Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 499–518 | Cite as

Children's comprehension of relative clauses

  • Jill G. de Villiers
  • Helen B. Tager Flusberg
  • Kenji Hakuta
  • Michael Cohen
Article

Abstract

A review of the literature on children's use of relative clause constructions reveals many contradictory findings. The suggestion is that some studies fail to take into account the two factors of embeddedness (role of complex noun phrase within the sentence) and focus (role of head noun in the relative clause). The experiment reported here attempted to reconcile the disparate findings and extend the range of constructions examined. 114 children between the ages of 3 and 7 served as subjects in a test of comprehension using an act-out procedure of 9 different relative clause sentences that exhaust the possible combination of 3 roles of the complex noun phrase in the sentence and 3 roles that the head noun plays within the relative clause (in each case, subject, driect object, and indirect object). All constructions were understood better with increasing age of the children sex and sentence set were nonsignificant variables. The results reveal a difficulty in ordering of the 9 types of construction that is in keeping with a prediction based on surface structure processing strategies.

Keywords

Cognitive Psychology Surface Structure Noun Phrase Processing Strategy Relative Clause 
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. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.),Cognition and the Development of Language, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, H. D. (1971). Children's comprehension of relativized English sentences.Child Dev,42:1923–1936.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, R., Cazden, C., and Bellugi, U. (1969). The child's grammar from I to III. In Hill, J. P. (ed.),Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Vol. II, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, C. (1969).The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from Five to Ten, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, V. (1973). The comparison of language development in native children and foreign adults.Int. Rev. Appl. Ling.,11:13–28.Google Scholar
  6. de Villiers, J. G., and de Villiers, P. A. (1973). Development of the use of word order in comprehension.J. Psycholing. Res. 2:331–341.Google Scholar
  7. Fodor, J., and Garrett, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity.Percept. Psychophys. 2:289–296.Google Scholar
  8. Gaer, E. (1969). Children's understanding and production of sentences.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 8:289–294.Google Scholar
  9. Keenan, E., and Comrie, B. (1972). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Unpublished mimeo.Google Scholar
  10. Kennedy, G. (1970). Children's comprehension of English sentences comparing quantities of discrete objects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  11. Lahey, M. (1974). Use of prosody and syntactic markers in children's comprehension of spoken sentences.J. Speech Hearing Res. 17:656–668.Google Scholar
  12. Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences. In Moore, T. E. (ed.),Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. McNeill, D. (1966). The creation of language by children. In Lyons, J., and Wales, R. J. (eds.),Psycholinguistic Papers, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  14. Menyuk, P. (1969).Sentences Children Use, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar.Am. Psychol. 17:748–762.Google Scholar
  16. Noizet, G., Deyts, F., and Deyts, J. P. (1972). Producing complex sentences by applying relative transformation.Linguistics 89:49–68.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum, P. (1970). A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. In Jacobs, R., and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.),Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn and Co., Waltham, Mass.Google Scholar
  18. Ross, J. R. (1973). The center. Paper presented at NWAVE (New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English) Conference, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  19. Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English.J. Verb. Learn. Verb Behav. 13:272–281.Google Scholar
  20. Sinclair, A., Sinclair, H., and De Marcellus, O. (1971). Young children's comprehension and production of passive sentences.Arch. Psychol.41:1–22.Google Scholar
  21. Sinclair, H., and Bronckart, J. (1972). S. V. O. A linguistic universal? A study in development linguistics.J. Exp. Child Psychol. 14:329–348.Google Scholar
  22. Slobin, D. (1971). Developmental psycholinguistics. In Dingwall, W. O. (ed.),A Survey of Linguistic Science, Linguistics Program, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, M. (1974). relative clause formation between 29–36 months: a preliminary report. InPapers and Reports on Child Language Development, Vol. 8, Committee on Linguistics, Stanford University, pp. 104–110.Google Scholar
  24. Tavakolian, S. L. (1975). The structural analysis of complex sentences and the determination of functional relationships by preschoolers. Unpublished mimeo, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.Google Scholar
  25. Wanner, E., Kaplan, R., and Shiner, S. (1974). Garden paths in relative clauses. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  26. Yngve, V. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure.Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 104:444–466.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill G. de Villiers
    • 1
  • Helen B. Tager Flusberg
    • 1
  • Kenji Hakuta
    • 1
  • Michael Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Social RelationsHarvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations