The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses
Abstract
This study reconsiders the acquisition of relative clauses based on data from two sentence-repetition tasks. Using materials modeled on the relative constructions of spontaneous child speech, we asked four-year-old English- and German-speaking children to repeat six different types of relative clauses. Although English and German relative clauses are structurally very different, the results were similar across studies: intransitive subject relatives caused fewer errors than transitive subject relatives and direct object relatives, which in turn caused fewer errors than indirect object relatives and oblique relatives; finally, genitive relatives caused by far the most problems. Challenging previous analyses in which the acquisition of relative clauses has been explained by the varying distance between filler and gap, we propose a multifactorial analysis in which the acquisition process is determined primarily by the similarity between the various types of relative clauses and their relationship to simple sentences.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies
Gibson, E. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1 · Cited by 2,537
Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure
(2001) · Typological Studies in Language · doi:10.1075/tsl.45 · Cited by 2,230
Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form
Bybee, J. L. (1985) · Typological Studies in Language · doi:10.1075/tsl.9 · Cited by 2,121
Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars
Hawkins, J. A. (2004) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 · Cited by 1,743
Regular morphology and the lexicon
Bybee, J. (1995) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690969508407111 · Cited by 1,541
Studies of child language development
Ferguson, C. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1973) · Max Planck Digital Library · Cited by 1,370
The cognitive basis for linguistic structures1
Bever, T. G. (2013) · Language Down the Garden Path · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0001 · Cited by 1,288
Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(91)90027-h · Cited by 1,190
Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study
Berman, R. A. (2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203773512 · Cited by 1,180
Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar
Slobin, D. I. (1973) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 932
Cited by
Bybee, J. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511750526 · Cited by 3,488
Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency
Hawkins, J. A. (2014) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 · Cited by 405
Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change
Diessel, H. (2007) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002 · Cited by 386
Self-citationKidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690960601155284 · Cited by 196
Self-citationBrandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009) · Cognitive Linguistics · doi:10.1515/cogl.2009.024 · Cited by 114
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M.
- Venue
- Language
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 882-906
- ISSN
- 0097-8507 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-0665
- OpenAlex
- W2028989998
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 11.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/lan.2005.0169
- The paper
- Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0169
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.