Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • CHAE-EUN KIM (a1) and WILLIAM O'GRADY (a2)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: William O'Grady, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 96822. e-mail: ogrady@hawaii.edu

References

Hide All
Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 672711.
Ambridge, B. & Kidd, E. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects. Journal of Child Language 42, 239–73.
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C. & Weinberg, A. (2004). Processing filler–gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 2354.
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.
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.
Carnie, A. (2013). Syntax: a generative introduction, 3rd ed. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.
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. 197225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chater, N. & Christiansen, M. H. (2010). Language acquisition meets language evolution. Cognitive Science 34, 1131–57.
Cho, S. (1999). The acquisition of relative clauses: experimental studies on Korean. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
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.
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.
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).
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11, 131–52.
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81, 125.
Filipović, L. & Hawkins, J. A. (2013). Multiple factors in second language acquisition: the CASP model. Linguistics 51, 145–76.
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119, 6788.
Gennari, S. & MacDonald, M. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 161–87.
Gennari, S., Mirković, J. & MacDonald, M. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology 65, 141–76.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 69, 176.
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. 95126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, E. & Wu, H.-H. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 125–55.
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional–typological introduction, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Goodluck, H. & Stojanovic, D. (1996). The structure and acquisition of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5, 285315.
Grodner, D. & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29, 261–90.
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. (2011). Children's comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: the case of Basque. Language Acquisition 18, 176201.
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.
Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, J. (2007). Acquisition of relative clauses in relation to language universals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 337–44.
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.
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 6399.
Keenan, E. L. & Hawkins, S. (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In Keenan, E. L. (ed.), Universal Grammar: 15 essays, (pp. 6085). London: Croom Helm.
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.
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.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and syntactic form: topic, focus and the representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106, 1126–77.
Lewis, R., Vasishth, S. & Van Dyke, J. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10, 447–54.
MacDonald, M. & Christiansen, M. (2002). Reassessing working memory: a comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters & Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109 3554.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of grammar from perspective taking. In Pecher, D. & Zwann, R. (eds), Grounding cognition, (pp. 198223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Mak, W., Vonk, W. & Schriefers, H. (2008). Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition 36, 170–81.
O'Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
O'Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: processing and acquisition. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology and function, (pp. 1338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
O'Grady, W. (2015). Frequency effects and processing. Journal of Child Language 42, 294–7.
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
Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y. (2010). Semantic bias in the acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese. Journal of Child Language 37, 197215.
Roland, D., Dick, F. & Elman, J. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: a corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57, 348–79.
Roland, D., Mauner, G., O'Meara, C. & Yun, H. (2012). Discourse expectations and relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 479508.
Traxler, M., Morris, R. & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 6990.
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85, 79112.
Zukowski, A. (2009). Elicited production of relative clauses in children with Williams syndrome. Language and Cognition Processes 24, 142.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

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

  • CHAE-EUN KIM (a1) and WILLIAM O'GRADY (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.