This article reports on an experiment that examined the comprehension of transitive sentences in Czech children and its relationship to case marking, word order and information structure. A total of 107 Czech children aged 2;9–4;5 were tested for comprehension of noun-verb-noun sentences in which word order and given-new status of individual nouns were manipulated. The results confirmed that noncanonical, object-initial sentences are generally more difficult to comprehend than sentences with the standard word order, but that many children can interpret noncanonical sentences before 4 years of age. Information structure did not have any clear effect on sentence comprehension. Overall, the results indicate that children have some abstract knowledge of word order and case marking when they first show evidence of transitive sentence comprehension, but initially they cannot use this knowledge when word order and case marking signal conflicting interpretations. Information structure is not a major factor in early sentence comprehension.
AkhtarN. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339–356.
2.
AvrutinS.BrunD. (2001). The expression of specificity in a language without determiners: Evidence from child Russian. In DoA. H.-J.DomínguezL.JohansenA. (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 70–81). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
4.
CampbellA. L.BrooksP.TomaselloM. (2000). Factors affecting young children’s use of pronouns as referring expressions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1337–1349.
5.
ChangF.KobayashiT.AmanoS. (2009). Social factors in the acquisition of a new word order. First Language, 29, 427–445.
6.
De CatC. (2009). Experimental evidence for preschoolers’ mastery of ‘topic’. Language Acquisition, 16, 224–239.
7.
DimrothC.NarasimhanN. (2012). The development of linear ordering preferences in child language: The influence of accessibility and topicality. Language Acquisition, 19, 312–323.
8.
DittmarM.Abbot-SmithK.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2008). German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79, 1152–1167.
9.
DunnL. M.DunnD. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
10.
FirbasJ. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FisherC. (2002). The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000). Cognition, 82, 259–278.
12.
GruberJ. S. (1967). Topicalization in child language. Foundations of Language, 3, 37–65.
13.
Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR. M. (1996). The origins of grammar: Evidence from early language comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
KaiserE.TrueswellJ. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113–147.
15.
KimK.O’GradyW.DeenK. U. (2014). Poor performance on scrambled Korean OSV sentences by Korean heritage children: Performance, not competence. In ChuC.CoughlinC. E.Lopez PregoB.MinaiU.TremblayA. (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA) (pp. 51–99). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
16.
KimS.O’GradyW.ChoS. (1995). The acquisition of case and word order in Korean: A note on the role of context. Language Research, 31, 687–695.
17.
LambrechtK. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
LeonardL.SchwartzR. (1977). Focus characteristics of single-word utterances after syntax. Journal of Child Language, 5, 151–158.
19.
LindnerK. (2003). The development of sentence-interpretation strategies in monolingual German-learning children with and without specific language impairment. Linguistics, 41, 213–254.
20.
LukavskýJ.SmolíkF. (2009). Word order and case inflection in Czech: On-line sentence comprehension in children and adults. In TaatgenN. A.van RijnH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1358–1363). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
21.
MacWhinneyB.BatesE. (1978). Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: A cross-cultural developmental study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 539–558.
22.
MacWhinneyB.PlehC.BatesE. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178–209.
23.
MatthewsD.LievenE.TheakstonA.TomaselloM. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children’s use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 403–422.
24.
MenyukP. (1969). Sentences children use. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
NarasimhanB.DimrothC. (2008). Word order and information status in child language. Cognition, 107, 317–329.
26.
OtsuY. (1994). Early acquisition of scrambling in Japanese. In HoekstraT.SchwartzB. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 253–264). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
27.
SchaefferJ. (2000). The acquisition of direct object scrambling and clitic placement: Syntax and pragmatics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
28.
Schaner-WollesC. (1989). Strategies in acquiring grammatical relations in German: Word order or case marking?Folia Linguistica, 23, 131–156.
29.
SerratriceL. (2008). The role of discourse and perceptual cues in the choice of referential expressions in English preschoolers, school-age children, and adults. Language Learning and Development, 4, 309–332.
30.
SgallP.HajičováE.PanevováJ. (1986). The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
31.
SlobinD. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In FergusonC. A.SlobinD. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32.
SlobinD. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In GleitmanL.WannerE. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 128–172). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
SlobinD. I.BeverT. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–265.
34.
SokolovJ. L. (1988). Cue validity in Hebrew sentence comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 15, 129–155.
35.
TomaselloM. (1992). First verbs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
TomaselloM. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence?Cognition, 74, 209–253.
37.
TomaselloM.AkhtarN.DodsonK.RekauL. (1997). Differential productivity in young children’s use of nouns and verbs. Journal of Child Language, 24, 373–387.
38.
TomaselloM.OlguinR. (1993). Twenty-three-month-old children have a grammatical category of noun. Cognitive Development, 8, 451–464.
39.
VerniceM.GuastiM. T. (2014). Effects of prosodic cues on topic continuity in child language production. First Language, 34, 406–427.
40.
WeistR. M. (1983). The word order myth. Journal of Child Language, 10, 97–106.
41.
WeistR. M.PawlakA.HoffmanK. (2009). Finiteness systems and lexical aspect in child Polish and English. Linguistics, 47, 1321–1350.
42.
WeistR. M.Witkowska-StadnikK. (1986). Basic relations in child language and the word order myth. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 363–381.
