As mentioned before, despite that in the acquisition of English relative clauses, learners in Taiwan EFL context encounter many problems, studies that probe the issues in Taiwan context are relatively few, and the scope or coverage of the relative clause types is limited to SS, SO, OS, and OO (see the studies done by Chen, J. J., 2004; Chen, C. S., 2004; Chen, X. L., 2004). Seeing this limitation, the current study further investigates all the relative clause types that English manifests; namely SS, OO, SO, OS, SIO, OIO, SGEN, OGEN, OOPREP, SOPREP, SOCOMP, and OOCOMP (please refer to Table 1.5 for detailed illustration). What is more, even in non-Taiwan ESL studies, the OCOMP position is seldom included for inspection.
Though OCOMP is a rarely used position in real life English, the inclusion of this position in the present study is important for us to explore the research question.
Besides, while grammaticality judgment test is a common task type used in SLA research (Gass, 1979, 1980; Izumi, 2003; Ioup and Kruse, 1977), it seems that none of the studies done in Taiwan EFL context incorporates this measurement.
In view of the above, in the present thesis, the research purpose is two fold.
First, English relative clauses from Taiwan EFL college learners will be elicited using three kinds of tasks, sentence combination, Chinese-English translation, and
grammaticality judgment. And the data will be analyzed to see the order of
acquisition of different relative clause types. Second, learners’ avoidance behaviors in the formation of English relative clauses will be explored. Particularly, it is intended to see how learners cope with the object of comparative (OCOMP), which is not readily relativizable in Chinese.
To be specific, the positions that are relativizable in English (12 types) will be
examined as well as the matrix positions as is concerned in PDH (concerning discontinuity in the main clause), and SOHH (concerning discontinuity in the main and relative clauses). Two sub-aspects are of special interest here. First, given that previous research indicated that genitive, indirect object, object of preposition
fluctuated in the positions they took in the difficulty order, close attention will be paid to these positions. Second, because most existing studies focused on OS, OO, SS, and SO, more research is needed for other types of relative clauses. For example, GEN is a relatively frequently used relative clause in real life English, SGEN and OGEN are definitely worthy of investigation.
There is a line of research investigating second language acquisition of relative clause by resorting to the head-direction parameter model of Universal Grammar (Flynn, 1989a, 1989b). Flynn argues that the language universal of UG plays a significant role in the learners’ acquisition of relative clauses by resetting the head-direction parameter. Although the typological universal (i.e., NAPH) and Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1965) are different in terms of the approaches the y are based upon, their goal of searching for the commonalities of the world languages is not different from one another (Ellis, 1996c; Ritchie and Bhatia, 2003). In view of this, the last part of the thesis will be devoted to discussing the implication of UG in the EFL acquisition of relative clauses.
1.5 Significance of the study
The importance of English relative clauses for Taiwan EFL learners has been identified right from the beginning of this thesis: they are the forms that are highly frequently used in daily life of English native speakers; however they are very
complex in the structure and quite different from Chinese relative clauses. A review of the major ESL textbooks in Taiwan (Azar, 1999; Murphy, 1994; Riggenbach and Samuda, 2000; Thewlis, 2000) shows that, among other grammatical dimensions, a large part of these textbooks has been devoted to the delineation of and providing practices for relative clauses. The positions that are relativizable in English are included in these textbooks, except for OCOMP. Unfortunately, the existing local research focusing on relative clauses as topic does not looked into all the types but OS, SS, OS, and OO only, for the consideration of methodology or any other practical reasons. However, in order to obtain a more complete picture of Taiwan EFL learners acquiring relative clause, the previous accomplishment is too limited.
Therefore, the present study is significant in including all the relativizable positions of English relative clauses and in contributing to a better understanding of foreign
language acquisition.
Apart from the incorporation in the thesis of the more complete types of relative clause, another contribution of the thesis is the thorough inspection of the learners’
behaviors of avoidance in the formation of relative clauses vis a vis the avoidance strategies claimed by Gass (1979, 1980).
There is another contribution of this thesis, which adopts grammaticality judgment task in investigating learner’s intuitional data in contrast to the previous Taiwan based studies (Chen, J. J 2004 used learner’s composition; Chen, C. S., 2004 used a variety of tests including translation but not grammaticality judgment test; and Chen, X. L., 2004 used sentence combination test.
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
In this Chapter, a description of the linguistic properties of relative clauses in English and Chinese is given first, accompanied by a comparison and contrast of the two languages. Last is a review of the relevant previous studies in the acquisition of relative clauses.
2.1 Englis h Relative Clauses
2.1.1 Definition
The present study specifically concerns English restrictive relative clauses, which should not be confused with non-restrictive relative clauses. An example of English restrictive relative clause would be the man that I saw yesterday left this morning, in which the clause that I saw yesterday is specifically referred here as restrictive relative clause. It is so called because this clause serves to delimit or restrict the potential referents of the head noun the man. On the other hand, non-restrictive relative clauses would be who arrived yesterday as in the man, who had arrived yesterday, left this morning. In this kind of sentence, it is assumed by the speaker that the hearer can identify which man is being talked about, and the relative clause serves merely to give additional information to the hearer about an already identified entity, but not to identify that entity (Comrie, 1989:138). Li and Thompson (1981) provide a more concise definition, “a restrictive relative clause in
2.1.2 Head-initial
English restrictive relative clauses, as noun modifiers, are inside NPs to modify the head noun. In (1), it is obvious that the relative clause who have sixteen cats follows the head noun the woman in the right hand direction. English is in this respect head-initial.
(1) NP N P S
the women who have sixteen cats
NP containing Relative clause head noun
(From Kaplan, 1989:303)
2.1.3 Relativization process
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) make clear the process that is involved in deriving English relative clauses. English derives relative clauses by embedding a subordinate clause within another superordinate clause so that the embedded clause becomes a part of the superordinate clause. Before the embedding is complete, the redundant co-referential head NP in the embedded clause should be replaced by a relative pronoun. For example, embed the subordinate clause (b) within the superordinate clause (a), and replace they with who, as follows:
(a) The fans had to wait in the line for three hours.
(b) They were attending the rock concert.
The fans [who were attending the rock concert] had to wait in line for three (NP[S])
hours.
(from Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999)
2.1.4. Relativiza tion strategies and resupmtive pronoun
English allows relativization on various positions including subject, direct object, indirect object, object of preposition, genitive, and object of comparison. However, in the cases other than subject and genitive (which is in a subject NP), a gap (or trace) will occur after the fronting of the relative pronoun, as the examples in (2). The non-canonical word order makes the relative clause harder to comprehend; therefore languages (such as Chinese) tend to supply a resumptive pronoun in the gap,
especially in the positions lower on the NPAH (Keenan and Comrie, 1977). In contrast to languages that employ resumptive pronoun strategy, English largely retains gap strategy.
(2) a. Subject
The woman who have sixteen cats left early.
b. Direct object
Max restored the car which Frank had owned [ ] in 1948.
c. Indirect object
This is the aunt who I sent those books to [ ] today.
d. Object of preposition
I learned the trick by which Huey deceived the voters [ ] when he ran for editor.
e. Gentive
This the kitten whose ear I tweaked.
f. Object of comparative
You are the only person that I am shorter than [ ] .
2.1.5. Relative pronoun variables
English has several relative pronouns to choose from. The choice between who and which depends on the feature [± human] (human or non-human) of the NP. Who is used with a human antecedent and which with a non-human one. Whom can be optionally used for who when it is a relativized object (including direct object, indirect object, object of preposition, and object of comparative). And which and who can be alternatively replaced by that, as in (3).
(3) a. The man who(m) I recommended b. The man that I recommended c. *The man which I recomended d. The apartment which we rented e. The apartment that we rented
f. *The apartment who(m) we rented (adapted from Kaplan, 1989: 310)
English sometimes omits the use of relative pronoun when the direct object, indirect object, object of preposition, and object of comparative are relativized, but not in the case of subject and genitive, as in (4).
(4) a. the apartment (which) we rented b. the guy (whom) you told me about
c. the girl (whom) I sent a long-stemmed rose to d. the man (whom) John is taller than
2.1.6 Center embedding and right embedding
English is a head- initial language, which makes the relative clauses that have the head NP function as subject in the matrix sentence center-embed within the matrix sentence, and the relative clauses that has the head NP function as object in the matrix sentence right-embed within the matrix sentence. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 provide the examples ({} shows the relative clause boundary).
Table 2.1 Center embedding in English relative clauses Matrix position RC type Example
Subject SU The boy {who is standing at the gate} is my brother.
DO The author {who he mentioned} is well known.
IO The woman {who Bill passed a note to} is a nurse.
OPREP The candidate {who I vote for} didn’t win the election.
GEN The man {whose wallet was stolen} called the police.
OCOMP The person {who John is taller than} is Charles.
Table 2.2 Right embedding in English relative clauses Matrix position RC type Example
Object SU Jerry likes the teacher {who explained the answers the class}.
DO Amy grabbed the letter {which Jason handed to Julie}.
IO The teacher looked at the girl {who I explained the sentence to}.
OPREP I saw the woman {who I went to elementary school with}.
GEN I know the man {whose bicycle is new}.
OCOMP I know the hotel {that Hilton is cheaper than}.
2.2 Chinese Relative Clauses
2.2.1 Definition
Similar to English, Chinese makes distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses (Tang, 1979). As is clear in the examples (5), Chinese makes the distinction the way as English does: use of comma to distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. In this study, we focus on the Chinese restrictive relative clauses to compare with English ones.
(5) Restrictive relative clause
xihuan nei— ben shu de nei— ge ren lai— le.
like that— CL book Rel. Mar. that— CL person come— ASP
“The man who likes the book has come.” (From Tsao, 1996) Non-restrictive relative clause
nei— ge ren, xihuan nei— ben shu de, lai— le.
that— CL person like that— CL book Rel. Mar. come— ASP
“The man, who likes the book, has come.” (Adapted from Tang, 1979)
2.2.2 Head-final
Like English, Chinese restrictive relative clauses are inside NPs to modify the head NP. But unlike English, Chinese has the relative clause precede the head NP.
The simplified diagram in (6) illustrates that Chinese is head- final.
(6) Zhangsan mai de shu Zhangsan buy Rel.Mar. book
“The book which Zhangsan bought”
NP CP NP Zhangsan mai de shu
Relative clause NP containing head noun (Adapted from Chiu, 1996)
2.2.3 Relativization process and the relative marker
Chinese involves the relativization process that is similar but not identical to that in English. Chinese relative clauses do not contain relative pronouns, but use an invariant relative marker “de” to mark the relative clauses (Tang, 1979). In addition, the use of the relative marker is obligatory, not optional as English relative clauses are.
After the co-referential NP in the subordinate clause (b) is deleted, a relative marker
‘de’ is attached to the end of the clause. The subordinate clause is placed ahead of the co-referential head NP, as opposed to English, in which the NP occurs at the end of the NP.
(7)
a. nei- ge ren lai- le.
‘The man has come.’
b. nei- ge ren Xihuan nei-ben shu.
‘The man likes the book.’
Xihuan nei-ben shu de nei- ge ren lai- le.
Like that— CL book Rel.Mar that— CL person come
‘The man who likes the book has come.’ (Adapted from Tsao,1996)
2.2.4 Relativization strategies and the resumptive pronoun
The positions that Chinese can relativize are subject, direct object, indirect object, object of preposition, and genitive, but not object of comparative, which English does (Keenan and Comrie, 1977).
Chinese does not allow resumptive pronoun in subject and genitive relatives (which has subject NP) relativizations (Tsao, 1996). Optionally, it allows resumptive pronoun to occur in object relatization (Li and Thompson, 1981). The relativized positions that invariably require resumptive pronoun are indirect object and object of preposition.
(8)
a. Subject
(*ta) song Lisi yiben shu de neige ren he send Lisi one book Rel.Mar that— CL person
“the peron who sent Lisi a book”
b. Direct object
Lisi renshi (ta) de neige ren Lisi know him Rel.Mar. that— CL person
“the person whom Lisi knows”
c. Indirect object
Lisi song ta yiben shu de neige ren Lisi send him one book REl.Mar. that— CL person
“the person whom Lisi sent a book”
d. Object of preposition
Lisi gen (ta) taolun- gun zhege wenti de neige ren Lisi with him discuss-GUO this problem Rel.Mar that— CL person
“the person whom Lisi discussed the problem with”
e. Genitive
neige (*tade) baba shi laoshi de ren that— CL his father is teacher Rel.Mar. person
“the person whose father is a teacher”
(Adapted from Chiu, 1996)
2.2.5 Center embedding and left embedding
Chinese is a head-final language, so after process of relativization, Chinese will have the center-embedding occur in the sentences that have the head NP functioning as object , whereas those that the head NP functioning as subject result in left
embedding relative clauses. This is just the opposite of English. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 have the illustration ({} represents the boundray of relative clause).
Table 2.3 Left embedding in Chinese relative clauses Matrix position RC type Example
Subject SU {Song Lisi yiben shu de} neige ren lai— le.
“The peron who sent Lisi a book came.”
DO {Lisi renshi (ta) de} neige ren lai— le.
“The person whom Lisi knows came.”
IO {Lisi song ta yiben shu de} neige ren lai— le.
“The person whom Lisi sent a book to came.”
OPREP {Lisi gen ta taolun- gun zhege wenti de} neige ren lai— le.
“The person whom Lisi discussed the problem with came.”
GEN {neige (*tade) baba shi laoshi de} ren lai— le.
“The person whose father is a teacher came.”
Table 2.4 Center embedding in Chinese relative clauses Matrix position RC type Example
Object SU Wo xihuan {song Lisi yiben shu de} neige ren.
“I like the person who sent Lisi a book.
DO Wo xihuan {Lisi renshi (ta) de} neige ren.
“I like the person whom Lisi knows.
IO Wo xihuan {Lisi song ta yiben shu de} neige ren.
“I like the person whom Lisi sent a book to.
OPREP Wo xihuan {Lisi gen ta taolun- gun zhege wenti de}
neige ren.
I like the person whom Lisi discuss the problem with.
GEN Wo xihuan {neige (*tade) baba shi laoshi de} ren.
“I like the person whose father is a teacher. ”
2.3 Similarities and Differences between English and Chinese relative clauses
To sum up, one thing that English and Chinese relative clauses have in common is that they are both adjacent to the head NP. However, for the most parts, they are quite different. First, while English relative clauses are head- initial, Chinese ones are head-final. Second, use of English relative pronouns is optional, but use of Chinese relative marker is mandatory. Third, English has a number of relative
pronoun choices whereas Chinese invariably makes use of “De” as the relative marker.
The positions English can relativize include subject, direct object, indirect object, object of preposition, genitive, and object of comparative. On the other hand, Chinese can relativize the positions that English does, but without object of
comparative. The similarities and differences between English and Chinese relative clauses are summarized in table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Relative clause patterns in English and Chinese, adapted from Gass (1980)
English Chinese
Table 2.5 (continued)
Relative clause patterns in English and Chinese, adapted from Gass (1980)
English Chinese
2.4 Previous studies on the acquisition of relative clauses
Quite a number of research has been devoted to seeing whether there is a
universal order of acquisition of relative clauses. The issue that has been frequently explored is whether the universal markedness relationship as predicted by NPAH is adhered to in second language learners’ interlanguage (Gass, 1979, 1980; Pavesi, 1986; Hyltenstam, 1987, 1990). At the same time, transfer issue is taken into account in the investigation of linguistic universals as native language is deemed a significant influencing factor (Odlin, 1989). On the other hand, psycholinguistic factors are also considered in determining the order of acquisition (Ioup and Kruse, 1977; Schumann, 1980).
In this section, literature regarding the acquisition of relative clauses will be subdivided into two subsections: the first subsection concerns the acquisition of
relative clauses in English and non-Chinese languages and the other concerns the acquisition of Chinese relative clauses.
2.4.1 Acquisition of relative clauses in English and in non-Chinese languages
In the attempt to better determine the relationship between transfer and universal factors in the second language acquisition, Gass (1979) investigated the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult second language learners, who had a variety of linguistic backgrounds. The nine native languages of the learners were Arabic, Chinese, French, Italian, Korean, Persian, Portuguese, Japanese, and Thai. Data from 17 high- intermediate and advanced learners were elicited with two elicitation tasks: grammaticality judgment and sentence combination. 12 types of relative clauses were involved. Note that the indirect object and object of preposition were then collapsed as under one category. Gass claims that language transfer is evident in the acceptance or rejection of the resumptive pronouns in the English relative clauses. The groups whose native languages have resumptive pronouns are more likely to accept ungrammatical English sentences that have resumptive pronouns.
The tendency is evident in the three highest positions on the NPAH, but not in the lowest two positions: genitive and object of comparative. The author argues that we cannot yet determine whether the acceptance of resumptive pronoun in the genitive and object of comparative is due to the influence of native languages or language universal for lack of conclusive evidence. In addition, universal orders as predicted by NPAH were found to be accorded to, the easiest position to relativize being subject and the most difficult position object to comparative. However, genitive was the exception. Gass provided two possible explanations for this. First, genitive is
uniquely coded for case/grammatical relation in English, and there are no variants
uniquely coded for case/grammatical relation in English, and there are no variants