Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:42:23.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of number mismatch and exposure in the comprehension of relative clauses in bilingual children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

Luca Cilibrasi Open the ORCID record for Luca Cilibrasi [Opens in a new window] ,
Flavia Adani Open the ORCID record for Flavia Adani [Opens in a new window] ,
Ana I. Pérez Open the ORCID record for Ana I. Pérez [Opens in a new window] ,
Elaine Schmidt Open the ORCID record for Elaine Schmidt [Opens in a new window] ,
Mandy Wigdorowitz Open the ORCID record for Mandy Wigdorowitz [Opens in a new window]  and
Ianthi M. Tsimpli Open the ORCID record for Ianthi M. Tsimpli [Opens in a new window]
Luca Cilibrasi*
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and ELT Methodology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Flavia Adani
Affiliation:
Department of Education and Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Ana I. Pérez
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Elaine Schmidt
Affiliation:
Cambridge Assessment English, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Mandy Wigdorowitz
Affiliation:
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Department of Psychology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Ianthi M. Tsimpli
Affiliation:
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on English relative clauses shows that, in most studies, subject relatives are comprehended more accurately than object relatives by both monolingual and bilingual children. The current study focuses on Czech-English bilingual children and extends this line of research in two ways. First, it includes a condition in which the noun phrases involved in the action differ in number (one is singular and the other is plural), a manipulation that was never tested on bilinguals. Second, it includes a fine-grained measure of language exposure, since the exposure has been linked to the acquisition of complex structures. Thirty-eight Czech-English bilinguals (aged 8–11 years) were tested on their comprehension of relative clauses using a picture matching paradigm. Results show that sentences with number mismatch were comprehended more accurately than match sentences and that subject relatives were comprehended more accurately than object relatives. In addition, in the subject relatives subset, higher exposure to English corresponded to poorer performance in relative clauses with number mismatch. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Bilingualismexposurenumberrelative clausesCzechEnglish
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , May 2022 , pp. 663 - 682
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adani, F. (2011). Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adani, F., Forgiarini, M., Guasti, M. T., & Van Der Lely, H. K. (2014). Number dissimilarities facilitate the comprehension of relative clauses in children with (Grammatical) Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 811–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adani, F., Stegenwallner-Schütz, M., Haendler, Y., & Zukowski, A. (2016). Elicited production of relative clauses in German: Evidence from typically developing children and children with specific language impairment. First Language, 36(3), 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adani, F., Stegenwallner-Schütz, M., & Niesel, T. (2017). The peaceful co-existence of input frequency and structural intervention effects on the comprehension of complex sentences in German-speaking children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adani, F., Van der Lely, H. K., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2010). Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua, 120(9), 2148–2166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Llanguage, 42(2), 239–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andreou, M., Knopp, E., Bongartz, C., & Tsimpli, I. M. (2015). Character reference in Greek-German bilingual children’s narratives. EuroSLA Yearbook, 15(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, A. D. (2007). Relative clauses. Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Complex Constructions, 2, 206–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Contemori, C. (2009). Intervention and attraction. On the production of subject and object relatives by Italian (young) children and adults. In J. Costa, A. Castro, M. Lobos & F. Pratas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA (pp. 39–52). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Guasti, M. T. (2015). The acquisition of Italian: Morphosyntax and its interfaces in different modes of acquisition (Vol. 57). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentea, A., & Durrleman, S. (2017). Now you hear it, now you don’t: Number mismatch in the comprehension of relative clauses in French. In Lamendola, M. & Scott, J., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 60–73). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bentea, A., & Durrleman, S. (2021). Number mismatch and intervention in the absence of lexical restriction: An investigation of celui/celle headed relatives in French. In Dionne, D. & Vidal Covas, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 40–51). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Betancort, M., Carreiras, M., & Sturt, P. (2009). The processing of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(10), 1915–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, E., Polisenska, D., & Weerman, F. (2008). Articles, adjectives, and age of onset: The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Second Language Research, 24, 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongartz, C., & Torregrossa, J. (2017). The effects of balanced biliteracy on Greek-German bilingual children’s secondary discourse a bility. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(8), 948–963. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. (1972). Children’s comprehension of relativized English sentences. Child Development 42, 1923–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cilibrasi, L., Adani, F., & Tsimpli, I. (2019). Reading as a predictor of complex syntax. The case of relative clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cilibrasi, L., & Tsimpli, I. (2020). Categorical and dimensional diagnoses of dyslexia: Are they compatible? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cilibrasi, L., & Tsimpli, I. (2020b). Sensitivity to morphophonological cues in monolingual and bilingual children: Evidence from a nonword task. In E. Babatsouli & M. Ball (Eds.), An anthology of bilingual child phonology (pp. 140–62). Mulltilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Contemori, C., & Belletti, A. (2014). Relatives and passive object relatives in Italian-speaking children and adults: Intervention in production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(6), 1021–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contemori, C., & Marinis, T. (2014). The impact of number mismatch and passives on the real-time processing of relative clauses. Journal of Child Language, 41(3), 658–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Rosario-Martinez, H. (2015). phia: Post-hoc interaction analysis. R package version 0.2-1.Google Scholar
Dosi, I., & Papadopoulou, D. (2019). The role of educ ational setting in the development of verbal aspect and executive functions: Evidence from Greek-German bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(8), 964–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garraffa, M., & Grillo, N. (2008). Canonicity effects as grammatical phenomena. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1996). Children’s test of nonword repetition (CNRep). London: The Psychology Corporation.Google Scholar
Grillo, N. (2008). Generalized minimality: Syntactic underspecification in Broca’s aphasia. LOT.Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. J. (2011). Children’s comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: The case of Basque. Language Acquisition, 18(3), 176–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haendler, Y., & Adani, F. (2018). Testing the effect of an arbitrary subject pronoun on relative clause comprehension: A study with Hebrew-speaking children. Journal of Child Language, 45(4), 959–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, S., Gavarró, A., Vernice, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2016). The acquisition of Chinese relative clauses: Contrasting two theoretical approaches. Journal of Child Language, 43(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, S., & Guasti, M. T. (2017). Complexity in the acquisition of relative clauses: Evidence from school-age sequential Mandarin-Italian bilingual children. Journal of International Chinese Education, 2, 121–156.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Chan, A., & Chiu, J. (2015). Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous Cantonese–English bilingual children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 438–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, E., & Tanaka, N. (2021). The subject advantage in relative clauses: A review. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Bernstein, J. B. (1998). How c hildren’s relatives solve a problem for minimalism. Language, 74(2), 308–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möhring, A., & Meisel, J. M. (2003). The ve rb-object parameter in simultaneous and successive acquisition of bilingualism. In Müller, N. (Ed.), Vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism (pp. 295–334). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ostadghafour, S., & Bialystok, E. (2021). Com prehension of complex sentences with misleading cues in monolingual and bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(5), 1117–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öwerdieck, D., Hamann, C., & Ibrahim, L. A. (2021). Studying a Bilingual population’s production and comprehension of relative clauses longitudinally: Preliminary results. In Dionne, D. & Vidal Covas, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 40–51). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Özge, D. (2010). Mechanisms and strategies in the processing and acquisition of relative clauses in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-English bilingual children. PhD dissertation, Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Tremblay, A., & Crago, M. (2008). Bilingual children’s acquisition of English inflection: The role of language dominance and task type. In J. Chandlee M. Franchini, S. Lord & G. Rheiner (Eds.), Boston University Conference on Language Development Proceedings (pp. 378–389). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Peristeri, E., Baldimtsi, E., Andreou, M., & Tsimpli, I. M. (2020). The impact of bilingualism on the narrative ability and the executive functio ns of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 85, 105999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D., & Wexler, K. (1993). The full compe tence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, J. C. (1998). Raven’s progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 348–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheidnes, M., & Redmond, L. (2019). Object relative clause comprehension in L2 children with limited L2 exposure. In Brown, M. M. & Dailey, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 599–611). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Schielzeth, H. (2010). Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1(2), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegenwallner-Schütz, M. & Adani, F. (2017) Numerusinformation vereinfacht das Satzverständnis: Querschnittsuntersuchungen zum Verständniserwerb von transitiven Sätzen mit Wortstellungsvariation (Number information simplifies sentence comprehension: Cross-sectional studies on the acquisition of transitive sentences with word order variation), Logos, 25, 96–15. https://up.logos-fachzeitschrift.de/inhalte/originalia-open-access.html.Google Scholar
Stegenwallner-Schütz, M., & Adani, F. (2021). N umber dissimilarity effects in object-initial sentence comprehension by German-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64(3), 870-888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, E., & Grohmann, K. K. (2012). The acquisition of relative clauses in Cypriot Greek: Production and comprehension. Revista Diacrítica, 26(1), 271–300.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (2003). Features in L1 and L2 acquisition: Evidence from Greek clitics and determiners. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 20, 87–128.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (2014). Early, late or very late?: Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(3), 283–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoi, E. Y. L., Yang, W., Chan, A., & Kidd, E. (2019). Mandarin–English speaking bilingual and Mandarin speaking monolingual children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(4), 933–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language development. In Nicoladis, E. & Montanari, S. (Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on bilingualism, (pp. 136–196). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A., & Tsimpli, I.M. (2014). On the role of age of onset and exposure in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 765–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villata, S., Rizzi, L., & Franck, J. (2016). Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua, 179, 76–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, V. Y., White, L., & Guzzo, N. B. (2020). Intervention in relative clauses: Effects of relativized minimality on L2 representation and processing. Second Language Research. 38(2), 347–372.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material 1

Download Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 13 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material 2

Download Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 89.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material 3

Download Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material

Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material 4

Download Cilibrasi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.8 KB