Relativization Strategies of 2 to 5-year-old Thai Children

Main Article Content

Pattra Pindabaedya
Kitima Indrambarya

Abstract

          This paper aims to explore 1) the relativization strategies and
2) positions of relativized gaps, pronouns, and noun phrases in relative
clauses of 2 to 5-year-old Thai children. Cross-sectional data were collected
from 80 children, who were 2-5 years old speaking standard central Thai
as their native language. The results reveal 3 relativization strategies i.e.
gap strategy by 68.94 percent, pronoun strategy by 25.53 percent, and
non-reduction strategy by 5.53 percent. The relativization with gaps,
resumptive pronouns, and full noun phrases are found in 2 positions of
relative clauses: subject position by 77.02 percent, and direct object
position by 22.98 percent.

Article Details

How to Cite
Pindabaedya, P., & Indrambarya, K. (2018). Relativization Strategies of 2 to 5-year-old Thai Children. Parichart Journal, 31(2), 37–58. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/parichartjournal/article/view/158641
Section
Research Articles

References

[1] Comrie, B. and Kuteva, T. (2013). Relativization on Subjects. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from http://wals/chapter/122.
[2] Keenan, E. and Comrie, B. (1977). “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar”, Linguistic Inquiry. 8, 63-99.
[3] Andrew, A.D. (2007). “Relative Clauses”, In Timothy Shopen (Editor). Language Typology and Syntactic Description Volume II: Complex Constructions. 206-236. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
[4] ปราณี กุลละวณิชย์. (2553). “อนุประโยคขยายนาม: คุณานุประโยคและอนุประโยคเติมเต็มนาม”, ใน อมรา ประสิทธิ์รัฐสินธุ์ (บรรณาธิการ). หน่วยสร้างที่มีข้อขัดแย้งในไวยากรณ์ไทย. 7-65. กรุงเทพฯ: โรงพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
[5] กิติมา อินทรัมพรรย์. (2554). “คุณานุประโยคและอนุประโยคเติมเต็ม”, ใน อมราประสิทธิ์รัฐสินธุ์ กิติมา อินทรัมพรรย์ และนัฐวุฒิ ไชยเจริญ. รายงานวิจัยฉบับสมบูรณ์โครงการไวยากรณ์ไทยฉบับครอบคลุมภาษาย่อย เล่มที่ 1 เรื่อง ไวยากรณ์ภาษาไทยมาตรฐาน. 261-285.
[6] Eisenbeiss, S. (1984). “Production methods in language acquisition research”, In Elma Blom and Sharon Unsworth (Editors). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. 27, 11-34. Amsterdam: Tohn Benjamins Publishing Company.
[7] Ambridge, B. and Rowland, C.F. (2013). “Experimental Methods in Studying Child Language Acquisition”, WIREs Cogn Sci. 4(2), 124-168.
[8] O’Grady, W. (2011). “Relative Clauses: Processing and Acquisition”, In Evan Kidd (Editor). The Acquisition of Relative Clauses: Processing, Typology and Function. USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[9] Yaowapat, N. and Prasithrathsint, A. (2007) . “A Typology of Relative Clauses in Mainland Southeast Asian languages”, Mon-Khmer Studies. 38, 1-12.
[10] Diessel, H. (2004). The Acquisition of Complex Sentences.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Brant, S., Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. (2008). “The Acquisition of German Relative Clauses: A Case Study”, Journal of Child Language. 35(2), 325-348.
[12] Diessel, H. (2009). The Emergence of Relative Clauses in Early Child Language. University of Jena.
[13] Traxler, J. M., Williams, R.S., Blozis, S.A. and Morris, R.K. (2005). “Working Memory, Animacy and Verb Class in the Processing of Relative Clauses”, Journal of Memory and Language. 53, 204-224.
[14] Yaowapat, N. (2005). “Pronoun Retention in Khmer and Thai Relative Clauses”, SEALS XV: Paper from the 15th Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. 121-132.
[15] Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. (2000). “The Development of Relative Clauses in Spontaneous Child Speech”, Cognitive Linguistics. 11, 131-151.