adult and child production of Quechua relative clauses. First Language, 26(3), 317–38.Google Scholar
Dasinger, L., & Toupin, C. (1994). The development of relative clause functions in narratives. In Berman, R. A. & I, D.. Slobin, (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 457–514). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 105). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2009). The emergence of relative clauses in early child language. Retrieved from <http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~eivs/sympo/papers/Diessel.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 131–51.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 882–906.Google Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. (1998). Ilgi tümceciklerinin Türk çocuklarınca taklit ve kullanımı [The imitation and use of relative clauses by Turkish children]. In Imer, K. & Subaşı, L. (Eds.), Doğan Aksan Armağanı. Ankara University Press.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. (1980). A case of syntactic change: -ki constructions in Turkish. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi Beşeri Bilimler, 8, 111–39.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversations. Language, 66, 297–316.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2004). The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: a study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language, 31, 661–81.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. J. (2011). Children's comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: the case of Basque. Language Acquisition, 18(3), 176–201.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (Ed.), Language development, Vol. 1: syntax and semantics (pp. 245–72). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337–74.Google Scholar
Jensen de López, K., Sundahl Olsen, L., & Chondrogianni, V. (2014). Annoying Danish relatives: comprehension and production of relative clauses by Danish children with and without SLI. Journal of Child Language, 41(1), 51–83.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kerslake, C. (2007). Alternative subordination strategies in Turkish. In Rehbein, J., Hohenstein, C., & Pietsch, L. (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism, 5) (pp. 231–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: a cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860–97.Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Kidd, E., & Lieven, E. (2017). How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish. Journal of Child Language, 44(1), 120–57.Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., & Lieven, E. (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses in Finnish; the effect of input. In Kidd, E. (Ed.) Acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function (pp. 107–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Köymen, S. B. (2005). Conflict talk of preschoolers in same-sex and mixed-sex peer groups in collaborative and competitive activity settings (Master's thesis). Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey. Online <https://libunix.ku.edu.tr/search~S9?/ak{u00F6}ymen/ako~aymen/1%2C17%2C40%2CB/frameset&FF=ako~aymen+saadet+bahar&1%2C1%2C>..>Google Scholar
Kükürt, D. (2004). Comprehension of Turkish relative clauses in Broca's aphasics and children (Master's thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Online <http://library.metu.edu.tr/search~S15/?searchtype=a&searcharg=k%C3%BCk%C3%BCrt&searchscope=15&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&searchorigarg=aduygu+k%7Bu00FC%7Dk%7Bu00FC%7Drt>..>Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(1), 117–36.Google Scholar
Küntay, A. C., Koçbaş, D., & Taşçı, S. S. (2015). Koç University Longitudinal Language Development Database as a part of the ‘ACQDIV Corpus’, retrieved from <http://www.acqdiv.uzh.ch/en/resources.html>..>Google Scholar
Larkin, W., & Burns, D. (1977). Sentence comprehension and memory for embedded structure. Memory and Cognition, 5(1), 17–22.Google Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: the hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466–90.Google Scholar
Özcan, F. H. (1997). Comprehension of relative clauses in the acquisition of Turkish. In İmer, K. & Uzun, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 149–55), Ankara, Turkey. Online <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ukWoNppstgGFn1szC6-drULxxMH2akEv/view?usp=sharing>..>Google Scholar
Özcan, F. H. (2000). Production of relative clauses in Turkish: the role of parallel function hypothesis. In Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (pp. 307–13). Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
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. R., & 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 Japanese relative clauses. Journal of Child Language, 37, 197–215.Google Scholar
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2009). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In Ay, S., Aydın, Ö., Ergenç, İ., Gökmen, S., İşsever, S., & Peçenek, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 2008). Weisbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2010a). Production of relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In Chandlee, J., Franich, K., Iserman, K., & Keil, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Boston University Conference on Language Development (Suppl.). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Özge, D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek, D. (2010b). Parallel function hypothesis revisited in the processing of Turkish relative clauses in adults. In Kincses-Nagy, E. & Biacsi, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference of Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 2010), Szeged, Hungary. Online <http://users.metu.edu.tr/duyguo/pp/ozge-marinis-zeyrek-ictl2010.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1986). The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European Languages. In Slobin, D. I. & Zimmer, K. (Eds), Typological studies in language: studies in Turkish linguistics, Vol. 8, (pp. 273–94). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemes: a crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–65.Google Scholar
Stromswold, K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Rauch, S. (1996). Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language, 52, 452–73.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T. (2011). A case-marking cue for filler–gap dependencies in children's relative clauses in Japanese. Journal of Child Language, 38, 1084–95.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90.Google Scholar
Uzundag, B. A., & Küntay, A. C. (2018). Children's referential communication skills: the role of cognitive abilities and adult models of speech. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 172, 73–95.Google Scholar
Yarosz, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2001). Who reads to young children? Identifying predictors of family reading activities. Reading Psychology, 22, 67–81.Google Scholar
Yumrutaş, N. (2009). Acquisition of relative clauses in Turkish (Master's thesis), Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey. Online <https://seyhan.library.boun.edu.tr/search~S5/?searchtype=a&searcharg=yumruta%C5%9F&searchscope=5&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&searchorigarg=aneslihan+yumruta%7Bu015F%7D>..>Google Scholar