Cover not available

In:Individual Differences in Anaphora Resolution: Language and cognitive effects
Edited by Georgia Fotiadou and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli
[Language Faculty and Beyond 18] 2023
► pp. 192–220

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Character reference in Russian and Cypriot Greek by bilingual children

 | University of Cyprus
Published online: 2 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.18.08kar
Abstract
This study investigates the development of character reference by bilingual Russian–Cypriot Greek children, in both Russian and Cypriot Greek. In particular, it is focused on such referential functions as character introduction, reintroduction and maintenance in narrative production. Twenty-three bilingual Russian–Cypriot Greek children (3–8 years old) participated in the study. Two stories (card method of picture presentation), with a different number of main characters (‘Cat’ story with four main characters and ‘Fox’ story with two main characters) and a different level of cognitive complexity were used for narrative elicitation. Cypriot Greek and Russian differ in terms of the way of encoding new/given information and referential status of the character. Cypriot Greek uses mainly local cues (definite vs. indefinite determiners), while Russian uses global cues (word order, case marking). The results of the study showed that bilingual children had a better performance, use of indefinite NPs for character introduction and definite NPs for character reintroduction in CG, but they had a better performance for character maintenance and use of overt pronouns in Russian. Story type, complexity and the number of the main characters in the story influence the use of referential forms by bilingual children, both in CG and in Russian.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Character reference in narrative production
    • 1.2Greek and Russian referential system
    • 1.3Previous research on the development of character reference
    • 1.4Research questions
  • 2.The study
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Data coding
    • 2.5Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Narrative structure, length and complexity: ‘Cat’ vs. ‘Fox’ stories, CG vs. Russian
    • 3.2Narrative production and referential functions in Russian and in CG
    • 3.3Age factor: ‘Cat’ vs. ‘Fox’ stories, Russian vs. CG, character introduction
    • 3.4Age factor: ‘Cat’ vs. ‘Fox’ stories, Russian vs. CG, character reintroduction
    • 3.5Age factor: ‘Cat’ vs. ‘Fox’ stories, Russian vs. CG, character maintenance
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
References (83)
References
Aksu-Koç, A. & Nicolopoulou, A. (2014). Character reference in young children’s narratives: A crosslinguistic comparison of English, Greek, and Turkish. Lingua, 155, 62-84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Argyri, F., Sorace, A., & Tsimpli, I. (2010). Interface differences and age of acquisition in child bilingualism: Evidence from gender and voice morphology in Greek. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Edinburgh and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 2950.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, J., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521–536. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., & Rohrbacher, B. (1997). Null subjects in Russian inverted constructions. In Browne, W., Dornisch, E., Kondrashova, N., Zec, D. (Eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (pp. 32–53). Michigan Slavic Publications: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. (1986). A functional approach to the acquisition of anaphoric relationships. Linguistics, 24, 227–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A., Bennatti, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Katzenberg, I. (1998). Cognitive and linguistic factors in the development of picture-series narration. Studi Italiana di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata, 27, 21–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bongartz, C. M. (2016). Bilingual and second language development and literacy. Εmerging perspectives on an intimate relationship. In Mattheoudakis, M. & Nicolaidis, K. (Eds), Selected Papers of the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISTAL 21), (pp. 3–42). Thessaloniki: Prothiki Open Access Journals, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 25–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chvany, C. (1973). Notes on ‘root’ and ‘structure-preserving’ in Russian. In Corum, C., Smith-Stark, T. C., Weiser, A. (Eds), You Take the High Node and I will Take the Low Node (pp. 52–290). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Costa, A., Hernández, M. & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency, biliteracy, and French immersion. Canadian Journal of Education, 14, 175–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, A. (1995). When pro-drop languages don’t: On overt pronominal subjects in Greek. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 2(2). Proceedings of the 19th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Slabakova, R. (2005). Quantification and aspect. Perspectives on aspect. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 23, 61–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filip, H. (1993). Aspect, Situation Types, and Nominal Reference. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Nominal and verbal semantic structure: analogies and interactions. Language Sciences, 23, 453–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, N. (2006). The development of secondary discourse ability and metalinguistic awareness in second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 37–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Bilingual Competence and Bilingual Proficiency in Child Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Bilingual Development and Literacy Learning: East Asian and International Perspectives. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gagarina, N. (2011). Acquisition and loss of L1 in a Russian-German bilingual child: A case study. In Cejtlin, S. (Ed.), Monolingual and Bilingual Path to Language (pp. 137–163). Moskau: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gagarina, N., Klassert, A., & Topaj, N. (2010). Sprachstandstest Russisch für mehrsprachige Kinder [...] Russian language proficiency test for multilingual children. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 54. Berlin: ZASPIL [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordishevsky, G., & Avrutin, S. (2003). Subject and object omissions in child Russian. In Falk, N. Y. (Ed.), Proceedings of IATL 19 (pp. 1-26). [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordishevsky, G., & Schaeffer, J. (2002). On null subjects in child Russian. In Otsu, Y. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (pp. 115–137). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. L. (Eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, B., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1986). Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation. Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University.
(1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 2, 203–225.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guelzow, I., & Gagarina, N. (2007). Noun phrases, pronouns and anaphoric reference in young children narratives. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 48, 203–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (2010). Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy perspective. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 148–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., & Mulkern, A. E. (1998). Quantity implicatures in reference understanding. Pragmatics and Cognition, 6, 21–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., and Zacharski, R. (1988). The generation and interpretation of demonstrative expressions. In Proceedings of the XIIth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 216–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. A., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickmann M., & Hendriks, H. (1999). Cohesion and anaphora in children’s narratives: A comparison of English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 26, 419–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s Discourse: Person, Space and Time across Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., Roland F., & Liang, J. (1996). The marking of new information in children’s narratives: a comparison of English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 23, 591–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. NewYork, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hughes, D., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to Narrative Language: Procedures for Assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2003). Article Semantics in Second Language Acquisition. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kail, M., & Hickmann, M. (1992). French children’s ability to introduce referents in narratives as a function of mutual knowledge. First Language, 12, 73–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kameyama, M. (1996). Indefeasible semantics and defeasible pragmatics. In Kanazawa, M., Pinon, C., & de Swart, H. (Eds), Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context (pp. 11–138). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, T. H. (1995). Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Events and Grammar (pp. 197–235). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Küntay, A. C. (2002). Development of the expression of indefiniteness: presenting new referents in Turkish picture-series stories. Discourse Processes, 33, 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leclercq, P. & Lenart, E. (2013). Discourse cohesion and accessibility of referents in oral narratives: A comparison of L1 and L2 acquisition of French and English. Discours, 12, 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindseth, M., and Franks, S. (1996). Licensing and identification of null subjects in Slavic. In Toman, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (pp. 199–224). Michigan Slavic Publications: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1974). Preschool children’s use of definite and indefinite articles. Child Development, 45, 446–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in Cognitive Development. New York, NY: Cambridge Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orsolini, M., Rossi, F., & Pontecorvo, C. (1996). Re-introduction of referents in Italian children’s narratives. Journal of Child Language, 23, 465–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information status. In: Thompson, S., Mann W. (Eds), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text (pp. 295–325). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramchand, G., & Reiss, C. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodionova, E. V. (2001). Word Order and Information Structure in Russian Syntax. MA dissertation, University of North Dakota.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosa, E. C. & Arnold, J. (2011). The role of attention in choice of referring expressions. Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference, Boston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serattrice, L., Sorace, A., & Pauoli, S. (2004). Subjects and objects in Italian-English bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 189–206.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2007). Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1058–1087. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serattrice, L. (2008). The role of discourse and perceptual cues in the choice of referential expressions in English pre-schoolers, school-age children, and adults. Language Learning and Development, 4, 309–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2006). Gradience and optionality in mature and developing grammars. In Fanselow, G., Fery, C., Schlesewsky, M. & Vogel, R. (Eds), Gradience in Grammars: Generative Perspectives (pp. 106–123). Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serattrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 185–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/95). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 447–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). What is it Like to Be a Zombie? In. Hawthorne, J. & Gendler T. S. (Eds), Conceivability and Possibility (pp. 385–400). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stavrakaki, S., & Tsimpli, I.M. (2000). Diagnostic verbal IQ test for school and preschool children: Standardization, statistical analysis, and psychometric properties. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the Panhellenic Association of Speech and Language Therapists, 95–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevenson, R. J., Crawley, R. A., & Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 473–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theodorou, E. (2013). Diagnosing specific language impairment: The case of Cypriot Greek. PhD dissertation, University of Cyprus, Nicosia
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpi, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C., & Filiaci, F. (2004). First language acquisition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In. Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller C. (Eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Papakonstantinou, M., & Nicolopoulou, A. (2013). Linguistic Structure and Narrative Quality in Child L1 Production. In. Lavidas, N., Alexiou, T., & Sougari, A. M. (Eds), Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 2: Selected Papers from the 20th ISTAL (pp. 387–404). London: Versita.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, L. (1984). Integration of information during language comprehension: A developmental study. Stanford Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 23, 125–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A., & Tsimpli, I. (2010). Disentangling age and input effects. Paper presented at DGfS 2010, Berlin.
Vion, M. & Colas, A. (1999). Expressing coreference in French: Cognitive constraints and development of narrative skills. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 261–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warden, D. A. (1981). Learning to identify referents. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 93–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. (1990). Children’s narrative acquisition: a study of some aspects of reference and anaphora. First Language, 10, 105–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, F. (2009). Processing at the syntax-discourse interface in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Wong, A. M.-Y. & Johnston, J. R. (2004). The development of discourse referencing in Cantonese-speaking children. Journal of Child Language, 31, 633–660. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue