Object extraction is not subject to Child Relativized Minimality

Goodluck, Helen

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.005

Cited by 17 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding corroborates earlier results by Avrutin (2000) and Goodluck (2010). Avrutin and Goodluck discuss this finding in terms of the semantic property of D-linking (Pesetsky, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…While the effect of case is consistent with the earlier findings mentioned above, the absence of an effect for NP differs from findings reported in the literature, with the exception of Goodluck (2010). Since our study with 392 children is more powerful than previous studies report data from 22 children in their subexperiment 5), the effect found in previous studies should have also been detected in ours.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The difference in age, however, may be the cause of the difference in findings. Finally, a third possibility for the discrepancy between our result and Friedmann et al's (2009) may be that their result is a false positive, as Goodluck (2010) suggests. tested only 22 children and furthermore only report pairwise t-tests of the number of correct responses per subject in the statistical analysis of their data.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How do 5-year-olds understand questions? Differences in languages across Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The comprehension of constituent questions is an important topic for language acquisition research and for applications in the diagnosis of language impairment. This article presents the results of a study investigating the comprehension of different types of questions by 5-year-old, typically developing children across 19 European countries, 18 different languages, and 7 language (sub-)families. The study investigated the effects of two factors on question formation: (a) whether the question contains a simple interrogative word like 'who' or a complex one like 'which princess', and (b) whether the question word was related to the sentential subject or object position of the verb. The findings show that there is considerable variation among languages, but the two factors mentioned consistently affect children's performance. The cross-linguistic variation shows that three linguistic factors facilitate children's understanding of questions: having overt case morphology, having a single lexical item for both 'who' and 'which', and the use of synthetic verbal forms.

show abstract

“…This finding corroborates earlier results by Avrutin (2000) and Goodluck (2010). Avrutin and Goodluck discuss this finding in terms of the semantic property of D-linking (Pesetsky, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do 5-year-olds understand questions? Differences in languages across Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The general consensus amongst many scholars is that subject RCs are essentially easier to acquire than non-subject RCs, based on the following: (a) subject RCs have been reported to emerge at an earlier developmental stage in naturalistic child language than non-subject RCs (e.g., Brandt, Diessel & Tomasello, 2008, Diessel, 2004Dissel and Tomasello, 2000) (b) the majority of experimental evidence suggests that children perform best on subject RCs in comparison to other RC types (e.g., Adani, 2010;de Villiers et al, 1979;Diessel & Tomasello, 2005;Friedmann, Belletti, & Rizzi, 2009;Goodluck, 2010;Guasti, Stavrakaki, & Arosio, 2012;Kas & Lukács, 2012), although more recently some scholars have noted that this effect appears to be using that, who or which. Unlike English, but similarly to German, Finnish relative pronouns are inflected for case and number.…”

Section: Acquisition Of Relative Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kirjavainen, M., Kidd, E. and Lieven, E. (2017) Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited. UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the nursery staff and children in Kotka, Finland for their participation in the study and the corpus child and her family for the data collection they conducted. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their 2 helpful comments. The study was funded by a post doctoral research grant from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology to the first author. AbstractWe report three studies (one corpus, two experimental) that investigated the acquisition of relative clauses (RCs) in Finnish-speaking children. Study 1 found that Finnish children's naturalistic exposure to RCs predominantly consists of non-subject relatives (i.e., oblique, object) which typically have inanimate head nouns. Study 2 tested children's comprehension of subject, object and two types of oblique relatives.No difference was found in the children's performance on different structures, including a lack of previously widely reported asymmetry between subject and object relatives. However, children's comprehension was modulated by animacy of the head referent. Study 3 tested children's production of the same RC structures using sentence repetition. Again we found no subject-object asymmetry. The pattern of results suggested that distributional frequency patterns and the relative complexity of the relativizer contribute to the difficulty associated with particular RC structures.

show abstract

“…In contrast, the object-initial Which questions were comprehended at chance level while there were no severe comprehension difficulties for the object-initial Who condition. This result was replicated by Goodluck with 4-to 6-year-old children (Goodluck, 2005, as cited in Goodluck, 2010). This suggests that there is an interaction between the processing costs for object-initial Whconstructions (cf., Clifton & Frazier, 1989;Frazier & Flores D'Arcais, 1989;Fanselow, Kliegl, & Schlesewsky, 1999) and the processing cost associated with Which questions.…”

Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning

confidence: 66%

D-linking or set-restriction? ProcessingWhich-questions in Dutch

Donkers

Hoeks

Stowe

2013

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on Wh-questions suggests that Which questions are harder to process than Who questions (e.g., Who/Which athlete won the competition?). According to the Discourse (D)-linking Hypothesis, Which-questions differ from Whoquestions in that Which questions need a link to a preceding discourse, while Who questions do not. However, this difference in processing may also be caused by differences in ''set-restriction.'' Who is much less restrictive in the set of potential referents it presupposes than Which N (e.g., Which athlete). A selfpaced reading study investigated how Who and Which N questions were processed compared to questions involving the generic Which person, which refer to the same relatively unrestrictive referential set as Who. Our results showed that Which N questions were significantly more difficult than Which person or Who questions in object initial structures, supporting the hypothesis that increased processing cost for Which should be explained by a mechanism of set-restriction inherent to Which N questions. Additionally we found that the syntactic role of the possible referents in the discourse context affects question processing before the readers encountered disambiguating information.

show abstract

Object extraction is not subject to Child Relativized Minimality

Cited by 17 publications

References 10 publications

How do 5-year-olds understand questions? Differences in languages across Europe

How do 5-year-olds understand questions? Differences in languages across Europe

How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish

D-linking or set-restriction? ProcessingWhich-questions in Dutch

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About