1887
Volume 131, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The present study investigated what determined the difficulty of English relative clauses. Grammatical relation, configuration and thematic role in relative clause structures were selected as variables determining the English relative clause difficulty. The results indicated that Japanese learners of English were more sensitive to configurational distinction than grammatical relation distinction and thematic distinction. Based on the research results, the recent treatment of in second language acquisition re-search was criticized.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.131-132.02ito
2001-01-01
2019-12-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. American Psychological Association
    American Psychological Association (1994) : Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  2. CELCE-MURCIA, M. & D.E. LARSEN-FREEMAN
    (1983): The grammar book-An esl/efl teacher's course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  3. BERENT, G.
    (1994) : The subset principle in second language acquisition. In Cohen, A. , S. Gass , and E. Tarone (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp.17–40). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. BROWN, J.D.
    (1990) : The use of multiple t tests in language research. TESOL Quarterly24, 770–773.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1996) : Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall Regents.
  6. DOUGHTY, C.
    (1991) : Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of sl relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition13, 431–469.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ECKMAN, F.R. , BELL, L. & Nelson, D.
    (1988): On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics9, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. EBEL, R.L.
    (1979) : Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  9. ELLIS, R.
    (1994) : The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Gass, S.
    (1979) : Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning29, 327–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GASS, S.
    (1980) : An investigation of systematic transfer in adult second language learners. In R.C. Scarcella & S.D. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp.132–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  12. (1982) : From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On tesol '81 (pp.129–139). Washington, D.C.: TESOL129–139.
  13. HAMILTON, R.L.
    (1994): Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning44, 123–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1995) : The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy in sla : Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In F.R. Eckman , D. Highland , P.W. Lee , J. Mileham, & R.R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy101–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  15. HANSEN-STRAIN, L. & J. E. strain
    (1989): Variation in the relative clause of Japanese learners. JALT Journal11, 211–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HAWKINS, R.
    (1989): Do second language learners acquire restrictive relative clauses on the basis of relational and configurational information? The acquisition of French subject, direct object and genitive restrictive clauses by second language learners. Second Language Research5, 156–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HYLTENSTAM, K.
    (1984) : The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In R. Anderson (Ed.), Second language: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.39–58). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  18. ITO, A.
    (1996): Testing English tests: A language proficiency perspective. JALT Journal18, 183–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1997a) : Japanese efl learners' test-type related interlanguage variability. JALT Journal, 19, 89–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1997b): An analysis of test-type related variability of interlanguage performance among Japanese efl learners. JACET Bulletin28, 29–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1997c): An investigation of the influential factors on the difficulty of the unit 'whose + np.' Annals of Educational Research43, 67–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (1998): The author responds : More on test-type. JALT Journal20, 89–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1999a): A study of test-type related variability of interlanguage performance among Japanese efl learners: A focus on relative clause tests. Doctoral Dissertation. Hiroshima University (To be published by Ann Arbor, MI: Bell & Howell Information & Learning. isbn: 4-8419-1151 0).
  24. (1999b): An investigation of influential factors on the difficulty of English relative clauses. Journal of the Hiroshima University Curriculum Research and Development Association14, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2000a): Tests as a second language research method: Their types, reliability, validity, and variable research results. Review of Applied Linguistics127–128, 1–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2000b): The relation between the two Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchies. Journal of the Hiroshima University Curriculum Research and Development Association15, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2000c): The validity of Hamilton's hypothesis in English relative clause production. Japan Language Testing Journal11, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2000d): Is cloze test more sensitive to discourse constraints than C test?International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice2, 67–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. JAKENDOFF, R.
    (1990): On Larson's treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry21, 427–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. JONES, A.
    (1992): Generalization in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Annual Report of Studies: The Faculty of Letters of Jissen Women's University33, 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1997): Aptitude: Is it relative?Annual Report of Studies: The Faculty of Letters of Jissen Women's University38, 59–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. KAWAUCHI, C.
    (1988): Universal processing of relative clauses by adult learners of English. JACET Bulletin19, 19–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. KEENAN, E.L. , & B. COMRIE
    (1977): Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8, 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. LARSON, R.
    (1988): On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry19, 335–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MATSUNAMI, Y. , Y. IKEGAML , K. IMAI
    (Eds.) (1983): Taishukan dictionary for English studies. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
  36. OHBA, H.
    (1995): The learning order of English relative clauses by Japanese senior high school students in an instruction-only environment. Journal of Health Sciences University of Hokkaido21, 19–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. PINKER, S.
    (1989): Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  38. SIEGEL, A.F.
    (1990): Multiple t tests: Some practical considerations. TESOL Quarterly24, 773–775.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.131-132.02ito
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error