Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:03:21.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Construction-Based Analysis of the Acquisition of East Asian Relative Clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2007

Holger Diessel
Holger Diessel
Affiliation:
University of Jena
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Why are crosslinguistic generalizations like the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy (NPAH) relevant to our understanding of language acquisition? The answer to this question relies on our view of language universals. In generative linguistics, it is commonly assumed that language universals are based on innate linguistic knowledge. In this approach, languages share some of their basic grammatical properties because the core of human grammar is innate (Crain & Pietroski, 2001). However, this view of linguistic nativism is incompatible with what we know about the neurological foundations of the human mind: Although language has genetic prerequisites, it is biologically implausible that these prerequisites consist of prespecified categories and constraints (Quartz & Sejnowski, 1997).

Type
COMMENTARY
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 311 - 320
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and development of language (pp. 279–352). New York: Wiley.
Brandt, S., Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2006). The acquisition of German relative clauses: A case study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82, 529–571.Google Scholar
Correâ, L. M. S. (1995). An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 183–203.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Pietroski, P. (2001). Nature, nurture and Universal Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 139–186.Google Scholar
Dasinger, L. & Toupin, C. (1994). The development of relative clause functions in narratives. In R. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narratives: A crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 457–514). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
de Villiers, J. G., Tager-Flusberg, H. B., Hakuta, K., & Cohen, M. (1979). Children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 499–518.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 131–151.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 1–25.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL realization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to emergent structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hakuta, K. (1981). Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese. Cognition, 9, 197–236.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hermon, G. (2005, June). The acquisition of Indonesian relative clauses. Paper presented at the Workshop on Typology, Acquisition and Processing of Relative Clauses, Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Hsiao, F. & Gibson, E. (2003). Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90, 3–27.Google Scholar
Hudelot, C. (1980). Qu'est-ce que la complexité syntaxique? L'exemple de la relative. [What is syntactic complexity? The example of relatives.] La Linguistique, 16, 5–41.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-J. (1987). Theoretical implications of complement structure acquisition in Korean. Journal of Child Language, 16, 573–598.Google Scholar
Mak, W. M., Wietske, V., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 50–68.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2002). Relative clauses in early bilingual development: Transfer and universals. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 39–81). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433–488.Google Scholar
Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y. (2005). Semantic bias in the acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese. In A. Burgos, M. R. Clark-Cotton, & S. Ha (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development: Vol. 2 (pp. 459–470). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
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 Y. Matsumoto, D. Oshima, O. Robinson, & P. Sells (Eds.), Diversity in language: Perspectives and implications (pp. 243–270). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Quartz, S. R. & Sejnowski, T. J. (1997). The neural basis of cognitive development: A constructivist manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 537–556.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 211–271.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movement. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 69–90.Google Scholar