Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:27:28.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sentence comprehension in Hungarian-Russian bilingual and monolingual preschool children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Csaba Pléh ,
Alexandr Jarovinskij  and
Alexandr Balajan
Csaba Pléh*
Affiliation:
Eötvös Lóránd University Budapest
Alexandr Jarovinskij
Affiliation:
Janus Pannonius University Pécs
Alexandr Balajan
Affiliation:
Pushkin Institute of Russian Language, Moscow
*
Department of General Psychology, Eötvös Lóránd University, Budapest, Izabella u. 46. 1064.Hungary.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper's authors examine the interpretation of transitive sentences with varying word orders /SVO, OVS, SOV, OSV/. The subjects were Hungarian-Russian bilingual preschool children and their Hungarian and Russian monolingual peers. Bever's ‘first noun as agent’ strategy – as indicated by OVS and OSV errors – appears to be weaker in the bilinguals. An explanation for this is proposed in terms of Slobin's ‘attention to the end of words’ factor. The mistaken identification of sentence-initial objects as agents depends on case marking allomorphy. Bilinguals, in general, appear to pay more attention to allomorphy and thus make fewer interpretation errors than their monolingual peers.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , October 1987 , pp. 587 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

*

Preparation of this paper was partially supported by Grant No. 242–084 to the first author by the Hungarian Ministry of Education. Comments concerning content and style by Farrel Ackermann are gratefully acknowledged.

References

REFERENCES

Albert, M. & Obler, L. (1978). The bilingual brain. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379. 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescove, S., Natale, F. & Vanza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development 55. 341–54.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1971). The nature of cerebral dominance in the speech behaviour of the child and adult. In Huxley, T. & Ingram, E. (eds), Language acquisition: models and methods. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G., Zurif, E. & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: the case of stop consonants in French-English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54. 421–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dezsö, L. (1983). Studies in syntactic typology and contrastive grammar. Budapest: Akademiai.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. (1973). Development of the use of word order in comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2. 331–42.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. & Brown, E. (1979). The BMDP-P Series. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Elkonin, D. B. (1974). Development of speech. In Zaporozhets, A. V. & Elkonin, D. B. (eds), The psychology of preschool children. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Jarovinskij, A. (1979). On the lexical competence of bilingual children of kindergarten age groups. International Journal of Psychology 6. 43–57.Google Scholar
Jarovinskij, A. (1981). Picture description of bilingual children at preschool age. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31. 1–4.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language acquisition: syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. & Kushnir, S. L. (1971). Linguistic independence of bilingualism: the input switch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 10. 480–7.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1974). Children who get worse at understanding the passive: a replication of Bever. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3. 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1981). A theory of the acquisition of lexical-interpretive grammars. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Pléh, C. (1981). The role of word order in the sentence interpretation of Hungarian children. Folia Linguistica 15. 331–43.Google Scholar
Popova, M. I. (1973). Grammatical elements of language in the speech of preschool children. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Sinclair-de-Zwart, H. (1973). Language acquisition and cognitive development. In Moore, R. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1966). The acquisition of Russian as a native language. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. A. (eds), The genesis of language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas. Cognition 12. 229–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principals in experimental design. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar