Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-9hf5z Total loading time: 0.437 Render date: 2023-02-06T02:09:21.276Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

The nature and frequency of relative clauses in the language children hear and the language children read: A developmental cross-corpus analysis of English complex grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2022

Yaling HSIAO*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, UK
Nicola J. DAWSON
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, UK
Nilanjana BANERJI
Affiliation:
Oxford University Press, UK
Kate NATION
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, UK
*
Corresponding author: Yaling Hsiao, Department of Experimental Psychology, Anna Watts Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG. E-mail: yaling.hsiao@psy.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

As written language contains more complex syntax than spoken language, exposure to written language provides opportunities for children to experience language input different from everyday speech. We investigated the distribution and nature of relative clauses in three large developmental corpora: one of child-directed speech (targeted at pre-schoolers) and two of text written for children – namely, picture books targeted at pre-schoolers for shared reading and children’s own reading books. Relative clauses were more common in both types of book language. Within text, relative clause usage increased with intended age, and was more frequent in nonfiction than fiction. The types of relative clause structures in text co-occurred with specific lexical properties, such as noun animacy and pronoun use. Book language provides unique access to grammar not easily encountered in speech. This has implications for the distributional lexical-syntactic features and associated discourse functions that children experience and, from this, consequences for language development.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adani, F. (2011). Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 141165. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000909990250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arosio, F., Guasti, M., & Stucchi, N. (2011). Disambiguating Information and Memory Resources in Children’s Processing of Italian Relative Clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40(2), 137154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9160-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betancort, M., Carreiras, M., & Sturt, P. (2009). The processing of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 62, 19151929. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902866672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use (Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511804489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, J. R., MacWhinney, B., & Harasaki, Y. (2000). Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex sentences. Child Development, Vol. 71, pp. 9811003. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, W., Lindell, A., & Kidd, E. (2013). Investigating the role of verbal working memory in young children’s sentence comprehension. Language Learning, 63, 211. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, v.20, 539-570 (2009), 20. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., & Noble, C. (2013). A comparison of book text and Child Directed Speech. First Language, 33(3), 268279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723713487613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 269320). New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dabCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28, 604615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, N., Hsiao, Y., Banerji, N., Tan, A. W. M., & Nation, K. A. (2021). Features of lexical richness in children’s books: Comparisons with child-directed speech. Language Development Research. https://doi.org/10.34842/5we1-yk94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The Acquisition of Complex Sentences (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511486531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The Development of Relative Clauses in Spontaneous Child Speech. Cognitive Linguistics, 11. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, D. D. (2002). The Passive Voice and Social Values in Science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 32(2), 137154. https://doi.org/10.2190/EFMR-BJF3-CE41-84KKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., Brenchley, M., & McCallum, L. (2021). Understanding Development and Proficiency in Writing: Quantitative Corpus Linguistic Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1990). A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation. Language, 66. https://doi.org/10.2307/414888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 161187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gennari, S. P., Mirković, J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 141176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(6), 1411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1411Google ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 97114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentenial Complexity. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hakes, D. T., Evans, J. S., & Brannon, L. L. (1976). Understanding sentences with relative clauses . 4(3), 283290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, V., & O’Regan, J. (1981). Eye fixation patterns during the reading of relative-clause sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 417430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90533-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Y., & MacDonald, M. (2016). Production predicts comprehension: Animacy effects in Mandarin relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Y., & MacDonald, M. C. (2013). Experience and generalization in a connectionist model of Mandarin Chinese relative clause processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, G. F., Mirković, J., & Gennari, S. P. (2016). Similarity-based competition in relative clause production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 89(C), 200221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. (2004). Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics, 8, 4769. 10.1017/S1360674304001248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 343365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2000). Speech and Language Processing. United Kingdom: Pearson Prentice Hall.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 children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860897. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601155284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, C. (2016). Processing Direct Object and Oblique Relative Clauses. Language Research, 52.2, 151170.Google Scholar
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580602. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-HCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirjavainen, Mi., Kidd, E., & Lieven, E. (2017). How do language-specific characteristics affect the acquisition of different relative clause types? Evidence from Finnish. Journal Of Child Language, 44(1), pp. 120157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitaev, N., & Klein, D. (2018). Constituency Parsing with a Self-Attentive Encoder. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kuhn, K. E., Rausch, C. M., Mccarty, T. G., Montgomery, S. E., & Rule, A. C. (2017). Utilizing Nonfiction Texts to Enhance Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary in Primary Grades. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2), 285296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0763-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, J. F. (2009). Summer Reading: Predicting Adolescent Word Learning from Aptitude, Time Spent Reading, and Text Type. Reading Psychology, 30(5), 445465. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802412008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R., & Andrew, G. (2006). Tregex and Tsurgeon: tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006).Google Scholar
Lobo, M., & Vaz, S. (2017). Does the animacy of the antecedent play a role in the production of relative clauses? Matraga, 24(41), 266287. https://doi.org/10.12957/matraga.2017.28710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. A. R., Justice, L. M., Yumus, M., & Chaparro-Moreno, L. J. (2019). When children are not read to at home: The million word gap. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(5), 383386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N., & Seidenberg, M. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, Vol. 101, pp. 676703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macdonald, R., Brandt, S., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. & Serratrice, L. (2020). The role of animacy in children’s interpretation of relative clauses in English : Evidence from sentence–picture matching and eye movements. Cognitive Science. 44, 135. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk . Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 5068. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massaro, D. W. (2015). Two different communication genres and implications for vocabulary development and learning to read. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(4), 505527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15627528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montag, J. L. (2019). Differences in sentence complexity in the text of children’s picture books and child-directed speech. First Language, 39(5), 527546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719849996CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, J. L., Jones, M. N., & Smith, L. B. (2015). The Words Children Hear: Picture Books and the Statistics for Language Learning. Psychological Science, 26(9), 14891496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, J. L., & MacDonald, M. C. (2015). Text exposure predicts spoken production of complex sentences in 8- and 12-year-old children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 144(2), 447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, J. W., & Evans, J. L. (2009). Complex sentence comprehension and working memory in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 52(2), 269288. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0116)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 57, pp. 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 348379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rundblad, G. (2007). Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication, 24, 250277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307302946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2018). The impact of language experience on language and reading: A statistical learning approach. Topics In Language Disorders, 38(1), 6683. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 113132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M., Mason, R., Blozis, S., & Morris, R. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M., Morris, R., & Seely, R. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 6990. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, F., Kaiser, E., & Andersen, E. (2012). Animacy effects in Chinese relative clause processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(10), 14891524. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.614423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hsiao et al. supplementary material

Hsiao et al. supplementary material 1

Download Hsiao et al. supplementary material(File)
File 35 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hsiao et al. supplementary material

Hsiao et al. supplementary material 2

Download Hsiao et al. supplementary material(File)
File 5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hsiao et al. supplementary material

Hsiao et al. supplementary material 3

Download Hsiao et al. supplementary material(File)
File 139 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hsiao et al. supplementary material

Hsiao et al. supplementary material 4

Download Hsiao et al. supplementary material(File)
File 350 KB
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The nature and frequency of relative clauses in the language children hear and the language children read: A developmental cross-corpus analysis of English complex grammar
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The nature and frequency of relative clauses in the language children hear and the language children read: A developmental cross-corpus analysis of English complex grammar
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The nature and frequency of relative clauses in the language children hear and the language children read: A developmental cross-corpus analysis of English complex grammar
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *