The Structure and Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian

Goodluck, Helen; Stojanović, Dragan

doi:10.1207/s15327817la0504_2

Cited by 38 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also in accord with extensive cross-linguistic evidence for preference of complementizers over pronouns in acquisition (e.g. Labelle, 1990 for French;Diessel & Tomasello, 2000 for English;Goodluck & Stojanovic, 1997 for Serbocroatian). We may suppose that the advantage of pronouns in making explicit the syntactic role of the relativized element does not override the psychological convenience of complementizers in being uninflected but also, crucially for our argument here, in allowing for more types of clause relationships besides the syntactically-constrained ones.…”

Section: Syntactically Underspecified Relative Constructions In Earlysupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The operation of such a rule has been disputed, at least for preschoolers, even by researchers who opt for a formalist description of RCs (e.g. Labelle, 1990;Goodluck & Stojanovic, 1997). We have instead suggested, in accordance with other recent research, that such differentiation is the result of various factors, which though potentially universal may be less or more salient and also interact differently across languages.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Indeterminacy in grammar and acquisition: An interdisciplinary approach to relative clauses

Katis¹,

Nikiforidou²

2010

Review of Cognitive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The formalist definition of relative clauses as a clearly distinct construction with two syntactically linked clauses has been recently questioned by cross-linguistic evidence. It is here further undermined by a discussion of constructions in Modern Greek, which although deviating from the structural definition conform nonetheless to a semantic-pragmatic one. Above all, acquisition data is presented as independent support for a unified approach to relatives, which can be based on conceptual integration. Syntactically underspecified relatives are shown to appear as early as syntactically-driven ones, with those based on more transparent semantic linking of clauses preceding those based on pragmatic linking. This suggests early handling of the metonymic nature of grammar but also a growing cognitive ability for more indeterminate grammatical relationships.

show abstract

Section: Syntactically Underspecified Relative Constructions In Earlysupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Indeterminacy in grammar and acquisition: An interdisciplinary approach to relative clauses

Katis¹,

Nikiforidou²

2010

Review of Cognitive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in the English SRep task, wh-questions and object relative clauses were included because these have been identified as challenging for PLI children across languages (Adani, van der Lely, Forgiarini, & Guasti, 2010;Friedmann & Novogrodsky, 2004;Friedmann & Novogrodsky, 2011;Frizelle & Fletcher, 2014). Although previous research has shown that L1 Irish speaking children acquire both subject and object relative clauses by the age of 5, in several languages such as Irish, French and Serbian, children tend to use a nonstandard binding mechanism to form subject relative clauses (Goodluck, Guilfoyle, & Harrington, 2006;Goodluck & Stojanović, 1996;Labelle, 1996). Irish only permits subject relative clauses formed by movement (McChloskey, 1990), and, although L1 Irish children use movement mechanism to construct relative clauses, they also lack adult proficiency in using morphosyntactic details (Goodluck et al, 2006).…”

Section: Construction Of Irish Srep Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language performance of sequential bilinguals on an Irish and English sentence repetition task

Antonijević

Durham

Chonghaile

2017

LAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently there are no standardized language assessments for English-Irish bilingual school age children that would test languages in a comparable way. There are also no standardized language assessments of Irish for this age group. The current study aimed to design comparable language assessments in both languages targeting structures known to be challenging for children with language impairments. A sentence repetition (SRep) task equivalent to the English SRep task (Marinis, Chiat, Armon-Lotem, Piper, & Roy, 2011) was designed for Irish. Twenty-four typically developing, sequential bilingual children immersed in Irish in the educational setting performed better on the English SRep task than on the Irish SRep task. Different patterns were observed in language performance across sentence types with performance on relative clauses being particularly poor in Irish. Similarly, differences were observed in error patterns with the highest number of errors of omission in Irish, and the highest number of substitution errors in English.

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%

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 Structure and Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian

Cited by 38 publications

References 8 publications

Indeterminacy in grammar and acquisition: An interdisciplinary approach to relative clauses

Indeterminacy in grammar and acquisition: An interdisciplinary approach to relative clauses

Language performance of sequential bilinguals on an Irish and English sentence repetition task

A New Look at the Acquisition of Relative Clauses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About