1.5 Signifiacnce of the study
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 such as that or which. Second, it is possible that learners treat whose son in (9) as a unit, the subject of the verb came. In doing so, learners might perceive genitive like subject, the highest position on the NPAH, thus making genitive easier to relativize.
(9) The man whose son just came home
In conclusion, it was claimed that language universals played the leading role since they were dominant both in assigning relative orders of difficulty and in determining where language transfer occurs.
Figure 2.1
Percentage of sentences correct on combining task (all group)(from Gass, 1979)
In 1980, Gass conducted a similar study. However, as the 1979 study was based only on the accuracy rate with which learners acquired relative clauses, the 1980 one looked also at the frequency of the relative clauses learners produced.
Gass compared the number of the relative clauses used by given subjects with the same subjects’ performance on the combining task. It was hypothesized that if the number of the relative clauses was related to difficulty, then it would positively
correlate with actual difficulty on the combining task. The correlation was however not significant. To further investigate what learners were actually avoiding in producing relative clauses, Gass examined larner ’s relative clauses in combining task and found four types of avoidance strategies learners used as in (10) (From Gass, 1980):
(10)
1. Substitution of one lexical item for another.
Example: The woman danced. The man is fatter than the woman.
→The woman that is thinner than the man danced. (Persain and Chinese) 2. Switching the order of the two sentences so as to embed the sentence which
was intended as the matrix.
Example: He saw the cat. The dog jumped on the cat.
→The dog jumped on the cat that he saw. (Arabic) 3. Changing the identical NP.
Example: He saw the woman. The man is older than the woman.
→He saw the man who is older than the woman. (French) 4. Changing the syntactic structure of the second sentence.
Example: He saw the woman. The man kissed the woman.
→He saw the woman who was kissed by the man. (Arabic)
There are other studies that have similar results to Gass’s concerning the
grammatical judgment of resumptive pronoun. Hyltenstam (1987, 1990) found that his subjects who learned Swedish (which, like English, does not manifest resumptive pronoun) as second language tended to use resumptive pronoun in their interlanguage, no matter whether their native languages have resupmtive pronoun or not. For example, although resumptive pronoun does not occur in Finnish and Spanish,
learners in these groups used resumptive pronoun in oral elicitation task. The pattern
is also dependant on the first language structure, as there are more pronoun retentions in the Swedish of those learners whose L1 uses this strategy more frequently. In particular, the universal hierarchy as predicted by NPAH was generally adhered to, except the genitive and object of comparative and indirect object and object of preposition. It was argued that the order between OCOMP and GEN and that between IO and OBL should be inverted to reflect a psychologically real acquisition order rather than the typological one.
The acquisition order obtained by Hyltenstam was further supported by Pavesi (1986). Pavesi (1986) set out to investigate the possible influence learning context could have in the acquisition of English relative clauses. For the learning context, Pavesi means the different type of discourses: formal and informal, which learners were mostly exposed to. Two groups of speakers of Italian were involved: 48 EFL Italian high school students, who received formal English input through instruction;
and 38 Italian workers in Edinburgh, who had only informal English input from daily contact with English speakers. It was presumed that the acquisition order as predicted by NPAH would be yielded by both groups and that the formal groups would exhibit more marked structures than the informal groups. The elicitation technique used was oral task with pictorial cues as in the study by Hyltenstam, in which subjects were expected to orally produce the intended relative clauses when an interviewer asked questions with illustrated pictures. For example, when the interviewer asked who is No.6? the expected answer was No. 6 is the man who is running. A “+” would be assigned when a correct relative clause was produced 80 percent of the time, otherwise a “- ” would be assigned. Two major conclusions were reached. First, the results generally came out as assumed: both formal and informal groups conformed to the implicational order on the NPAH. Second, more formal learners mastered target- like relativization. However, the pattern for
indirect object and object of preposition and also for genitive and object and comparative was not always as expected as on the NPAH. That is, the learners tended to invert the order of indirect object and object of preposition, and genitive and object of comparative.
Tarallo and Myhill (1983) investigated acquisition of relative clauses in Chinese, Portuguese, German, Japanese, and Persian by native speakers of English who were asked to judge the grammaticality of relative clauses. The findings were three- fold.
First, the use of resumptive pronouns in interlanguage was a universal phenomenon.
This generalization was made because while English is a language that does not allow resumptive pronoun, it was found that learners’ accepting resumptive pronouns in L2 languages was a common practice. Second, learners generally followed the order in the NPAH, except for object of preposition and indirect object. The order of
difficulty was SU/DO>OPREP>IO>GEN (> means is more easier than). Third, there was evidence for transfer effect. For example, German and Chinese do not have preposition in indirect object relativization, but English does. Learners of German and Chinese rejected the relativization of indirect object more often than did that of subject and direct object, showing that learners of these two languages were transferring the feature of English to German and Chinese.
Ioup and Kruse (1977) tasted three hypotheses, PDH (Kuno, 1974), NPAH and parallel function hypothesis (PFH) (Sheldon, 1973) to see whether the native language interference or language universals best describe second language acquisition of
Ioup and Kruse (1977) tasted three hypotheses, PDH (Kuno, 1974), NPAH and parallel function hypothesis (PFH) (Sheldon, 1973) to see whether the native language interference or language universals best describe second language acquisition of