Russian Children and Their Relatives: What Can a Free Word Order Language Reveal About the Subject/Object Asymmetry?

Table 1. Declension paradigm of the relative pronoun kotor- in three genders.

Table 2. Frequency of relative clauses in Russian by 1) syntax; 2) word order for relative clauses with embedded NPs as full NPs (pronominal NPs excluded).

Table 3. Percentage counts of children’s correct responses on the three relative clause types across the experimental studies that test word order alternations in ORCs.

Table 4. Summary of predictions with regard to different factors affecting word order processing in relative clauses.

Table 5. Overview of experimental conditions for the study of relative clauses in Russian children.

Figure 1. Visual display frame for the study of relative clauses in Russian children.

Figure 2. Sample visual display frame for filler items.

Figure 3. Children’s accuracy data aggregated by error type and summarized by condition. Error bars indicate standard error.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for different response types (Target; Reversal; Embedded NP; Other) by condition (O_NPV; O_VNP; S_NPV; S_VNP).

Table 7. Summary of LME output (fixed effects) for response accuracy on relative clauses in Russian children with age groups collapsed.

Figure 4. Response accuracy per age group and condition. Error bars indicate standard error.

Table 8. Response accuracy per age group (4-, 5-, 6- year-olds) and condition (O_NPV; O_VNP; S_NPV; S_VNP).

Table 9. Pairwise proportion comparisons for the three error types across the data sample.

Table 10. Summary of LME output (fixed effects) for embedded NP error counts in Russian children with age groups collapsed.

Table

Table

Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, T. (2013). The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 461–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.005

Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Price, I., & Witzel, J. (2017). Sources of relative clause processing difficulty: Evidence from Russian. Journal of Memory and Language, 97, 208–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.07.013

Guasti, M. T., Stavrakaki, S., & Arosio, F. (2008). Number and case in the comprehension of relative clauses: Evidence from Italian and Greek. In A. Gavarrò & F. M. Joao (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Development (pp. 230–240). Cambridge Scholars Press/CSP.

Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guasti, M. T., Stavrakaki, S., & Arosio, F. (2012). Cross-linguistic differences and similarities in the acquisition of relative clauses: Evidence from Greek and Italian. Lingua, 122(6), 700–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.02.001

Adani, F. (2011). Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: Towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990250

Adani, F., van der Lely, H. K. J., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2010). Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua, 120(9), 2148–2166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.018

Gavarrò, A., Adani, F., Ramon, M., Rusiñol, S., & Sànchez, R. (2012). La comprensió de les clàusules de relatiu en català infantile [The comprehension of relative clauses in child Catalan. Caplletra, 53(Tardor 2012), 91–105.

Guasti, M. T., Vernice, M., & Franck, J. (2018). Continuity in the adult and children’s comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in French and Italian. Languages, 3(3), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages3030024

Sevcenco, A., & Avram, L. (2012). Romanian-speaking children’s comprehension of relatives. Revue roumaine de linguistique, LVII(2), 219–239.

Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (2000). Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005168206061

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–76). CUP.

MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). OUP.