Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/71088
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Chinese and Bilingual Studiesen_US
dc.creatorChan, Aen_US
dc.creatorYang, Wen_US
dc.creatorChang, Fen_US
dc.creatorKidd, Een_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-28T06:18:57Z-
dc.date.available2017-12-28T06:18:57Z-
dc.identifier.issn0305-0009en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/71088-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen_US
dc.rightsThis article has been published in a revised form in Journal of Child Language https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000198. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution or re-use. © Cambridge University Press 2017.en_US
dc.rightsWhen citing an Accepted Manuscript or an earlier version of an article, the Cambridge University Press requests that readers also cite the Version of Record with a DOI link. The article is subsequently published in revised form in Journal of Child Language https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000198.en_US
dc.titleFour-year-old Cantonese-speaking children's online processing of relative clauses : a permutation analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage174en_US
dc.identifier.epage203en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0305000917000198en_US
dcterms.abstractWe report on an eye-tracking study that investigated four-year-old Cantonese-speaking children's online processing of subject and object relative clauses (RCs). Children's eye-movements were recorded as they listened to RC structures identifying a unique referent (e.g. “Can you pick up the horse that pushed the pig?”). Two RC types, classifier (CL) and ge3 RCs, were tested in a between-participants design. The two RC types differ in their syntactic analyses and frequency of occurrence, providing an important point of comparison for theories of RC acquisition and processing. A permutation analysis showed that the two structures were processed differently: CL RCs showed a significant object-over-subject advantage, whereas ge3 RCs showed the opposite effect. This study shows that children can have different preferences even for two very similar RC structures within the same language, suggesting that syntactic processing preferences are shaped by the unique features of particular constructions both within and across different linguistic typologies. Copyrighten_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of child language, Jan 2018, v. 45, no. 4, p. 174-203en_US
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of child languageen_US
dcterms.issued2018-01-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85020728836-
dc.identifier.ros2016005842-
dc.identifier.rosgroupid2016005589-
dc.description.ros2016-2017 > Academic research: refereed > Publication in refereed journalen_US
dc.description.validatebcrcen_US
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera1319, CBS-0302en_US
dc.identifier.SubFormID44556-
dc.description.fundingSourceOthersen_US
dc.description.fundingTextThe Hong Kong Polytechnic Universityen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.identifier.OPUS6753467en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Chanetal_2018_JCL_FAM.pdfPre-Published version1.44 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

124
Last Week
1
Last month
Citations as of Apr 21, 2024

Downloads

35
Citations as of Apr 21, 2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

24
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Apr 26, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

23
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Apr 25, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.