Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 573–596 | Cite as

Relatives Children Say

  • Cecile McKee
  • Dana McDaniel
  • Jesse Snedeker


In an experiment designed to elicit restrictive relatives clauses, 28 children ranging in age from 2:2 to 3:10 provided a corpus of communicatively appropriate relative clauses. In evaluating this corpus, we found that most children produced mostly adult relative clauses most of the time. Detailed study of these utterances uncovered a few error patterns, which we analyzed in light of several considerations (e.g., the overall frequency of an error type, its distribution across children and items, its relation to the construction under study, and the similarity of the error to what children do elsewhere). Only one error pattern, namely some children's production of inappropriate relative pronouns, is argued to reflect a systematic feature of language development. We conclude that children's ability to represent the syntactic structure of the embedded clause is on target very early.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernstein, J., McDaniel, D., & McKee, C. (1998). Resumptive pronoun strategies in English-speaking children. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 1) 58–68. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bock, K. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar
  3. Bock, K. (1993). Meaning, sound, and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57–99.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Crain, S., McKee, C., & Emiliani, M. (1990). Visiting relatives in Italy. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Ferreiro, E., Othenin-Girard, C., Chipman, H., & Sinclair, H. (1976). How do children handle relative clauses? A study in comparative developmental psycholinguistics. Archives de Psychologie. XLV, 299–266.Google Scholar
  8. Fodor, J., & Garrett, M. (1966). Some reflections on competence and performance. In J. Lyons & R. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistics papers. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  9. Foss, D., & Fay, D. (1975). Linguistic theory and performance models. In D. Cohen & J. Wirth (Eds.), Testing linguistic hypotheses. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  10. Goodluck, H. (1978). Linguistic principles in children's grammar of complement subject interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11, 1–27.Google Scholar
  12. Guasti, M. T., & Shlonsky, U. (1995). The acquisition of French relative clauses reconsidered. Language Acquisition, 4, 257–276.Google Scholar
  13. Hamburger, H. (1980). A deletion ahead of is time. Cognition, 8, 380–416.Google Scholar
  14. Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj II (Ed.), Language development: Syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Ingram, D. (1975). If and when transformations are acquired by children. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, 27, 99–127.Google Scholar
  16. Labelle, M. (1990). Predication, WH-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 1, 95–119.Google Scholar
  17. Legum, S. (1975). Strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses (Southwest Regional Laboratory Tech. Note TN 2-75-10)Google Scholar
  18. Leopold, W. F. (1949). Speech development in a bilingual child: A linguist's record (Vol. IV). Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences. In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Limber, J. (1976). Unraveling competence, performance and pragmatics in the speech of young children. Journal of Child Language, 3, 309–318.Google Scholar
  21. McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Bernstein, J. (1998). How children's relative solve a problem for Minimalism. Language, 74, 308–334.Google Scholar
  22. McKee, C., & Emiliani, M. (1992). II clitico: C'é ma non si vede. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 415–437.Google Scholar
  23. Menyuk, P. (1969). Sentences children use. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ouhalla, J. (1994). Introducing transformational grammar: From rules to principles and parameters. London, England: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  25. Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Radford, A. (1988). Small children's small clauses. Transactions of the Philological Society, 86, 1–46.Google Scholar
  27. Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Solan, L., & Roeper, T. (1978). Children's use of syntactic structure in interpreting relative clauses. In H. Goodluck & L. Solan (Eds.), Papers in the structure and development of child language (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, Vol. 4). Amherst: Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Tavakolian, S. (1977). Structural principles in the acquisition of complex sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecile McKee
    • 1
  • Dana McDaniel
    • 2
  • Jesse Snedeker
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.University of Southern
  3. 3.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations