Chapter 2
Strategies in the production of PP relative clauses in Brazilian Portuguese
This study focuses on the production of Prepositional Phrase Relative Clauses (PP RCs) by Brazilian 4-/5-year-olds, aiming at discussing the types of responses children produce, compared to adults, considering competing alternatives pragmatically available in the language. Difficulty with non-subject RCs has been attributed to the presence of interveners between the RC head and the position of the moved element (Friedmann, Belletti, & Rizzi, 2009). Our experiment contrasted the elicitation of PP RCs in two conditions: with and without interveners. Although results show that children provide more target responses to the condition without interveners, alternative responses are also produced in this condition, suggesting that not only intervention, but also the availability of less complex alternatives in the language shape children’s behavior.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Alternative structures in the production of RCs
- 3.Experimental task: Presence vs. absence of a DP subject in PP RCs
- 3.1Method
- 3.1.1Participants
- 3.1.2Materials and design
- 3.1.3Procedure
- 4.Results and discussion
- 5.Analysis of the strategies employed
- 6.Final remarks
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
-
Appendix
References (55)
References
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.
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.
Augusto, M. R., Rodrigues, E. dos S., & Costa, I. (2020). “Topic Subject” structure and agreement with weather verbs within relative clauses: Experimental evidence from adult and children Brazilian Portuguese speakers. In A. Cardinaletti, C. Branchini, G. Giusti, & F. Volpato (Eds.), Language acquisition, processing and bilingualism: Selected papers from the Romance Paper VII (pp. 241–262). Cambridge Scholars.
Avelar, J. & Galves, C. (2011). Tópico e concordância em PB e PE [Topic and Agreement in Brazilian Portuguese and in European Portuguese]. In J. Costa, P. Barbosa, & I. Falé (Eds.), XXVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Textos selecionados (pp. 49–65). APL.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
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 (pp. 39–52). Cambridge Scholars.
Belletti, A., & Contemori, C. (2012). Subjects in children’s object relatives in Italian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVII(2), 117–142.
Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., Brunato, D., & Rizzi, L. (2012). Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children’s comprehension of RCs in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua, 122, 1053–1069.
Bențea, A. (2012). Subject vs. object relatives: What can Romanian children tell us about their acquisition? Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVII(2), 203–218.
Bențea, A., Durrleman, S., & Rizzi, L. (2016). Refining intervention: The acquisition of featural relations in object A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 169, 21–41.
Cabral, A. F. V., Leitão, M. M., & Kenedy, E. (2015). A influência da animacidade no processamento das cláusulas relativas em português brasileiro [The influence of animacy on relative clause processing in Brazilian Portuguese]. Letras de Hoje, 50, 102–111.
Corrêa, L. M. S. (1995). An alternative assessment of children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(3), 183–203.
Costa, I., Augusto, M. R. A., & Rodrigues, E. dos S. (2014). Verbos meteorológicos flexionados no plural e a hipótese da inacusatividade biargumental: explorando a sintaxe do Português Brasileiro [Weather verbs in the plural and the unnacusativity hypothesis: Aspects of Brazilian Portuguese syntax]. Veredas (UFJF. Online), 18, 257–280.
Costa, J., Friedmann, N., Silva, C., & Yachini, M. (2014). The boy that the chef cooked. Acquisition of PP relatives in European Portuguese and Hebrew. Lingua, 150, 386–409.
Costa, J., Friedmann, N., Silva, C., & Yachini, M. (2015). The acquisition of PP relatives in Hebrew and European Portuguese: Another window into the atoms of intervention. In C. Hamann & E. Ruigendijk (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2013 (pp. 35–48). Cambridge Scholars.
De Villiers, J., Tager-Flusberg, H., Hakuta, K., & Cohen, M. (1979). Children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 499–518.
De Villiers, P. (1988). Assessing English syntax in hearing-impaired children: Elicited production in pragmatically motivated situations. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology: Monograph Supplement 21, 41–71.
Fadlon, J., Morgan, A. M., Meltzer-Asscher, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2019). It depends: Optionality in the production of filler-gap dependencies. Journal of Memory and Language, 106, 40–76.
Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 724–755.
Ferreiro, E., Othenin-Girard, C., Chipman, H., & Sinclair, H. (1976). How do children handle relative clauses? Archives de Psychologie, 45, 229–266.
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives. Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-Bar dependencies. Lingua, 119(1), 67–88.
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313–353.
Goodluck, H. & Tavakolian, S. (1982). Competence and processing in children’s grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 11(1), 1–27.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411–1423.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 97–114.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13(5), 425–430.
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 – Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (pp. 36–47). Cascadilla Press.
Grolla, E., Rodrigues, E., & Augusto, M. (in preparation). Differential demands in production and comprehension of relative clauses by children.
Guasti, M. T., & Cardinaletti, A. (2003). Relative clause formation in Romance child production. Probus, 15(1), 47–88.
Hamburger, H. & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Syntax and semantics (pp. 245–274). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holmberg, A. (2010). Null subject parameters. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp. 88–124). Cambridge University Press.
Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell.
Hwang, H., & Kaiser, E. (2014). Having a syntactic choice is not always better: the effects of syntactic flexibility on Korean production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(9), 1115–1131.
Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.
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 RCs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860–897.
Labelle, M. (1988). Predication et mouvement: Le developpement de la relative chez les enfants Francophones (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa.
Labelle, M. (1990). Predication, wh-movement and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 1(1), 95–119.
Lobo, M., & Vaz, S. (2017). Does the animacy of the antecedent play a role in the production of relative clauses? Matraga, 24(41), 266–287.
Mak, W., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50–68.
Myachykov, A., Scheepers, C., Garrod, S., Thompson, D., & Fedorova, O. (2013). Syntactic flexibility and competition in sentence production: The case of English and Russian. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8), 1601–1619.
Pérez-Leroux, A. T. (1995). Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 4, 105–138.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Rangel, M. (2017). O traço de animacidade e as estratégias de relativização em português brasileiro infantil: Um estudo experimental [The animacy feature and the relativization strategies in child Brazilian Portuguese: An experimental study] (Unpublished master thesis). Universidade de São Paulo.
Rispoli, M., & Hadley, P. (2001). The leading edge: The significance of sentence disruptions in the development of grammar. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1131–1143.
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. The MIT Press.
Rouveret, A. (2011). Introduction. In A. Rouveret (Ed.), Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces (pp. 1–62). John Benjamins.
Schad, D., Hohenstein, S., Vasishth, S., & Kliegl, R. (2019). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) modes: A tutorial. arXiv:1807.10451v4 [stat.ME] 17 Jul 2019. Retrieved from: [URL]
Sevcenco, A., & Avram, L. (2012). Romanian-speaking children’s comprehension of relatives. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVII(2), 219–239.
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(1), 69–90.
Utzeri, I. (2007). The production and the acquisition of subject and object relative clauses in Italian: A comparative experimental study. Nanzan Linguistics (Special Issue 3). Papers from the Consortium Workshops on Linguistic Theory. 2006–2007, 1, 283–313.
Vasilyeva, M., & Waterfall, H. (2012). Beyond syntactic priming: Evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language, 39(2), 258–283.
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.
Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Lira, Thainá Amador & Marina Augusto
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.