CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

English-Speaking Children's Comprehension of Relative Clauses: Evidence for General-Cognitive and Language-Specific Constraints on Development

Open access
Kidd, Evan, Bavin, Edith L.·2002·Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
DOI 10.1023/a:1021265021141
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Children must possess some ability to process input in a meaningful manner to acquire language. The present study reports on data from an experiment investigating 3- to 5-year-old English-speaking children's understanding of restrictive relative clauses manipulated for embeddedness and focus. The results of the study showed that English-speaking children acquire right-branching before center-embedded structures. Comparisons made with data from Portuguese-speaking children suggest general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development, and with respect to English, a "clause expansion" approach to processing in development.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1021265021141

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Correa, L. M. (1982). Strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses. Working Papers of the London Psycholinguistic Research Group, 4, 37–49.
  2. Fragman, C., & Goodluck, H. (2000). Children's knowledge of the grammar of restrictive relative clauses. In C. Howell et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Boston University Conference on Language Development (299–307). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  3. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  4. Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In: S. Kuczaj II (Ed.), Language development Vol. 1: Syntax and semantics (245–274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Kuno, S. (1973). Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 363–385.
  6. Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117–136
  7. MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. McCawley, J. D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English (Vols. 1 & 2). Chicago: UCP.
  9. Slobin, D. I. (Ed.). (1992). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  10. Smith, M. (1974). Relative clause formation between 29-36 months: a preliminary report. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 8, 104–110.
  11. Smith, K., & McMahon, L. (1970). Understanding order information in sentences: Some recent work at Bell Laboratories. In: G. Flores d'Arcais & W. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics (45–69). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  12. Tavakolian, S. (1981). The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses. In: S. Tavakolian (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory (167–187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 103

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L.
Affiliations
La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Kidd, Evan
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2002-11
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
599-617
ISSN
  • 0090-6905 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6555
DOI
10.1023/a:1021265021141
OpenAlex
W294487447
Cited by
103
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
relative clauses, restrictive relative clauses, child language acquisition, embeddedness, focus, Portuguese-speaking children, English-speaking children
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Cognition, Female, Humans, Language, Linguistics, Male, Speech Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review