Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-ljdsm Total loading time: 0.212 Render date: 2021-07-28T12:04:28.968Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2016

MINNA KIRJAVAINEN
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK Osaka Gakuin University, Japan
EVAN KIDD
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
ELENA LIEVEN
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

We report three studies (one corpus, two experimental) that investigated the acquisition of relative clauses (RCs) in Finnish-speaking children. Study 1 found that Finnish children's naturalistic exposure to RCs predominantly consists of non-subject relatives (i.e. oblique, object) which typically have inanimate head nouns. Study 2 tested children's comprehension of subject, object, and two types of oblique relatives. No difference was found in the children's performance on different structures, including a lack of previously widely reported asymmetry between subject and object relatives. However, children's comprehension was modulated by animacy of the head referent. Study 3 tested children's production of the same RC structures using sentence repetition. Again we found no subject–object asymmetry. The pattern of results suggested that distributional frequency patterns and the relative complexity of the relativizer contribute to the difficulty associated with particular RC structures.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

[*]

We would like to thank the nursery staff and children in Kotka, Finland, for their participation in the study, and the corpus child and her family for the data collection they conducted. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The study was funded by a post-doctoral research grant from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology to the first author.

References

Abbot-Smith, K. & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: the German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30, 9951026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adani, F. (2011). Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language 38, 141–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 2751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 390412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–93. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google ScholarPubMed
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, 376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, D. M. & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 999375-33, online: <http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org>..>Google Scholar
Boyle, W., Lindell., A. K. & Kidd, E. (2013). Investigating the role of verbal working memory in young children's sentence comprehension. Language Learning 63, 211–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, S., Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Acquisition of German relative clauses: a case study. Journal of Child Language 35, 325–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. V. M. & Theakston, A. L. (2007). What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation. Journal of Child Language 34, 251–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., de la Cruz-Pavía, I. & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: evidence from Basque. Cognition 115, 7992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, A., Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses in Cantonese and Mandarin. In Kidd, E. (ed.), Acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function, 197226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. & Shirai, Y. (2014). The acquisition of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language 20, 129.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1998). Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1, 5986.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. H. (2006). Adult and child production of Quechua relative clauses. First Language 26, 317–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., Tager Flusberg, H. B., Hakuta, K. & Cohen, M. (1979). Children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8, 499518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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, 251–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1/2), 131–51.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81, 882906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: the emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (eds), Handbook of second language acquisition, 3368. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66, 297316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119, 6788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, H. (2010). Object extraction is not suitable to Child Relativized Minimality. Lingua 120, 1516–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R. & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27, 1411–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R. & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 97114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Stavrakaki, S. & Arosio, F. (2012). Crosslinguistic differences and similarities in the acquisition of relative clauses: evidence from Greek and Italian. Lingua 122, 700–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. J. (2011). Children's comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: the case of Basque. Language Acquisition 18, 176201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R. & Alho, I. (2005). Iso suomen kielioppi [The large grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. & Levine., S. (2001). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology 45, 337–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation of not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 434–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kas, B. & Lukács, Á. (2012). Processing relative clauses by Hungarian typically developing children. Language and Cognitive Processes 27, 500–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kauppinen, A. (1977). Mikon kielioppia: 3 vuoden 4 kuukauden ikäisen pojan kielestä ja sen kehittymisestä vuoden aikana [Mikko's grammar: one 3 year and 4 month old boy's language and its development over a one year period]. Unpublished licentiate thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish Language.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 6399.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (ed.) (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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, 860–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Examining the role of lexical frequency in the acquisition and processing of sentential complements. Cognitive Development 21, 93107.CrossRefGoogle 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, 107–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children's me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language 36, 1091–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajewski, G., Lieven, E. V. M. & Theakston, A. L. (2012). Productivity of a Polish child's inflectional noun morphology: a naturalistic study. Morphology 22, 934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajewski, G., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2011). How Polish children switch from one case to another when using novel nouns: challenges for models of inflectional morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 830–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laaksonen, K. & Lieko, A. (2003). Suomen kielen äänne- ja muoto-oppi [Finnish language phonology and morphology]. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.Google Scholar
Lieko, A. (1992). The development of complex sentences: a case study of Finnish. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Flynn, S. & Foley, C. (1996). What children know about what they say: elirefd imitation as a research method for assessing children's syntax. In McDaniel, D., McKee, C. & Smith Cairns, H. (eds), Methods for assessing children's syntax, 5577. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyytinen, P. (1999). Varhaisen kommunikaation ja kielenkehityksen arviointimenetelmä [Early communication and language development assessment method]. Jyväskylä: Niilo Mäki Instituutti & Jyväskylän Yliopiston Lapsitutimuskeskus.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W. & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 5068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mak, M. M., Vonk, W. & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: the hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Languagem 54, 466490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: an emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: processing and acquisition. In Kidd, E. (ed.), Acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function, 1338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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., Robinson, O. & Sells, P. (eds), Diversity in language: perspectives and implications, 243–70. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pine, J. & Lieven, E. (1997). Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Development Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, online: <http://www.R-project.org/>..>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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions. Cognition 104 106–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slobin, D. I. & Bever., T. G. (1982). A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12, 229–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toivanen, J. (1997). The acquisition of Finnish. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 4, 87182. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language; a usage-based theory of language acquisition. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85, 79112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Kirjavainen supplementary material S1

Kirjavainen supplementary material

Download Kirjavainen supplementary material S1(PDF)
PDF 138 KB
7
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *