Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 313–340 | Cite as

Children's and adults' perception of missing subjects in complement clauses: Evidence from another language

  • Dimitris Natsopoulos
  • Aphrodite Xeromeritou
Article

Abstract

Findings on perception of missing subjects in complement clauses are reported in two experiments with school-aged children and adults. The complement clauses were embedded into four matrix verbs in Greek, such as Ask (ask information), Promise, Tell1 (orderl command), and Tell2 (give information) equivalent to English in syntactic and semantic constraints. The data from Experiment 1 show the following: (1) Perception of missing subjects in Ask, Promise, and Tell1 complement clauses is significantly higher than in Tell2, but Guttman coefficient of scalability (.58) was slightly lower than the required one (over .60) to document a developmental sequence between the four constructions. (2) In general, these results, as other findings, contradict with Minimal Distance Principle (MDP) advocated by Chomsky (1969, 1972). (3) Differences in perceiving the source (i.e., NP1) in Ask and Promise and the goal/recipient (i.e., NP2) as subject in the complement clauses on Tell1 and Tell2 cannot consistently be explained by the Semantic Role Principle (SRP) postulated by Maratsos (Lederberg & Maratsos, 1981; Maratsos, 1974) either. (4) Results from Experiment 2 with three age groups, despite minor differences, confirm the results in Experiment 1, suggesting that comprehension of complement clauses with Ask, Promise, and Tell1 is a prerequisite to comprehension of complement clauses with Tell2, according to Guttman coefficients of scalability (over .60 for all groups). (5) The findings are discussed within the framework of the SRP, but the emphasis is placed on the interaction of semantic and pragmatic presuppositions over processing the four construction types.

Keywords

Cognitive Psychology Minimal Distance Semantic Role Matrix Verb Developmental Sequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbeduto, L., & Rosenberg, S. (1985). Children's knowledge of the presupposition of know and other cognitive verbs.Journal of Child Language, 12, 621–641.Google Scholar
  2. Astington, J.W. (1988). Children's understanding of the speech act of promising.Journal of Child Language, 15, 157–173.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J.L. (1962).How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, E. (1976).Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bellin, W., & Natsopoulos, D. (1977). Semantic or syntactic complexity: Alternative explanations for results from testing equivalent English and Greek constructions. In G. Drachman (Ed.),Salzburger beiträge zur linguistik: Akten der 3 Salzburger jahresstangung für linguistik (pp. 309–317). Salzburg: Verlag Wolfgang Neugebauer.Google Scholar
  6. Bock, J.K., & Hornsby, M.E. (1981). The development of directives: How children ask and tell.Journal of Child Language, 8, 151–163.Google Scholar
  7. Cambon, J., & Sinclair, H. (1974). Relations between syntax and semantics: Are they “easy to see”?British Journal of Psychology, 65, 133–140.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, C. (1969).The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure.Harvard Educational Review, 42, 1–35.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, C. (1982). “Aks” and “tell” revisited: A reply to Warden.Journal of Child Language, 9, 667–678.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, E.V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T.E. Moore (Ed.),Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65–110). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cromer, R.F. (1970). “Children are nice to understand”: Surface structure clues for the recovery of a deep structure.British Journal of Psychology, 61, 397–408.Google Scholar
  13. Cromer, R.F. (1972). The learning of surface structure clues to deep structure by a puppet show technique.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 66–76.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dunn, L.M. (1965).Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  16. Edelsky, C., & Muiña, V. (1977). Native Spanish language acquisition: The effect of age, schooling and context on responses to “dile” and “preguntale.”Journal of Child Language, 4, 453–475.Google Scholar
  17. Fillmore, C.J. (1970). Subjects, speakers and roles.Synthèse, 21, 251–274.Google Scholar
  18. Goldman, S.R. (1976). Reading skill and the minimum distance principle: A comparison of listening and reading comprehension.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 123–142.Google Scholar
  19. Gowie, C.J., & Powers, J.E. (1979). Relations among cognitive, semantic, and syntactic variables in children's comprehension of the minimum distance principle: A 2-year developmental study.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 29–41.Google Scholar
  20. Hakuta, K. (1981). Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: The case of relative clauses in Japanese.Cognition, 9, 197–236.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, R.J. (1974). Memory and comprehension of implication and inferences of complex sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 626–637.Google Scholar
  22. Harris, R.J. (1975). Children's comprehension of complex sentences.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 420–433.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, C.N. (1982). Acquisition of mental verbs and the concept of mind. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.),Language development: Syntax and semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 445–478). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, C.N., & Maratsos, M.P. (1977). Early comprehension of mental verbs: Think and know.Child Development, 48, 1743–1747.Google Scholar
  25. Kaper, W. (1985). The use of ask and tell by Dutch children.Journal of Child Language, 12, 663–669.Google Scholar
  26. Kessel, F. (1970). The role of syntax in children's comprehension from ages six to twelve.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(6, Serial No. 139).Google Scholar
  27. Kramer, P.E., Koff, E., & Luria, Z. (1972). The development of competence in an exceptional language structure in older children and young adults.Child Development, 43, 121–130.Google Scholar
  28. Lederberg, A.R. & Maratsos, M.P. (1981). Children's use of semantic analysis in the interpretation of missing subjects: Further evidence against the MDP.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 89–110.Google Scholar
  29. Macnamara, J., Baker, E., & Olson, C.L. (1976). Four-year olds' understanding of pretend, forget, and know: Evidence for propositional operations.Child Development, 147, 62–70.Google Scholar
  30. Maratsos, M.P. (1974). How preschool children understand missing complement subjects.Child Development, 45, 700–706.Google Scholar
  31. McNemar, Q. (1949/1966).Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Natsopoulos, D. (1976).Later linguistic development in Greek monoglot and bilingual children. Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading, England.Google Scholar
  33. Natsopoulos, D. (1987). Processing implications and presuppositions by schoolchildren and adults: A cross-linguistic developmental comparison.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 133–164.Google Scholar
  34. Natsopoulos, D., & Xeromeritou, A. (1988). Comprehension of “before” and “after” by normal and educable mentally retarded children.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 181–199.Google Scholar
  35. Natsopoulos, D., and Xeromeritou, A. (1989).Understanding complement clauses by educable mentally retarded (EMR) and nonretarded (NR) children and young adults.International Journal of Psychology, 23, 663–683.Google Scholar
  36. Palermo, D.S., & Molfese, D.L. (1972). Language acquisition from age five onward.Psychological Bulletin, 78, 409–428.Google Scholar
  37. Rosenbaum, P.S. (1967).The Grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  38. Scoville, R.P., & Gordon, A.M. (1980). Children's understanding of factive presuppositions: An experiment and a review.Journal of Child Language, 7, 381–399.Google Scholar
  39. Searle, J.R. (1969).Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 58–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shatz, M., Wellman, H.M., & Silber, S. (1983). The acquisition of mental verbs: A systematic investigation of the first sentence to mental state.Cognition, 14, 301–321.Google Scholar
  42. Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281.Google Scholar
  43. Tanz, C. (1983). Asking children to ask: An experimental investigation of the pragmatics of relayed questions.Journal of Child Language, 10, 187–194.Google Scholar
  44. Warden, D. (1981). Children's understanding of ask and tell.Journal of Child Language, 8, 139–149.Google Scholar
  45. Warden, D. (1986). How to tell if children can ask.Journal of Child Language, 13, 421–428.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Natsopoulos
    • 1
  • Aphrodite Xeromeritou
    • 2
  1. 1.Psychological LaboratoryUniversity of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Education DepartmentUniversity of PatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations