Predication, WH-Movement, and the Development of Relative Clauses

Labelle, Marie

doi:10.1207/s15327817la0101_4

Cited by 108 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results confirmed the well-known and marked asymmetry between SRs and ORs production attested in previous studies on Italian (Guasti and Cardinaletti 2003;Utzeri 2006;Belletti and Contemori 2010;Volpato 2010;Contemori andGarraffa 2010, 2013;Contemori 2011;Guasti et al 2012) and cross-linguistically (English: Hamburger and Crain 1982;McKee et al 1998;French: Guasti and Cardinaletti 2003;Labelle 1990;Hebrew: Novogrodzsky and Friedmann, 2006;Friedmann et al 2008;Greek: Stavrakaki 2001 (5) 97 (7,5) 97 (6,7) SR = subject relatives, SVO = simple sentence, DP resump = relative clause with resumptive DP. We report within brackets the percentages of the standard deviation values.…”

Section: Results Of the Preference Tasksupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Observations from young children's samples of spontaneous language have shown that clefts emerge around the age of 2 (Demuth 1984;Labelle 1990;Santos 2006) and that subject clefts are produced earlier and more often than object clefts (Santos 2006). A subject-object asymmetry is reported in both comprehension and production in experimental research: Lempert and Kinsbourne (1980) found that subject clefts are accurately comprehended 96% of times by English-speaking children, while object clefts are comprehended at the rate of 71%.…”

Section: The Elicited Production and Comprehension Of Restrictive Relmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

9. The elicited oral production of Italian restrictive relative clauses and cleft sentences in typically developing children and children with developmental dyslexia

Pivi¹,

Puppo²,

Cardinaletti³

2016

Acquisition of Romance Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We elicited subject and object restrictive relative clauses and subject and object contrastive cleft sentences in Italian-speaking typically developing (TD) children and in a small group of children affected by developmental dyslexia (henceforth DD) or suspected dyslexia (suspDD), i.e. with evident school difficulties reported by their teachers, but without a diagnosis of DD. Our goal was twofold: first, we aimed at comparing TD children with children with DD or suspDD, in order to verify whether and to what extent dyslexia affects the oral production of complex syntactic structures and to find out whether one of the two tested structures is more impaired. Second, we aimed at testing Thompson et al.'s (2003) hierarchy of syntactic complexity, by comparing atypically developing children's behaviour with object relatives and object clefts.To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the elicited production of restrictive relatives and contrastive clefts in Italian-speaking children with DD. As has already been shown for Italian by Guasti (2013), Zachou et al. (2013) and Guasti et al. (2015), some children with DD present oral deficits similar to children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Therefore, we expect to find a divergent pattern of response in at least some of our children with DD.Results suggest that although dyslexic children exhibit the same general pattern of answers as their aged-matched children, some differences in the production of relative clauses may be observed. The same is not found for cleft sentences. According to Thompson et al.'s (2003) Complexity Account of syntactic Treatment Efficacy in aphasia (CATE), object relatives are the most difficult sentence structures to compute for aphasic patients, followed by object clefts and object wh-questions. Our data show that children with DD follow the same pattern of difficulty.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Preference Tasksupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: The Elicited Production and Comprehension Of Restrictive Relmentioning

confidence: 99%

9. The elicited oral production of Italian restrictive relative clauses and cleft sentences in typically developing children and children with developmental dyslexia

Pivi¹,

Puppo²,

Cardinaletti³

2016

Acquisition of Romance Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of resumptives has been noticed in previous work and has led to a debate over the structure of children's early relative clauses (cf. Labelle 1990, 1996, Pérez-Leroux 1995, Goodluck & Stojanović 1997, McKee et al 1998, McKee & McDaniel 2001. Labelle (1990) argues, based on data from French-speaking children, that the use of resumptives is incompatible with WH-movement.…”

Section: Childmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Labelle 1990, 1996, Pérez-Leroux 1995, Goodluck & Stojanović 1997, McKee et al 1998, McKee & McDaniel 2001. Labelle (1990) argues, based on data from French-speaking children, that the use of resumptives is incompatible with WH-movement. In her analysis, children's early relative clauses are linked to the previous clause by a complementizer and do not involve movement or gapping.…”

Section: Childmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Look at the Acquisition of Relative Clauses

Diessel¹,

Tomasello²

2005

lan

232

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reconsiders the acquisition of relative clauses based on data from two sentencerepetition tasks. Using materials modeled on the relative constructions of spontaneous child speech, we asked four-year-old English-and German-speaking children to repeat six different types of relative clauses. Although English and German relative clauses are structurally very different, the results were similar across studies: intransitive subject relatives caused fewer errors than transitive subject relatives and direct object relatives, which in turn caused fewer errors than indirect object relatives and oblique relatives; finally, genitive relatives caused by far the most problems. Challenging previous analyses in which the acquisition of relative clauses has been explained by the varying distance between filler and gap, we propose a multifactorial analysis in which the acquisition process is determined primarily by the similarity between the various types of relative clauses and their relationship to simple sentences.

show abstract

“…The sources of the data are two north-western Italian dialects, a conservative variety of Turinese 2 and a variety of Ligurian (Tur and Lig henceforth), early Romance texts (examples collected from from Wanner, 1995, and from the 'Opera del Vocabolario Italiano' (OVI) online database), and French acquisition data (taken from Labelle, 1988Labelle, , 1990Labelle, , 1993and from Roehrs and Labelle, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fine structure of the left periphery: COMPs and subjects

Paoli

2007

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predication, WH-Movement, and the Development of Relative Clauses

Cited by 108 publications

References 3 publications

9. The elicited oral production of Italian restrictive relative clauses and cleft sentences in typically developing children and children with developmental dyslexia

9. The elicited oral production of Italian restrictive relative clauses and cleft sentences in typically developing children and children with developmental dyslexia

A New Look at the Acquisition of Relative Clauses

The fine structure of the left periphery: COMPs and subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About