Discourse accessibility constraints in children's processing of object relative clauses

Abstract

Children's poor performance on object relative clauses has been explained in terms of intervention locality. This approach predicts that object relatives with a full DP head and an embedded pronominal subject are easier than object relatives in which both the head noun and the embedded subject are full DPs. This prediction is shared by other accounts formulated to explain processing mechanisms. We conducted a visual-world study designed to test the off-line comprehension and on-line processing of object relatives in German-speaking 5-year-olds. Children were tested on three types of object relatives, all having a full DP head noun and differing with respect to the type of nominal phrase that appeared in the embedded subject position: another full DP, a 1st- or a 3rd-person pronoun. Grammatical skills and memory capacity were also assessed in order to see whether and how they affect children's performance. Most accurately processed were object relatives with 1st-person pronoun, independently of children's language and memory skills. Performance on object relatives with two full DPs was overall more accurate than on object relatives with 3rd-person pronoun. In the former condition, children with stronger grammatical skills accurately processed the structure and their memory abilities determined how fast they were; in the latter condition, children only processed accurately the structure if they were strong both in their grammatical skills and in their memory capacity. The results are discussed in the light of accounts that predict different pronoun effects like the ones we find, which depend on the referential properties of the pronouns. We then discuss which role language and memory abilities might have in processing object relatives with various embedded nominal phrases.

Keywords: child language; discourse; intervention locality; pronouns; relative clauses; visual-world paradigm.

FIGURE 1

Example of a visual scene, a preamble and a test sentence.

FIGURE 2

Mean response accuracy (±1 SE) on the three conditions, in relation to children’s scores on the language tests (on the x-axis) and on the memory tests (blue = High Score; orange = Low Score).

FIGURE 3

Proportion of target looks (transformed to empirical logit and adjusted after the removal of individual differences) within the time window relevant for analysis, shown separately for each condition, divided by children’s score on the memory tests (blue line = High Score; orange line = Low Score) and broken by their score on the language tests (top row = High Score; bottom row = Low Score). On the x-axis Time ranges from the offset of the relative pronoun until the end of the 2-s long silence that followed the sentence. Two vertical dashed lines mark the critical chunks in the analysis window: (1) embedded subject DP (ich ‘I’; das Pferd ‘the horse’; es ‘it’); (2) embedded verb (jage/t ‘chase/s’); (3) post-sentential silence. The analysis of the eye-gaze data was performed on the entire time window shown in the plot (chunks 1–3).

FIGURE 4

Proportion of looks to the distractor figure (transformed to empirical logit and adjusted after the removal of individual differences) within the time window relevant for analysis, shown separately for each condition, divided by children’s score on the memory tests (blue line = High Score; orange line = Low Score) and broken by their score on the language tests (top row = High Score; bottom row = Low Score). On the x-axis Time ranges from the offset of the relative pronoun until the end of the 2-s long silence that followed the sentence. Two vertical dashed lines mark the critical chunks in the analysis window: (1) embedded subject DP (ich ‘I’; das Pferd ‘the horse’; es ‘it’); (2) embedded verb (jage/t ‘chase/s’); (3) post-sentential silence.