Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T14:45:48.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The acquisition of recursive modification in NPs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Ana T. Pérez-Leroux,
Tyler Peterson,
Anny Castilla-Earls,
Susana Béjar,
Diane Massam and
Yves Roberge
Ana T. Pérez-Leroux*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Tyler Peterson*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Anny Castilla-Earls*
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Susana Béjar*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Diane Massam*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Yves Roberge*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
[at.perez.leroux@utoronto.ca] (Pérez-Leroux)
[trg.peterson@gmail.com] (Peterson)
[annycastilla@uh.edu] (Castilla-Earls)
[sbejar@chass.utoronto.ca] (Béjar)
[diane.massam@utoronto.ca] (Massam)
[yves.roberge@utoronto.ca] (Roberge)
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite sensitivity to the contextual demands of modification, children struggle with the production of complex NPs. What syntactic or semantic properties of NP embedding specifically introduce complexity? We compare production of definite descriptions with two modifiers that contrast in the attachment of the second modifier: sequential vs. recursive modification. Children (n = 71) produced overall fewer targets than adults (n = 13), but both groups found double nonrecursive modification (e.g. the plate with oranges under the table) much easier than recursive modification (e.g. the bird on the alligator in the water). We conclude that each embedding step introduces complexity beyond the elements and operations employed in the semantic composition of the structure, or the cyclic syntax that generates it.

Keywords

complex NPsembeddingmodificationrecursionchild language acquisitionsyntax-semantics interface, PPs

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , June 2018, pp. 332 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arsenijević, Boban, and Hinzen, Wolfram. 2012. On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 423-40. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00095.10.1162/LING_a_00095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana, Massam, Diane, Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa; and Roberge, Yves. 2017. Rethinking complexity. Toronto: University of Toronto, ms.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois. 1973. One word at a time: The use of single-word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Lightbown, Patsy; and Hood, Lois. 1975. Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40. 1–97. DOI: 10.2307/1165986.10.2307/1165986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I'm a phase, now I'm not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1). 27–89. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00148.10.1162/LING_a_00148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674732469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, Pearl, Lisa, Brooks, Neon; and Barner, David. 2012. Acquiring the meaning of free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions. Journal of Semantics 29. 262-93. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffr014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Yu-Chin, and Wexler, Kenneth. 1990. Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 3. 225-95. DOI: 10.1207/s15327817la0103_2.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339–405. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008324218506.10.1023/A:1008324218506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland & Gärtner, 1–29.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George A.. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 269–321. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne, and McDaniel, Dana. 2012. What kind of a thing is a coordinate? In search of grammar: Experimental and corpus-based studies (Language and linguistics monograph series 48), ed. by Myers, James, 175–214. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 2013. Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2006. The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10. 413-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, Catherine, and Katsos, Napoleon. 2010. Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations? Lingua (Special issue on asymmetries in child language) 120. 1956-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005.Google Scholar
Davies, Catherine, and Katsos, Napoleon. 2013. Are speakers and listeners ‘only moderately Gricean‘? An empirical reply to Engelhardt et al. (2006). Journal of Pragmatics 49. 78–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.004.Google Scholar
Dethorne, Laura S., Johnson, Bonnie W.; and Loeb, Jane W.. 2005. A closer look at MLU: What does it really measure? Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 19. 635-48. DOI: 10.1080/02699200410001716165.10.1080/02699200410001716165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Tomasello, Michael. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12. 1–45. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.12.2.97.10.1515/cogl.12.2.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Tomasello, Michael. 2005. A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81. 882–906. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4490021.10.1353/lan.2005.0169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, James A., and Marchman, Virginia A.. 2007. Grammar and the lexicon: Developmental ordering in language acquisition. Child Development 78. 190–212. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00992.x.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00992.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dollaghan, Chris, and Campbell, Thomas F.. 1998. Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41. 1136-46. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4105.1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, Lloyd M., and Dunn, Douglas M.. 2007. Peabody picture vocabulary test (PPVT™-4) manual. 4th edn. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Sarita L., Ukrainetz, Teresa A., Hsu, Jennifer R., Kaderavek, Joan N., Justice, Laura M.; and Gillam, Ronald B.. 2008. Noun phrase elaboration in children's spoken stories. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 39. 145-57. DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/014).10.1044/0161-1461(2008/014)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429-92. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, Naama, Belletti, Adriana; and Rizzi, Luigi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119. 67–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, Naama, and Costa, João. 2010. The child heard a coordinated sentence and wondered: On children's difficulty in understanding coordination and relative clauses with crossing dependencies. Lingua 120. 1502-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.006.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, Chenjie. 2008. Structural ambiguity and AP/PP recursion in language acquisition. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, ms.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa, Branchini, Chiara; and Arosio, Fabrizio. 2012. Interference in the production of Italian subject and object wh-questions. Applied Psycholinguistics 30. 185–223. DOI: 10.1017/S0142716411000324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam; and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569-79. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna, and Chambers, Craig G.. 2014. Would a blue kite by any other name be just as blue? Effects of descriptive choices in subsequent referential behavior. Journal of Memory and Language 70. 53–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.008.10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram, and Sheehan, Michelle. 2013. The philosophy of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654833.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunsicker, Dea, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2012. Hierarchical structure in a self-created communication system: Building nominal constituents in homesign. Language 88. 732-63. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0092.10.1353/lan.2012.0092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, Celia, and Nash, Léa. 2002. Why accusative clitics are avoided in normal and impaired language development. Paris: Université Paris 8, ms.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, Celia, and Strik, Nelleke. 2008. Scope-marking strategies in the acquisition of long distance wh-questions in French and Dutch. Language and Speech 51. 101-32. DOI: 10.1177/00238309080510010701.10.1177/00238309080510010701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, Judith. 1985. Cognitive prerequisites: The evidence from children learning English. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, ed. by Slobin, Dan I., 961–1004. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Alan S., and Kaufman, Nadeen L.. 2004. Kaufman assessment battery for children. 2nd edn. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Stewart, Andrew J.; and Serratrice, Ludovica. 2011. Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language 38. 222-34. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000909990316.10.1017/S0305000909990316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebeaux, David. 2000. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limbach, Maxi, and Adone, Dani. 2010. Language acquisition of recursive possessives in English. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 34. 281-90.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maia, Marcus, França, Aniela, Gesualdi, Aline, Lage, Aleria; and Oliveira, Cristiane. 2013. The processing of PP embedding and coordination in Karaja and in Portuguese. Paper presented at Recursion in Brazilian Languages & Beyond 2013, August 5–16, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Matthews, Danielle, Lieven, Elena; and Tomasello, Michael. 2007. How toddlers and preschoolers learn to uniquely identify referents for others: A training study. Child Development 76. 1744-59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01098.x.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, and McKee, Cecile. 2004. Multiple influences on children's language performance. Journal of Child Language 31. 489-92. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000904006130.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, McKee, Cecile; and Garrett, Merrill F.. 2010. Children's sentence planning: Syntactic correlates of fluency variations. Journal of Child Language 37. 59–94. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000909009507.10.1017/S0305000909009507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McWhorter, John H. 2011. Linguistic simplicity and complexity: Why do languages undress? Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781934078402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morisseau, Tiffany, Davies, Catherine; and Matthews, Danielle. 2013. How do 3-and 5-year-olds respond to under- and over-informative utterances? Journal of Pragmatics 59(Part A). 26–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 2011. A closer look at the turtle's eyes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108. 2177-78. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1019723108.Google Scholar
Moscati, Vincenzo, and Rizzi, Luigi. 2014. Agreement configurations in language development: A movement-based complexity metric. Lingua 140. 67–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.12.004.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan, Miller, Karen; and Schmitt, Cristina. 2006. Maximality and plurality in children's interpretation of definites. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 30. 377-87.Google Scholar
Nadig, Aparna S., and Sedivy, Julie C.. 2002. Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children's on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science 13. 329-36. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00460.x.10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00460.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David; and Rodrigues, Cilene. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85. 355–404. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0107.10.1353/lan.0.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Preston, Laurel B.. 2014. Measuring grammatical complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, Christophe, Devauchelle, Anne-Dominique; and Dehaene, Stanislas. 2011. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108. 2522-27. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018711108.Google ScholarPubMed
Partee, Barbara H. 2002. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. Formal semantics: The essential readings, ed. by Portner, Paul and Partee, Barbara H., 357-81. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470758335.ch15.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa. 1998. The acquisition of mood selection in Spanish relative clauses. Journal of Child Language 25. 585–604.10.1017/S0305000998003614CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa, Castilla-Earls, Anny P., Béjar, Susana; and Massam, Diane. 2012. Elmo's sister's ball: The problem of acquiring nominal recursion. Language Acquisition 19. 301-11. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2012.685019.10.1080/10489223.2012.685019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa, Castilla-Earls, Anny P.; and Brunner, Jerry. 2012. General and specific effects of lexicon in grammar: Determiner and object pronoun omissions in child Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55. 313-27. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B., Gibson, Edward; and Regier, Terry. 2010. How recursive is language? A Bayesian exploration. Recursion and human language, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der, 159-75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Structure for coordination: Part 1. Glot International 3. 3–9.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 2011. The acquisition of recursion: How formalism articulates the child's path. Biolinguistics 5. 57–86. Online: http://www.biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/view/178/215.10.5964/bioling.8831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, and Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa. 2011. Simplicity and complexity in child language and its explanation. Infancia y Aprendizaje 34(3). 363-80. DOI: 10.1174/021037011797238612.10.1174/021037011797238612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, and Snyder, William. 2005. Language learnability and the forms of recursion. UG and external systems: Language, brain and computation, ed. by Maria, Anna Sciullo, Di, 133-66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, and Speas, Margaret (eds.) 2014. Recursion: Complexity in cognition. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14. 479-93. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2248381.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2007. Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedivy, Julie C. 2003. Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32. 3–23. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021928914454.Google ScholarPubMed
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59. 320-44. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2251176.Google Scholar
Syrett, Kristen, Kennedy, Christopher; and Lidz, Jeffrey. 2010. Meaning and context in children's understanding of gradable adjectives. Journal of Semantics 27. 1–35. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffp011.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Eri. 2009. Beyond statistical learning in the acquisition of phrase structure. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., Eberhard, Kathleen M.; and Sedivy, Julie C.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268. 1632-34. DOI: 10.1126/science.7777863.10.1126/science.7777863CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trotzke, Andreas, and Bayer, Josef. 2015. Syntactic complexity across interfaces. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614517900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, and Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2014. The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge. Measuring grammatical complexity, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Preston, Laurel B., 128-47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiig, Elizabeth H., Secord, Wayne A.; and Semel, Eleanor. 2004. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals 2. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 451-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006.10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Charles. 2016. The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar