Cited by 114Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationChild and Animal Learning Development

The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses

Open access
Brandt, Silke, Kidd, Evan, Lieven, Elena, Tomasello, Michael·2009·Cognitive Linguistics

Abstract

In numerous comprehension studies, across different languages, children have performed worse on object relatives (e.g., the dog that the cat chased ) than on subject relatives (e.g., the dog that chased the cat ). One possible reason for this is that the test sentences did not exactly match the kinds of object relatives that children typically experience. Adults and children usually hear and produce object relatives with inanimate heads and pronominal subjects (e.g., the car that we bought last year ) (cf. Kidd et al., Language and Cognitive Processes 22: 860–897, 2007). We tested young 3-year old German- and English-speaking children with a referential selection task. Children from both language groups performed best in the condition where the experimenter described inanimate referents with object relatives that contained pronominal subjects (e.g., Can you give me the sweater that he bought? ). Importantly, when the object relatives met the constraints identified in spoken discourse, children understood them as well as subject relatives, or even better. These results speak against a purely structural explanation for children's difficulty with object relatives as observed in previous studies, but rather support the usage-based account, according to which discourse function and experience with language shape the representation of linguistic structures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/cogl.2009.024

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
Cognitive Linguistics
Published
2009-01
Volume
20
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0936-5907 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-3641
OpenAlex
W2157130468
Cited by
114
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cognitive Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (acceptedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • edoc (University of Basel)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
relative clauses, child language acquisition, discourse constraints, pronominal subjects, German-speaking children, English-speaking children, cross-linguistic comparison, relative clause comprehension

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