Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:33:52.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Four-year-old Cantonese-speaking children's online processing of relative clauses: a permutation analysis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2017

ANGEL CHAN ,
WENCHUN YANG ,
FRANKLIN CHANG  and
EVAN KIDD
ANGEL CHAN*
Affiliation:
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University – Peking University Research Centre on Chinese Linguistics
WENCHUN YANG
Affiliation:
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
FRANKLIN CHANG
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, United Kingdom, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, Australia, and ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
EVAN KIDD*
Affiliation:
The Australian National University, Australia, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, Australia, and ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
*
Addresses for correspondence: Angel Chan, Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HONG KONG. e-mail: [email protected]; Evan Kidd, Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Acton 2601, ACT, AUSTRALIA. e-mail: [email protected]
Addresses for correspondence: Angel Chan, Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HONG KONG. e-mail: [email protected]; Evan Kidd, Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Acton 2601, ACT, AUSTRALIA. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report on an eye-tracking study that investigated four-year-old Cantonese-speaking children's online processing of subject and object relative clauses (RCs). Children's eye-movements were recorded as they listened to RC structures identifying a unique referent (e.g. “Can you pick up the horse that pushed the pig?”). Two RC types, classifier (CL) and ge3 RCs, were tested in a between-participants design. The two RC types differ in their syntactic analyses and frequency of occurrence, providing an important point of comparison for theories of RC acquisition and processing. A permutation analysis showed that the two structures were processed differently: CL RCs showed a significant object-over-subject advantage, whereas ge3 RCs showed the opposite effect. This study shows that children can have different preferences even for two very similar RC structures within the same language, suggesting that syntactic processing preferences are shaped by the unique features of particular constructions both within and across different linguistic typologies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 174 - 203
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by 1-ZVB8 (PI: Chan), awarded by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and CE140100041 (CI: Kidd), awarded by the Australian Research Council. Angel Chan is a member of the The Hong Kong Polytechnic University – Peking University Research Centre on Chinese Linguistics and its support is gratefully acknowledged. Franklin Chang and Evan Kidd are members of the ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD), and the support of the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L008955/1] is gratefully acknowledged. Data and R code for our analyses can be found at <http://sites.google.com/site/sentenceproductionmodel/permutationanalysis>. We thank Elizabeth Wonnacott and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

References

REFERENCES

Abbot-Smith, K. & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: the German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30, 995–1026.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F. & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 42, 239–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aoun, J. & Li, A. Y.-H. (2003). Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68, 255–78.Google Scholar
Bates, D. & Maechler, M. (2010). Matrix: sparse and dense matrix classes and methods. Rpackage version 0.999375–39, online: <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Matrix>..>Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3, 19–58.Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2008). The acquisition of German relative clauses: a case study. Journal of Child Language 35, 325–48.Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: an investigation of young German- and English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics 20, 539–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretz, F., Hothorn, T. & Westfall, P. H. (2011). Multiple comparisons using R. [electronic book]. Boca Raton, FL; Chapman & Hall / CRC.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., de la Cruz-Pavía, I. & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: evidence from Basque. Cognition 115, 79–92.Google Scholar
Chan, A., Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses in Cantonese and Mandarin. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives 197–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chang, F. (2009). Learning to order words: a connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language 61, 374–97.Google Scholar
Chen, J. D. & Shirai, Y. (2015). The acquisition of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language 42, 394–422.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L. S. & Sybesma, R. (2009). De as an underspecified classifier: first explorations. Yuyánxué lùncóng 39, 123–56.Google Scholar
Cheung, C. C. H. & Li, H. Z. (2015). Inner and outer modifiers in Mandarin and Cantonese. Linguistic Sciences 14, 449–58.Google Scholar
Corrêa, L. M. S. (1995). An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 183–203.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. H. (2006). Adult and child production of Quechua relative clauses. First Language 26, 317–38.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. H. (2011). Learning to produce Quechua relative clauses. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives 141–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dautriche, I., Swingley, D. & Christophe, A. (2015). Learning novel phonological neighbors: syntactic category matters. Cognition 143, 77–86.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 108–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11, 131–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2005). Order of subject, object, and verb. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds), The world atlas of language structures, pp. 330–3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E. & Knutsson, H. (2016). Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 7900–5.Google Scholar
Fitz, H., Chang, F. & Christiansen, M. H. (2011). A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives, pp. 39–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P., Leung, S. C.-S., Stokes, S. F. & Weizman, Z. O. (2000). Cantonese pre-school language development: a guide. Hong Kong: Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 519–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119, 67–88.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P. & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 161–87.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: a critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology 48, 1711–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. J. (2011). Children's comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: the case of Basque. Language Acquisition 18, 176–201.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1981). Grammatical description versus configurational arrangement in language acquisition: the case of relative clauses in Japanese. Cognition 9, 197–236.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2006). Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30, 643–72.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development 2 245–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenstein, S. (2013). The remef function for R. Online: <https://github.com/hohenstein/remef>>Google Scholar
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
Hutton, I. & Kidd, E. (2011). Structural priming in comprehension of relative clause sentences: in search of a frequency x regularity interaction. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives, 227–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 434–46.Google Scholar
Jäger, L., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Lin, C. J. C. & Vasishth, S. (2015). The subject-relative advantage in Chinese: evidence for expectation-based processing. Journal of Memory and Language 79, 97–120.Google Scholar
Jeon, K. S. & Kim, H. Y. (2007). Development of relativization in Korean as a foreign language: the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in head-internal and head-external relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 253–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kelly, B. F., Kidd, E. & Wigglesworth, G. (2015). Indigenous children's language: acquisition, preservation and evolution of language in minority contexts. First Language 4/5, 279–285.Google Scholar
Kidd, E. (Ed.) (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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, 860–97.Google 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, 438–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Stewart, A. & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: the role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language 38, 222–34.Google Scholar
Kim, C. E. & O'Grady, W. (2016). Asymmetries in children's production of relative clauses: data from English and Korean. Journal of Child Language 43(5), 1038–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirjavainen, M., Kidd, E. & Lieven, E. (2017). How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish. Journal of Child Language 44, 120–57.Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M. & Lieven, E. (2011). Acquisition of relative clauses in Finnish. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives, 107–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lau, E. (2016). The role of resumptive pronouns in Cantonese relative clause acquisition. First Language 36, 355–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. H. T., Wong, C. H., Leung, C. S., Man, P., Cheung, A., Szeto, K. & Wong, C. S. P. (eds) (1994). The development of grammatical competence in Cantonese-speaking children: report of Hong Kong RGC AQ9 Ear-marked grant, 1991–1994. Unpublished manuscript, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106, 1126–77.Google Scholar
Liu, Z. J. (2015). The development of noun-modifying constructions in child Mandarin. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 226.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. & Christiansen, M. (2002). Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1999). Psychological Review 109, 35–54.Google Scholar
Maris, E. (2012). Statistical testing in electrophysiological studies. Psychophysiology 49, 549–65.Google Scholar
Maris, E. & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 164, 177–90.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2001). The structure and stratification of relative clauses in contemporary Cantonese. In Chappell, M. (ed.), Sinitic grammar: synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 266–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: processing and acquisition. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives, 13–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozeki, H. (2011). The acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: functional and typological perspectives, 173–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y. (2007). Does the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 169–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online: <http://www.R-project.org>..>Google Scholar
Rahmany, R., Marefat, H. & Kidd, E. (2014). Resumptive elements aid comprehension of object relative clauses: evidence from Persian. Journal of Child Language 41, 937–48.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. (2002). On the status of ‘modifying’ DE and the structure of the Chinese DP. In Tang, S.-W. & Liu, C.-S. L. (eds), On the formal way to Chinese languages. pp. 74–101. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Snedeker, J. & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: the role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology 49, 238–99.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T. (2011). A case-marking cue for filler–gap dependencies in children's relative clauses in Japanese. Journal of Child Language 38, 1084–95.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K. & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 69–90.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. & Logrip, M. N. (1999). The kindergarten path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89–134.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Chen, Z., Li, Q. & Guo, G. (2013). Processing Chinese relative clauses: evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PloS One 8, e77006.Google Scholar
Von Holzen, K. & Mani, N. (2012). Language nonselective lexical access in bilingual toddlers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 113, 569–86.Google Scholar
Weckerly, J. & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36, 559–70.Google Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J. & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58, 250–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xue, N., Xia, F., Chiou, F. D. & Palmer, M. (2005). The Penn Chinese TreeBank: phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Natural Language Engineering 11, 207–38.Google Scholar
Yamashita, H. & Chang, F. (2001). ‘Long before short’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81, B45–55.Google Scholar
Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (2007). Relative clauses in Cantonese–English bilingual children: typological challenges and processing motivations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 277–300.Google Scholar
Yun, J., Chen, Z., Hunter, T., Whitman, J. & Hale, J. (2015). Uncertainty in processing relative clauses across East Asian languages. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24, 113–48.Google Scholar