Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:59:49.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resumptive elements aid comprehension of object relative clauses: evidence from Persian*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2013

RAMIN RAHMANY ,
HAMIDEH MAREFAT  and
EVAN KIDD
RAMIN RAHMANY*
Affiliation:
University of Tehran
HAMIDEH MAREFAT
Affiliation:
University of Tehran
EVAN KIDD*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Ramin Rahmany, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran, Kargar Shomali Street, Tehran, IRAN. e-mail: ramin_rahmany@yahoo.com
Dr Evan Kidd, Research School of Psychology (Building 39), The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, AUSTRALIA. tel: +61 2 6125 2147; fax: +61 2 61250499; e-mail: evan.kidd@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study investigated the role of resumption in the interpretation of object relative clauses (RCs) in Persian-speaking children. Sixty-four (N=64) children aged 3;2–6;0 (M=4;8) completed a referent selection task that tested their comprehension of subject RCs, gapped object RCs, and object RCs containing either a resumptive pronoun or an object clitic. The results showed that the presence of a resumptive element (pronoun or clitic) had a facilitative effect on children's processing of object RCs. In both cases object RCs with resumptive elements were interpreted more accurately than gapped subject and object RCs, suggesting that resumptive elements ease processing burden in syntactically complex contexts because they provide local cues to thematic role assignment.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 937 - 948
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

[*]

This research was generously supported by a grant from the University of Tehran (grant # 4601011/1/5). We thank Inbal Arnon, Ludovica Serratrice, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Arnon, I. (2005). Relative clause acquisition in Hebrew: towards a processing-oriented account. In Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. & Ha, S (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston Conference on Language Development, 37–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. (2010). Re-thinking child difficulty: the effect of NP-type on children's processing of relative clauses in Hebrew. Journal of Child Language 37, 27–57.Google Scholar
Bates, D. & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed effects models using S4 classes. R package. 999375-33.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, 3–76. New York: Cambridge University Press.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
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: processing, typology, and function, 197–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corrêa, L. M. S. (1995). An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, E. H. (2006). Adult and child production of Quechua relative clauses. First Language 26, 317–38.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
Family, N. (2009). Lighten up: the acquisition of light verb constructions in Persian. In Chandlee, J., Franchini, M., Lord, S. & Rheiner, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 139–50. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.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. P. & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 161–87.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. (2010). Object extraction is not subject to Child Relativized Minimality. Lingua 120, 1516–21.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. & Shlonsky, U. (1995). The acquisition of French relative clauses. Language Acquisition 4, 257–76.Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. J. (2011). Children's comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: the case of Basque. Language Acquisition 18, 176–201.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. (2013). Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension? In Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. (eds.), The core and the periphery: data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, 1–25. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 434–46.Google Scholar
Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist approach to scrambling: evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (2003). Relative clause comprehension revisited: commentary on Eisenberg (2002). Journal of Child Language 30, 671–79.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (ed.) (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. & Bavin, E. L. (2002). English-speaking children's understanding of relative clauses: evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31, 599–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: a crosslinguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 860–97.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. (1990). Predication, wh-movement and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1, 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn. Vol. 2: the database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McKee, C. & McDaniel, D. (2001). Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Language Acquisition 9, 113–56.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: processing and acquisition. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function, 13–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ozeki, H. (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function, 173–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T. (1995). Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 4, 105–38.Google Scholar
Rahmany, R., Marefat, H. & Kidd, E. (2011). Persian-speaking children's acquisition of relative clauses. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 8, 367–88.Google Scholar
R Core Development Team (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Mauner, C., O'Meara, C. & Yun, H. (2012). Discourse expectations and relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 479–508.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
Weighall, A. (2008). On still being led down the kindergarten path: children's processing of structural ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 99, 75–95.Google Scholar
Yip, V. & Mathews, S. (2007). The bilingual child: early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar