CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 196Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses

Open access
Kidd, Evan, Brandt, Silke, Lieven, Elena, Tomasello, Michael·2007·Language and Cognitive Processes
DOI 10.1080/01690960601155284
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We present the results from four studies, two corpora and two experimental, which suggest that English- and German-speaking children (3;1–4;9 years) use multiple constraints to process and produce object relative clauses. Our two corpora studies show that children produce object relatives that reflect the distributional and discourse regularities of the input. Specifically, the results show that when children produce object relatives they most often do so with (a) an inanimate head noun, and (b) a pronominal relative clause subject. Our experimental findings show that children use these constraints to process and produce this construction type. Moreover, when children were required to repeat the object relatives they most often use in naturalistic speech, the subject-object asymmetry in processing of relative clauses disappeared. We also report cross-linguistic differences in children's rate of acquisition which reflect properties of the input language. Overall, our results suggest that children are sensitive to the same constraints on relative clause processing as adults.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01690960601155284

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Arnon , I. 2005 . “ Relative clause acquisition in Hebrew: towards a processing-oriented account ” . In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston Conference on Language Development , Edited by: Brugos , A. , Clark-Cotton , M. and Ha , S. 37 – 48 . Somerville, MA : Cascadilla Press .
  2. Bever , T. 1970 . “ The cognitive basis of linguistic structures ” . In Cognition and the development of language , Edited by: Hayes , J. R. 279 – 362 . New York : John Wiley & Sons .
  3. Bever , T. 1974 . “ The ascent of the specious, or there's a lot we don't know about mirrors ” . In Explaining linguistic phenomena , Edited by: Cohen , D. 173 – 200 . Washington, DC : Hemisphere .
  4. Bloom , L. 1973 . One word at a time: The use of single word utterances , The Hague : Mouton .
  5. Brandt , S. ( 2004 ) . The acquisition of relative clauses in German and English . Unpublished MA thesis, Leipzig: University of Leipzig .
  6. Hamburger , H. and Crain , S. 1982 . “ Relative acquisition ” . In Language development, vol. 1: syntax and semantics , Edited by: Kuczaj , S. 245 – 274 . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum .
  7. MacWhinney , B. ( 2000 ) . The CHILDES Project: Tools for analysing talk (Vol. 1) . Mawah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  8. Maratsos , M. , & Chalkley , M. ( 1980 ) . The internal language of children's syntax . In K. Nelson Children's language (Vol. 2) (pp. 127 – 214 ). New York : Gardner Press .
  9. Miyamoto , E. , & Nakamura , M. ( 2003 ) . Subject/Object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese . In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura Proceedings of WCCFL, 22 , 342 – 355 .
  10. Trueswell , J. C. and Gleitman , L. 2004 . “ Children's eye-movements during listening: Developmental evidence for a constraint-based theory of sentence processing ” . In Interface of vision, action, and language , Edited by: Henderson , J. M. and Ferreira , F. 319 – 346 . NY : Psychology Press .
  11. 10.1111/1469-8986.3650559 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 196

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Kidd, Evan
ORCID
Venue
Language and Cognitive Processes
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-09
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
860-897
ISSN
  • 0169-0965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0732
DOI
10.1080/01690960601155284
OpenAlex
W2141221518
Cited by
196
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
13.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Language and Cognitive Processes (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
object relative clauses, relative clause processing, child language acquisition, cross-linguistic comparison, English-German comparison, subject-object asymmetry, distributional constraints, discourse constraints, child language production

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