Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:39:39.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic complexity in the comprehension of wh-questions and relative clauses in typical language development and autism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2016

STEPHANIE DURRLEMAN ,
THEODOROS MARINIS  and
JULIE FRANCK
STEPHANIE DURRLEMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
THEODOROS MARINIS
Affiliation:
University of Reading
JULIE FRANCK
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Stephanie Durrleman, Department of Linguistics, University of Geneva, 40 Boulevard du Pont d’Arve, Geneva 1211, Switzerland. E-mail: Stephanie.Durrleman@unige.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates effects of syntactic complexity operationalized in terms of movement, intervention, and noun phrase (NP) feature similarity in the development of Aʹ-dependencies in 4-, 6-, and 8-year-old typically developing (TD) French children and children with autism spectrum disorder. Children completed an offline comprehension task testing eight syntactic structures classified in four levels of complexity: Level 0: no movement; Level 1: movement without (configurational) intervention; Level 2: movement with intervention from an element that is maximally different or featurally “disjoint” (mismatched in both lexical NP restriction and number); and Level 3: movement with intervention from an element similar in one feature or featurally “intersecting” (matched in lexical NP restriction, mismatched in number). The results show that syntactic complexity affects TD children across the three age groups, but also indicate developmental differences between these groups. Movement affected all three groups in a similar way, but intervention effects in intersection cases were stronger in younger than in older children, with NP feature similarity affecting only 4-year-olds. Complexity effects created by the similarity in lexical restriction of an intervener thus appear to be overcome early in development, arguably thanks to other differences of this intervener (which was mismatched in number). Children with autism spectrum disorder performed less well than the TD children although they were matched on nonverbal reasoning. Overall, syntactic complexity affected their performance in a similar way as in their TD controls, but their performance correlated with nonverbal abilities rather than age, suggesting that their grammatical development does not follow the smooth relation to age that is found in TD children.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 1501 - 1527
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

REFERENCES

Adani, F. (2011). Rethinking the acquisition of RCs in Italian: Towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language, 38, 141−165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association, American Psychiatric. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Arosio, F., Guasti, M.-T., & Stucchi, N. (2010). Disambiguating information and memory resources in children's processing of Italian relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arosio, F., Yatushiro, K., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2012). Morphological information and memory resources in children's processing of relative clauses in German. Language Learning and Development, 8, 340–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baunaz, L. (2011). The grammar of French quantification. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., Brunato, D., & Rizzi, L. (2012). Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children's comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua, 122, 1053–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentea, A., Durrleman, S., & Rizzi, L. (2016). Refining intervention: The acquisition of featural relations in object A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 169, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. (1997). Early acquisition of syntax and discourse in Hebrew. In Shimron, Y. (Ed.), Psycholinguistic studies in Israel: Language acquisition, reading and writing [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. (2006). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua, 116, 2023–2067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S., & Rooryck, J. (2000). Licensing WH-in-situ. Syntax, 3, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Contemori, C., & Belletti, A. (2013). Relatives and passive object relatives in Italian speaking children and adults: Intervention in production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1021–1053.Google Scholar
Contemori, C., & Marinis, T. (2013). The impact of number mismatch and passives on the real-time processing of relative clauses. Journal of Child Language, 17, 1–32.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1975). Strategies in the comprehension of relative clauses. Language and Speech, 18, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, J., Lobo, M., & Silva, C. (2011). Subject–object asymmetries in the acquisition of Portuguese relative clauses: Adults vs. children. Lingua, 121, 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delage, H., Monjauze, C., Hamann, C., & Tuller, L. (2008). Relative clauses in atypical acquisition of French. In Gavarró, A. & Freitas, M. J. (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 166–176). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Colonna, S., & Rizzi, L. (2015). Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 349 Google ScholarPubMed
Frauenfelder, U., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1980). Monitoring around the relative clause. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A'-dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2004). The acquisition of RC comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language, 31, 661–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, N., Yachini, M., & Szterman, R. (2015). Relatively easy relatives: Children with syntactic SLI avoid intervention. In Hamann, C., Di Domenico, E., & Matteini, S. (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guasti, M.-T., & Cardinaletti, A. (2003). Relative clause formation in Romance child's production. Probus, 15, 47–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T., & Shlonsky, U. (1995). The acquisition of French relative clauses reconsidered. Language Acquisition, 4, 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakes, B., Evans, J., & Brannon, L. (1976). Understanding sentences with relative clauses. Memory and Cognition, 4, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, C. (2006). Speculations about early syntax: The production of wh-questions by normally developing French children and French children with SLI. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 5, 143–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, L., Tuller, L., Monjauze, C., & Delage, H. (2007). (Un)successful subordination in French-speaking children and adolescents with SLI. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S., & Woo, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 286–297). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. (1996). The syntax of Wh-questions in child French. Amsterdam Series in Child Language Development, 5, 129–172.Google Scholar
Hulk, A., & Zuckerman, S. (2000). The interaction between input and economy: Acquiring optionality in French Wh-questions. In Howell, S. C., Fish, S. A., & Keith-Lucas, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 438–449). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (2004). Question formation in French SLI: Is movement costly? Paper presented at Groningen Workshop on the L1 Acquisition of Tense, Aspect, and Questions, June 11, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (2005). The language faculty: (Ab)normal development and interface constraints. Paper presented at GALA 2005.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (2011). Measuring derivational complexity: New evidence from typically developing and SLI learners of L1-French. Lingua, 121, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, V. E., de Villiers, J., & Seymour, H. (2005). Agreement without understanding? The case of third person singular –s. First Language, 25, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. (1990). Predication, Wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 1, 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. (1996). The acquisition of relative clauses: Movement or no movement? Language Acquisition, 5, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C., & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In Cohen, D. J. & Volkmar, P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (pp. 195–225). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mathieu, E. (1999). WH in situ and the intervention effect. In Iten, C. & Neeleman, A. (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 441–472). London: University College.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Bernstein, J. B. (1998). How children's relatives solve a problem for minimalism. Language, 74, 308–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K., & Schmitt, C. (2009). Variable vs. consistent input: Comprehension of plural morphology and verbal agreement in children. In Brucart, J. M., Gavarro, A., & Sola, J (Eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perez-Leroux, A. T. (2005). Number problems in children. In Gurski, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Perovic, A., Modyanova, N., Hanson, E., Nelson, C., & Wexler, K. (2007). Investigations of language in autism: Evidence for a grammatical deficiency. Poster presented at Autism Research, Open University.Google Scholar
Perovic, A., Modyanova, N., & Wexler, K. (2013). Comprehension of reflexive and personal pronouns in children with autism: A syntactic or pragmatic deficit? Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 813–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, B. (1999). Targeting complex structure in French questions. In Greenhill, A., Littlefield, H., & Tano, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 764–775). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Raven, J. C., Court, J., & Raven, J. (1986). Raven’s Coloured Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riches, N. G., Loucas, T., Baird, G., Charman, T., & Simonoff, E. (2010). Sentence repetition in adolescents with specific language impairments and autism: An investigation of complex syntax. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and the left periphery. In Belletti, A. (Ed.), Structure and beyond (pp. 223–251). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2013). Locality. Lingua, 130, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, P. F. (1984). Accelerating language learning in young children. Journal of Child Language, 11, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (2012). Notes on wh in situ in French. In Bruge, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., & Poletto, C. (Eds.), Functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 7, pp. 242–252). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. (2001). Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Strik, N. (2008). Syntaxe et acquisition des phrases interrogatives en français et en néerlandais: une étude contrastive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H. (2004). Strategies for conducting research on language in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tager-Flusberg, H., Calkins, S., Nolin, T., Baumberger, T., Anderson, M., & Chadwick-Dias, A. (1990). A longitudinal study of language acquisition in autistic and Down syndrome children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terzi, A., Marinis, T., Kotsopoulou, A., & Francis, K., (2014). Grammatical abilities of Greek-speaking children with autism. Language Acquisition, 21, 4–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuller, L., Henry, C., Sizaret, E., & Barthez, M.-A. (2012). SLI at adolescence: Avoiding complexity. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 161–184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kampen, J. (1997). First steps in wh-movement. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
Villata, S., Rizzi, L., & Franck, J. (in press). Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua.Google Scholar
Zebib, R., Tuller, L., Prévost, P., & Morin, E. (2013). Formal language impairment in French-speaking children with ASD: A comparative ASD/SLI study. Advances in Language Acquisition series. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publisher.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, S. (2001). The acquisition of “optional” movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar