Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T06:13:51.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Relation to Language Universals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2007

John A. Hawkins
John A. Hawkins
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The articles in this special issue present very interesting data on the acquisition of relative clauses (RCs) in Japanese, Korean, and Cantonese. The errors and developmental patterns are partially different from those that have been observed in European languages, and they appear to go against predictions made by the Keenan and Comrie (1977) noun phrase accessibility hierarchy (NPAH).

Information

Type
COMMENTARY
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 337 - 344
Copyright
© 2007 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
Bowerman, M. (1988). The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73–101). Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Comrie, B. (1998a). Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design, 1, 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1998b). Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In W. Boeder, C. Schroeder, K. H. Wagner, & W. Wildgen (Eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Band 2 (pp. 51–60). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 1–25.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. (1992). Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In J. A. Hawkins & M. Gell-Mann (Eds.), The evolution of human languages (pp. 3–18). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What it is, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1987). Implicational universals as predictors of language acquisition. Linguistics, 25, 453–473.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244–285.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoekstra, T. & Kooij, J. G. (1988). The innateness hypothesis. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 31–55). Oxford: Blackwell.
Jakobson, R. (1968). Child language, aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton. (Original work published 1941)
Jisa, H. & Kern, S. (1998). Relative clauses in French children's narrative texts. Journal of Child Language, 25, 623–652.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Lau, E. (2006). The acquisition of relative clauses by Cantonese children: An experimental approach. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hong Kong.
MacDonald, M. C. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 177–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2002). Relative clauses in early bilingual development: Transfer and universals. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maxwell, D. N. (1979). Strategies of relativization and NP accessibility. Language, 55, 352–371.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O'Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433–448.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1157–1256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.