Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:53:21.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of number mismatch and passives on the real-time processing of relative clauses*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2013

CARLA CONTEMORI  and
THEODOROS MARINIS
CARLA CONTEMORI*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, USA
THEODOROS MARINIS
Affiliation:
School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Pennsylvania State University – Psychology, 4E Thomas Building, State College, Pennsylvania 16801, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Language processing plays a crucial role in language development, providing the ability to assign structural representations to input strings (e.g., Fodor, 1998). In this paper we aim at contributing to the study of children's processing routines, examining the operations underlying the auditory processing of relative clauses in children compared to adults. English-speaking children (6;0–8;11) and adults participated in the study, which employed a self-paced listening task with a final comprehension question. The aim was to determine (i) the role of number agreement in object relative clauses in which the subject and object NPs differ in terms of number properties, and (ii) the role of verb morphology (active vs. passive) in subject relative clauses. Even though children's off-line accuracy was not always comparable to that of adults, analyses of reaction times results support the view that children have the same structural processing reflexes observed in adults.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 658 - 689
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 supported by the Short Term Scientific Mission scholarship, awarded to the first author by COST Action IS0804 ‘Language impairment in a multilingual society’, and by the 2011 Marica De Vincenzi postdoctoral fellowship, awarded to the first author by the Marica De Vincenzi Foundation Onlus. We thank Adriana Belletti, Giuliano Bocci, Vicky Chondrogianni, Maria Teresa Guasti and Luigi Rizzi for helpful comments. Thanks to the COST Action IS0804, ‘Language impairment in a multilingual society’ and the Marica De Vincenzi Foundation Onlus, who made the data collection possible. All errors are ours.

References

REFERENCES

Adani, F. (2008). The role of features in relative clause comprehension: a study of typical and atypical development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Milano-Bicocca.Google Scholar
Adani, F., van der Lely, H. K. J., Forgiarini, M. & Guasti, M. T. (2010). Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: a comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua 120, 2148–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arosio, F., Guasti, M. T. & Stucchi, N. A. (2011). Disambiguating information and memory resources in children's processing of Italian relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40(2), 137–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belletti, A. (2009). Notes on passive object relatives. In Svenonius, P. (ed.), Functional structure from top to toe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Contemori, C. (2010). Intervention and attraction: on the production of subject and object relatives by Italian (young) children and adults. In Costa, J., Castro, A., Lobo, M. & Pratas, F. (eds), Language acquisition and development 3, 39–52. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., Brunato, D. & Rizzi, L. (2012). Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children's comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua 122(10), 1053–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). The meaning, sound, and syntax of English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting, 123–72. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Miller, G. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R., Bush, R. & Galanter, E. (eds), Handbook of mathematical psychology, 269–321. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (2005). A Smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8, 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contemori, C. & Belletti, A. (2013). Relatives and passive object relatives in Italian speaking children and adults: intervention in production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics. doi: 10.1017/S0142716412000689.Google Scholar
Correa, L. M. S. (1995). An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: a guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Wexler, K. (1999). Methodology in the study of language acquisition: a modular approach. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds), Handbook of language acquisition, San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J., Tager-Flusberg, H., Hakuta, K. & Cohen, M. (1979). Children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8, 495–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, K. M. (1997). The marked effect of number on subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Marinis, T. & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children's processing of ambiguous sentences: a study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition 11(3), 127–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Henderson, J.Anes, M., Weeks, P. & McFarlane, D. (1996). Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken language comprehension: evidence from the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22, 324–35.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27, 285–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. & Grodzinsky, Y. (1998). Children's passive: a view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies, Lingua 119(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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., Hendrick, R. & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, T. R. & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject–verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 760–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, A., Schwartz, R., Tornyova, L. & Datta, H. (2005). Picture-naming shows children reactivate antecedents at trace positions. Poster presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA) Conference, Siena, Italy.Google Scholar
Horgan, D. (1978). The development of the full passive. Journal of Child Language 5, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen de Lopez, K.Sundahl Olsen, L. & Chondrogianni, V. (2012). Comprehension and production of relative clauses in Danish typically developing children and children with SLI. Journal of Child Language. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000517.Google ScholarPubMed
Kidd, E. & Bavin, E. L. (2002). English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses: evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31(6), 599–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labelle, M. (1990). Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1, 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, T. (1997). The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: a real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W. & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1), 50–68.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M., Fox, D., Becker, J. & Chalkley, M. (1985). Semantic restrictions on children's passives. Cognition 19, 67–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marinis, T. (2007). On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L. & Umeda, M. (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), 265–76. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Marinis, T. (2010). On-line sentence processing methods in typical and atypical populations. In Unsworth, S. & Blom, E. (eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research, 139–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T. & Saddy, D. (2013). Parsing the passive: comparing children with Specific Language Impairment to sequential bilingual children. Language Acquisition 20(2), 155–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin 114(3), 510–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C. & Clahsen, H. (2007). Antecedent priming at trace positions in children's sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36(2), 175–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohde, D. & Gibson, E. (2003). The on-line processing of active and passive structures in English. Paper presented at CUNY Conference 2003.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13, 272–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1977). On strategies for processing relative clauses: a comparison of children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 6, 305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromswold, K, Eisenband, J., Norland, E. & Ratzan, J. (2002). Tracking the acquisition & processing of English passives: using acoustic cues to disambiguate actives & passives. Paper presented at CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing 2002.Google Scholar
Sudhalter, V. & Braine, M. (1985). How does comprehension of passives develop? A comparison of actional and experiential verbs. Journal of Child Language 12, 455–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavakolian, S. L. (1981). The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In Tavakolian, S. L. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 167–87. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. (2002). Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children's processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85, 79–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2005). Effects of NP-type on reading English clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(6), 751–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 20, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar