Cover not available
Part of
Language Acquisition in Romance Languages
Edited by Vicenç Torrens
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 18] 2024
► pp. 146–167

Chapter 6
Relative clauses and intervention effects

Does the person feature matter?

| Rio de Janeiro State University
| Rio de Janeiro State University

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the presence of pronoun elements as intervening subjects in the elicitation of object relative clauses (ORCs) by children and adults (as a control group). It has been argued that the presence of a full DP intervening subject in ORCs brings difficulties for young children and that a significant improvement is obtained when the intervening subject lacks a lexical restriction. In this study, the elicitation of subject RCs, ORCs displaying a full DP, ORCs displaying third person pronouns, and ORCs displaying second person pronouns is contrasted. It is hypothesized that the person feature plays a role in helping to distinguish the moved object from the intervening subject and subsequently producing ORCs with first or second pronouns should be facilitated. Brazilian Portuguese (BP) speakers participated in the study: 14 younger 4-year-old children; 14 older 6-year-old children; and 21 adults. Results show better performance for ORCs displaying second person pronouns, suggesting that the person feature matters. Alternative and non-adequate responses are evaluated. So far, adults appear, despite the presence of a lexical restriction, to mostly benefit from the presence of an indexical pronoun as intervener, and children demonstrate a developmental trend in the same direction; it seems that processing capacities as an explanatory hypothesis are at stake.

Keywords: Relative clauses, intervention, person features, Brazilian Portuguese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Intervention effects in ORCs
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Materials and design
    • 3.4Procedure
  • 4.Results and discussion
  • 5.Mismatch of features and the role of the person feature
  • 6.Final remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Adani, F., van der Lely, H. K. J., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T.
(2010) Grammatical feature dissimilarities make RCs easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua, 120, 2148–2166.Google Scholar
Adani, F., Sehm, M., & Zukowski, A.
(2012) How do German children and adults deal with their relatives. In S. Stavrakaki, M. Lalioti., & P. Konstantinopoulou (Eds.), Advances in language acquisition (pp. 14–22). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Arosio, F., Guasti, M. T., & Stucchi, N. A.
(2010) Disambiguating information and memory resources in children’s processing of Italian relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 137–154.Google Scholar
Augusto, M., Rodrigues, E., & Grolla, E.
(2021) Strategies in the production of PP relative clauses in Brazilian Portuguese. In L. Avram, A. Sevcenco, & V. Tomescu (Eds.), L1 acquisition and L2 learning – The view from Romance (pp. 40–66). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bentea, A., Durrleman, S., & Rizzi, L.
(2016) Refining intervention: The acquisition of featural relations in object A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 169, 21–41.Google 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 M. LaMendola & J. Scott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Contemori, C.
(2010) Intervention and attraction: On the production of subject and object relatives by Italian (young) children and adults. In J. Costa, A. Castro, M. Lobo, & F. Pratas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development. Proceedings of Gala 2009. Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., Brunato, D., & Rizzi, L.
(2012) Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua, 122, 1053–1069.Google Scholar
Cabral, A. F. V., Leitão, M. M., & Kenedy, E.
(2015) A influência da animacidade no processamento das clausulas relativas em português brasileiro [The influence of animacy on relative clause processing in Bazilian Portuguese]. Letras de Hoje, 50, 102–111.Google Scholar
Corrêa, L. M. S.
(1995) An alternative assessment of children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(3), 183–203.Google Scholar
Costa, J., Grillo, N., & Lobo, M.
(2012) Minimality beyond lexical restrictions: Processing and acquisition of free WH-dependencies in European Portuguese. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 57(2), 143–160.Google Scholar
De Villiers, J., Tager-Flusberg, H., Hakuta, K., & Cohen, M.
(1979) Children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 499–518.Google 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
Gibson, E.
(1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K.
(2005) Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313–53.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S.
(1982) Competence and processing in children’s grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M.
(2001) Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411–1423.Google Scholar
(2004) Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97–114.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W.
(2002) Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425–430.Google Scholar
Grillo, N.
(2005) Minimality effects in agrammatic comprehension. In S. Blaho, E. Schoorlemmer, & L. Vicente (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XIII (pp. 106–120).Google Scholar
(2008) Generalized minimality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
Grolla, E., & Augusto, M.
(2016) Absolutive constructions in Brazilian Portuguese and relativized minimality effects in children’s productions. In L. Perkins, R. Dudley, J. Gerard, & K. Hitczenko (Eds.) Proceedings of GALANA VI (pp 36–47). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., & Cardinaletti, A.
(2003) Relative clause formation in Romance child production. Probus, 15, 47–48.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H., & Stephen, C.
(1982) Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj, (Ed.), Language development: Syntax and semantics (pp. 245–274). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B.
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.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.Google Scholar
Labelle, M.
(1990) Predication, Wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 1, 95–119.Google Scholar
Lobo, M., & Vaz, S.
(2017) Does animacy play a role in the production of relative clauses? A Matraga, 24(41), 266–287.Google Scholar
Mark, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefets, H.
(2002) The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Memory and Language, 47, 50–68.Google Scholar
Novogrodsky, R., & Friedmann, N.
(2006) The production of relative clauses in syntactic SLI: A window to the nature of the impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 364–375.Google Scholar
Rangel, M. M.
(2017) O traço de animacidade e as estratégias de relativização em português brasileiro infantil: Um estudo experimental [Animacy and relative strategies in child Brazilian Portuguese grammar: An experimental study] (Unpublished MA thesis). Universidade de São Paulo, USP.
Rizzi, L.
(1990) Relativized minimality. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sevcenco, A., & Avram, L.
(2012) Romanian-speaking children’s comprehension of relatives. In Revue Roumaine de Linguistique / Romanian Review of Linguistics, LVII(219–239.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 & Language, 47, 69–90.Google Scholar
Utzeri, I.
(2007) The production and the acquisition of subject and object relative clauses in Italian: A comparative experimental study. Nanzan Linguistics, 3(1), 283–313.Google Scholar
Wanner, E., & Maratsos, M.
(1978) An ATN approach to comprehension. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119–161). The MIT Press.Google Scholar