Syntactic Complexity Effects of Russian Relative Clause Sentences in Children with and without Developmental Language Disorder

References

• Adams, C. 1990. Syntactic comprehension in children with expressive language impairment. British Journal of Disorders of Communication 25(2). 149–171.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adani, F. 2011. Rethinking the acquisition of relative clauses in Italian: Towards a grammatically based account. Journal of Child Language 38(1). 141–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adani, F., M. Forgiarini, M. Guasti, & H. K. van der Lely. 2014. Number dissimilarities facilitate the comprehension of relative clauses in children with (Grammatical) Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Child Language 41(4). 811–841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adani, F., H. K. van der Lely, M. Forgiarini, & M. T. Guasti. 2010. Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua 120(9). 2148–2166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexiadou, A., P. Law, A. Meinunger, & C. Wilder. 2000. The syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T., & J. Mirkovic. 2009. Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 33(4). 583–609. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Arosio, F., M. T. Guasti, & N. Stucchi. 2011. Disambiguating information and memory resources in children’s processing of Italian relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40(2). 137–154. doi:10.1007/S10936-010-9160-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arosio, F., K. Yatsushiro, M. Forgiarini, & M. T. Guasti. 2012. Morphological information and memory resources in children’s processing of relative clauses in German. Language Learning and Development 8(4). 340–364.
   Google Scholar
• Babyonyshev, M., & E. Gibson. 1999. The complexity of nested structures in Japanese. Language 75(3). 423–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., & G. J. Hitch. 1974. Working memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 8. 47–89.
   Google Scholar
• Bailyn, J. 1995. A configurational approach to Russian “free” word order. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D. M., & M. Maechler. 2010. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-36/r1083. http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/lme4/.
   Google Scholar
• Bedore, L. M., & Leonard, L. B. 2001. Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanish-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44(4). 905–924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belletti, A., N. Friedmann, D. Brunato, & L. Rizzi. 2012. Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children’s comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua 122(10). 1053–1069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentea, A. 2012. Subject vs. object relatives: What can Romanian children tell us about their acquisition? Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 57(2). 203–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi, V. 2002. Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Part I. Glot International 6(7). 197–204.
   Google Scholar
• Botting, N. 2002. Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 18(1). 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Bracken, B. A., & S. McCallum. 1998. Universal nonverbal intelligence test. Chicago: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, D., & G. S. Waters. 1999. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 77–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattell, R., & A. Cattell. 1973. Measuring intelligence with the Culture Fair Tests: Manual for scales 2 and 3. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
   Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H., & C. Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1). 3–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H., Bartke, S., & Göllner, S. 1997. Formal features in impaired grammars: A comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics 10(2). 151–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conti-Ramsden, G., & Jones, M. 1997. Verb use in specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40(6). 1298–1313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrêa, L. 1995. An alternative assessment of children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(3). 183–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Villiers, J. G. (see Villiers)
   Google Scholar
• de Vries, M. (see Vries)
   Google Scholar
• Diessel, H., & M. Tomasello. 2000. The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2). 131–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, P. 2008. Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 447–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felser, C., & H. Clahsen. 2009. Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 38(3). 305–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47(2). 164–203. doi:S0010028503000057[pii]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & C. Clifton. 1989. Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes 4. 93–126.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., A. Belletti, & L. Rizzi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119(1). 67–88. doi:10.1016/J.Lingua.2008.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & R. Novogrodsky. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language 31(3). 661–681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & R. Novogrodsky. 2007. Is the movement deficit in syntactic SLI related to traces or to thematic role transfer? Brain and Language 101(1). 50–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & R. Novogrodsky. 2011. Which questions are most difficult to understand? The comprehension of Wh questions in three subtypes of SLI. Lingua 121(3). 367–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gathercole, S. E., & A. D. Baddeley. 1990. Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children—Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language 29(3). 336–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Maratz, & W. O’Neil (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E., Tily, H., & Fedorenko, E. 2014. The processing complexity of English relative clauses. Language Down the Garden Path: The Cognitive and Biological Basis for Linguistic Structure, 149–173.
   Google Scholar
• Goodluck, H., & D. Stojanovic. 1996. The structure and acquisition of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5(4). 285–315.
   Google Scholar
• Goodluck, H., & S. Tavakolian. 1982. Competence and processing in childrens grammar of relative clauses. Cognition 11(1). 1–27. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(82)90002-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6), 1411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guasti, M. T., S. Stavrakaki, & F. Arosio. 2012. Cross-linguistic differences and similarities in the acquisition of relative clauses: Evidence from Greek and Italian. Lingua 122(6). 700–713. doi:10.1016/J.Lingua.2012.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakansson, G., & K. Hansson. 2000. Comprehension and production of relative clauses: A comparison between Swedish impaired and unimpaired children. Journal of Child Language 27(2). 313–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamburger, H., & S. Crain. 1982. Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language development, II, 245–274. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hestvik, A., R. G. Schwartz, & L. Tornyova. 2010. Relative clause gap-filling in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39(5). 443–456. doi:10.1007/S10936-010-9151-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 434–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakubowicz, C., & Nash, L. (2001). Functional categories and syntactic operations in (ab) normal language acquisition. Brain and language 77(3). 321–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & P. A. Carpenter. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99(1). 122–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kas, B., & Á. Lukács. 2012. Processing relative clauses by Hungarian typically developing children. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(4). 500–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, E. 2003. Relative clause comprehension revisited: Commentary on Eisenberg (2002). Journal of Child Language 30(3). 671–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, E., & E. L. Bavin. 2002. English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses: Evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31(6). 599–617. doi:10.1023/A:1021265021141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, E., S. Brandt, E. Lieven, & M. Tomasello. 2007. Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(6). 860–897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J., & M. A. Just. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30(5). 580–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondrashova, N. 1996. The syntax of existential quantification. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Labelle, M. 1996. The acquisition of relative clauses: Movement or no movement? Language Acquisition 5(2). 65–82.
   Google Scholar
• Leonard, L. B., & Eyer, J. A. 1996. Deficits of grammatical morphology in children with specific language impairment and their implications for notions of bootstrapping. Signal to Syntax. Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, 233–47.
   Google Scholar
• Leonard, L. B., & Bortolini, U. 1998. Grammatical morphology and the role of weak syllables in the speech of Italian-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41(6). 1363–1374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3). 1126–1177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R., E. Fedorenko, & T. Gibson. 2013. The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 69(4). 461–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, C. J. C., & Bever, T. G. (2006). Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 254–260. Cascadilla Proceedings Project Somerville, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Lum, J. A., C. Gelgic, & G. Conti–Ramsden. 2010. Procedural and declarative memory in children with and without specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 45(1). 96–107.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., & M. H. Christiansen. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Walters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109(1). 35–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., M. A. Just, & P. A. Carpenter. 1992. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology 24(1). 56–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macwhinney, B., & C. Pleh. 1988. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29(2). 95–141. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90034-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney B, Pleh C. 1988. The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29(2). 95–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastropavlou, M., & Tsimpli, I. M. 2011. Complementizers and subordination in typical language acquisition and SLI. Lingua 121(3). 442–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marinis, T., & H. K. J. van der Lely. 2007. On-line processing of wh-questions in children with G-SLI and typically developing children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42(5). 557–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, C., T. Marinis, & H. van der Lely. 2007. Passive verb morphology: The effect of phonotactics on passive comprehension in typically developing and Grammatical-SLI children. Lingua 117(8). 1434–1447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, M. 1969. Frog, where are you?. New York: Dial Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., & N. Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology 2. 419–491.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, J. W. 2000. Relation of working memory to off-line and real-time sentence processing in children wtih specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 21. 117–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norbury, C. F., & D. V. M. Bishop. 2003. Narrative skills of children with communication impairments. Internaltional Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 38(3). 287–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novogrodsky, R., & N. Friedmann. 2006. The production of relative clauses in syntactic SLI: A window to the nature of the impairment. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 8(4). 364–375.
   Google Scholar
• O’Grady, W. 1997. Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Özge, D., T. Marinis, & D. Zeyrek. 2009. Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children. In S. Ay, O. Aydın, I. Ergenc, S. Gokmen, S. Issever, & D. Pecenek (eds.), Essays on Turkish linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 341–350. Wiesbaden, Austria: Harrassowitz Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Polinsky, M. 2011. Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(2). 305–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quené, H., & H. van den Bergh. 2008. Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 413–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakhlin, N., Kornilov, S. A., & Grigorenko, E. L. 2014. Gender and agreement processing in children with developmental language disorder. Journal of child language 41(2). 241–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakhlin, N., Kornilov, S. A., Palejev, D., Koposov, R.A, Chang, J.T., & Grigorenko, E.L. 2013. The Language Phenotype of a Small Geographically Isolated Russian-speaking Population: Implications for Genetic and Clinical Studies of Developmental Language Disorder. Applied Psycholinguistics 34(5). 971–1003. doi:10.1017/S0142716412000094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sauerland, U., & E. Gibson. 1998. How to predict the relative clause attachment preference. Paper presented at the 11th CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Schuele, C. M., & L. M. Nicholls. 2000. Relative clauses: Evidence of continued linguistic vulnerability in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 14(8). 563–585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheldon, A. 1974. The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(3). 272–281.
   Google Scholar
• Stavrakaki, S. 2001. Comprehension of reversible relative clauses in specifically language impaired and normally developing Greek children. Brain and Language 77(3). 419–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki, T. 2011. A case-marking cue for filler-gap dependencies in children’s relative clauses in Japanese. Journal of Child Language 38(5). 1084–1095.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., & S. Brown-Schmidt. 2008. Language processing in the natural world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1493). 1105–1122. doi:A46376237427224H[pii]10.1098/rstb.2007.2162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakolian, S. L. 1981. The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In S. L. Tavakolian (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 167–187. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules (Vol. 1950). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, M. T., & E. I. Pierpont. 2005. Specific Language Impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex 41(3). 399–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lely, H. K. J. 1996. Specifically language impaired and normally developing children: Verbal passive vs adjectival passive sentence interpretation. Lingua 98(4). 243–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lely, H. K. J. 1998. SLI in children: Movement, economy, and deficits in the computational-syntactic system. Language Acquisition 7. 161–192.
   Google Scholar
• van der Lely, H. K. J., & J. Battell. 2003. WH-movement in children with grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language 79(1). 153–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lely, H. K. J., & M. Harris. 1990. Comprehension of reversible sentences in Specifically Language-Impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 55(1). 101–117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van der Lely, H. K., Jones, M., & Marshall, C. R. 2011. Who did Buzz see someone? Grammaticality judgement of wh-questions in typically developing children and children with Grammatical-SLI. Lingua 121(3). 408–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lely, H. K. 2005. Domain-specific cognitive systems: insight from Grammatical-SLI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(2). 53–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villiers, J. G. de, H. B. Tager Flusberg, K. Hakuta, & M. Cohen. 1979. Children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8(5). 499–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vries, M. de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. 1991. Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd edn. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wiesner, D. 1991. Tuesday. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Wiesner, D. 1988. Free fall. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard Books.
   Google Scholar