Cover not available
Part of
Language Acquisition in Romance Languages
Edited by Vicenç Torrens
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 18] 2024
► pp. 168–196

Chapter 7
On the production of subject and object relative clauses by child speakers of heritage Romanian in France

 | University of Bucharest
 | INALCO, Paris - SEDYL, CNRS
 | University Paris 8 – SFL, CNRS
This study investigates the production of subject and object restrictive relatives in child heritage Romanian in contact with French. The main goal is to evaluate the effect of schooling in the societal language, over a longer period of time, on the acquisition of these complex syntactic structures. Thirty-two child Romanian heritage speakers (ages 5–15), divided into two groups who – at testing time – had been in a French school for 1 to 3 years and for 5 to 8 years, respectively, completed an elicited production task. Their responses were compared to those of 32 age-matched monolingual Romanian children and 20 Romanian adults living in the homeland. The results indicated overall progress after onset of schooling. Child heritage speakers who had been in a French school for a longer period of time produced more relative clauses than the younger ones and the number of errors decreased with age. They went through the same qualitative stages as age-matched monolinguals but at a slower pace, with object relatives being more problematic than subject relatives. This vulnerability was reflected in a preference for less computationally costly but target-like structures and in the relatively prolonged use of non-target-like structures whose elimination from the grammar requires inspection of a higher amount of input.
Keywords: child heritage Romanian, subject relatives, direct object relatives, schooling effect, input
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relative clause production in child heritage languages
  • 3.Main properties of Romanian restrictive relative clauses
  • 4.The study
    • 4.1Aim
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Materials and procedure
    • 4.4Coding
    • 4.5Results and discussion
      • 4.5.1Child heritage speakers: Results
      • 4.5.2Interim discussion
      • 4.5.3Child heritage speakers compared to monolingual children in the homeland
    • 4.6Drawing the threads together
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 July 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.18.07avr
References (69)
References
Akinci, M. A. (2018). Relative clauses in the written texts of French and Turkish bilingual and monolingual children and teenagers. In M.- A. Akinci & K. Yağmur (Eds.), The Rouen meeting. Studies on Turkic structures and language contact (pp. 217–230). Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1, pp. 839–878). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., & Benmamoun, E. (2014). Aspects of second-language transfer in the oral production of Egyptian and Palestinian heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(3), 244–273.Google Scholar
Avram, L., & Sevcenco, A. (2019). On clitic comprehension in child Romanian. Paper presented at GALA 2019, Milano-Bicocca, 12–14 September 2019. Retrieved on 23 January 2024 from [URL]
Belletti, A. (2005). Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus, 17(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
(2008). Acquisition meets comparison. Some notes. In A. Gavarró, & M. J. Freitas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development. Proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 70–80). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Beletti, A. (2009). Notes on passive object relatives. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Functional structure from top to toe (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Contemori, C. (2010). Intervention and attraction. On the production of subject and object relatives by Italian young children and adults. In J. Costa, A. Castro, M. Lobo, & F. Pratas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development. Proceedings of Gala 2009 (pp. 39–52). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2012). Subjects in children’s object relatives in Italian. In L. Avram (Ed.), Subject-object asymmetries in child relative clauses: The view from Romance. Special issue of Revue roumaine de linguistique, LVII(2),117–142.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Guasti, M. T. (2015). The acquisition of Italian. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–181.Google Scholar
Bențea, A. (2012). subject vs. object relatives: What can Romanian children tell us about their acquisition? In L. Avram (Ed.), Subject-object asymmetries in child relative clauses: The view from Romance. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVII(2), 203–218.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Karakoç, B. (2020). Subordination in children acquiring Turkish as a heritage language in Sweden. In F. Bayram (Ed.), Studies in Turkish as a heritage language (pp. 155–204). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Opening remarks. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini, J. Uriagereka, & P. Salaburu (Eds.), Of minds and language. A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country (pp. 13–43). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (2005). A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax, 8(2), 81–120.Google Scholar
Corrêa, L. M. L. (1995). An alternative assessment of children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 183–203.Google Scholar
Coșkun Kunduz, A., & Montrul, S. (2022). Relative clauses in child heritage speakers of Turkish in the United States. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 14, 218–254.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, J., Lobo, M., & Silva, C. (2011). Subject-object asymmetries in the acquisition of Portuguese relative clauses: Adults vs. children. Lingua, 121, 1093–1100.Google Scholar
Délage, H. (2008). Évolution de l’hétérogénéité linguistique chez les enfants sourds moyens et légers: Étude de la complexité morphosyntaxique (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université François Rabelais de Tours, France.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The syntax of Romanian. Comparative studies in Romance. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67–88.Google Scholar
Garraffa, M., & Grillo, N. (2008). Canonicity effects as a grammatical phenomenon. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 177–197.Google Scholar
Gavarró, A., Cunill, A., Muntané, M., & Reguant, M. (2012). The acquisition of Catalan relatives: Structure and processing. In L. Avram (Ed.), Subject-object asymmetries in child relative clauses: The view from Romance. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVII(2), 183–201.Google Scholar
Gheorghe, M. (2004). Propoziția relativă. Paralela 45.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. (1994). Three studies in locality and case. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013) Relative clause constructions and unbounded dependencies. In C. Dobrovie- Sorin & I. Giurgea (Eds.), A reference grammar of Romanian. Vol. I: The noun phrase (pp. 597–662). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., & Cardinaletti, A. (2003). Relative clause formation in Romance child’s production. Probus, 15, 47–89.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Branchini, C., Arosio, F., & Vernice, M. (2012). A developmental study of subject and object relative clauses in Italian. In L. Avram (Ed.), Subject-object asymmetries in child relative clauses: The view from Romance. Special issue of Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, LVII(2), 203–218.Google Scholar
Guțu Romalo, V. (2008). Corectitudine și greșeală. Limba română de azi. Editura Humanitas.Google Scholar
Jia, R., & Paradis, J. (2018). The acquisition of relative clauses by Mandarin heritage language children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 10(2), 153–183.Google Scholar
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2018). Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 564–582.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. (2013). Anticausativizing a causative verb. The passive se faire construction in French. In A. Alexiadou & F. Schäfer (Eds.), Non-canonical passives (pp. 235–260). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T., Rothman, J., Kupisch, T., & Westergaard, M. (2019). Heritage language acquisition: What it reveals and why it is important for formal linguistic theories. Language Linguistic Compass, 2019, e12357.Google Scholar
Makrodimitris. C., & Schultz, P. (2021). Does timing in acquisition modulate heritage children’s language abilities? Evidence from the Greek LITMUS sentence repetition task. Languages, 6, 49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T., & Özge, D. (2020). How do bilingual children acquire complex syntax in their heritage vs. the majority language: Turkish-English speaking children in the UK. Talk given on 3.11.2020 as part of The Multilingual Mind: Lecture series on multilingualism across disciplines.
Meisel, J. (2011). First and second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Novogrodsky, R. N., & Friedmann, N. (2006). The production of relative clauses in SLI: A window to the nature of impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 84, 364–375.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2019). Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size. (Manuscript). Lingbuzz.
Polinsky, M. (2008). Relative clauses in heritage Russian: Fossilization or divergent grammar? Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 16, 1–29.Google Scholar
(2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: A case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328.Google Scholar
(2012). Learning from heritage languages. Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Heritage Languages, 21–22 April 2012, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
(2018). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2020). Not everything is lost. Lecture given at University of Paris 8, April 6, 2020.Google Scholar
(2022). Heritage language gaps (Unpublished manuscript). University of Maryland, College Park.
Polinsky, M., Zhang, B., & Gallo, C. G. (2010). Heritage Chinese: A new view from production. Paper presented at Heritage Language Institute IV, Manoa, National Heritage Language Resource Center. Retrieved on 23 January 2024 from [URL]
Popa, B. (2022). Differential object marking in child heritage Romanian in Italy (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Bucharest & Ca’ Foscari University, Venice.
Prévost, P. (2009). The acquisition of French. The development of inflectional morphology and syntax in L1 acquisition, bilingualism, and L2 acquisition. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2018). Intervention effects in grammar and language acquisition. Probus, 30(2), 339–367.Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T., de Villiers, J. G. (1992). Ordered decisions in the acquisition of wh-questions. In J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck, & T. Roeper (Eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change and input type: Inflected infinitives in heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 359–389.Google Scholar
Schulz, P., & Grimm, A. (2019). The age factor revisited: Timing in acquisition interacts with age of onset in bilingual acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2732.Google Scholar
Sevcenco, A., Avram, L., & Stoicescu, I. (2012). Direct object relative clauses: The acquisition of a variable construction. In S. Ferré, P. Prévost, L. Tuller, & R. Zehib (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the Romance Turn IV (pp. 240–260). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Sevcenco, A., Avram, L., Stoicescu, I. (2013). Subject and direct object relative clause production in child Romanian. In L. Avram & A. Sevcenco (Eds.), Topics in language acquisition and language learning in a Romanian context (pp. 51–85). Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
Soare, E. (2021).The acquisition of the morphosyntax of heritage Romanian in a dominant French setting. Paper presented at 7th Bucharest Colloquium of Language Acquisition, 18–19 November 2021, University of Bucharest.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Tomescu, V. (2012). The syntax and acquisition of particles with reference to English, Hungarian and Romanian (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bucharest.
Tsimpli, I. M. (2014). Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(3), 283–313.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian ear-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277.Google Scholar
Utzeri, I. (2007). The production and acquisition of subject and object relative clauses in Italian. Nazan Linguistics, Special Issue, 3, 283–314.Google Scholar
Volpato, F. (2019). Relative clauses, phi-features, and memory skills. Evidence from populations with normal hearing and hearing impairment Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Digital Publishing.Google Scholar
Volpato, F., & Cardinaletti, A. (2015). Resumptive relatives and passive relatives in Italian cochlear-implanted and normal hearing children. In C. Hamann & E. Ruigendijk (Eds.), Language acquisition and development. Proceedings of GALA 2013 (pp. 568–583). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Vulpe. M. (1975). Notes sur la syntaxe du relatif “care”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, XX(5), 597–599.Google Scholar
Vulpe, M. (1980). Subordonarea în frază în dacoromâna vorbită. Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică.Google Scholar
Zafiu, R. (2009). Constituirea unei norme gramaticale: Relativul pe care. Limba Română, 2, 285–296.Google Scholar
Zhang, S. (2022). The acquisition and use of Mandarin relative clauses by monolingual and bilingual children and adults (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University.