Volume 133, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effects of branching type (Factor 1) and grammatical function of noun phrase (NP) (factor 2) of English relative clauses on interlanguage performance among Japanese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). The sentence combining test was administered to Japanese learners of English. Results indicated that both of the two factors significantly determine the difficulty of English relative clauses. Left-branching (center-embedded) relative clauses have a tendency to be more difficult than right-branching ones. Moreover, it is implied that subject-relative clauses are answered more accurately than object-relative clauses. These findings suggested that branching type and grammatical function of the noun phrase are complimentary determine the difficulty level of English relative clauses. The results implied the validity of KAWAUCHl's (1988) hypothesis that the difficulty order of relative clauses is as follows : OS > 00 > SS > SO. The results are also discussed with the recent theoretical frameworks in psycholinguistic research. The limitation of the present investigation and the directions of the further research are also discussed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. BAUM, S.R.
    (1993) : Processing of center-embedded and right-branching relative clause sentences by normal elderly individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics14, 75–88.
    [Google Scholar]
    (1983) : The grammar book-An SL/EFL teacher's course. Rowley, MA : Newbury House.
  3. BROWN, J.D.
    (1996) Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall Regents.
  4. COOK, V.
    (1975) : Strategies in the comprehension of relative clause production. Language and Speech18, 204–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CORREA, L.M.S.
    (1995) An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research24, 183–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. EBEL, R.L.
    (1979) : Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
  7. ELLIS, R.
    (1994) : The study of second language acquisition. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  8. GASS, S.
    (1979) : Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning29, 327–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1982) : From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL'81 (pp.129–139). Washington, D.C. : TESOL.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HAMILTON, R.L.
    (1994) : Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning44, 123–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1995) : The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy in SLA : Deterrmning 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 pedagogy (pp.101–114). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
    (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. ITO, A.
    (1996) : Testing English tests : A language proficiency perspective. JALT Journal18, 183–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1997a) : Japanese EFL learners' test-type related interlanguage variability. JALT Journal19, 89–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1997b) : An analysis of test-type related variability of interlanguage performance among Japanese EFL learners. JACET Bulletin28, 29–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1997c) : An investigation of the influential factors on the difficulty of the unit 'whose + NP.'Annals of Educational Research43, 67–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1998) : The author responds : More on test-type. JALT Journal20, 89–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (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).
  21. (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]
  22. (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]
  23. (2000b) : The relation between the two Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchies. Journal of the Hiroshima University Curriculum Research and Development Association15, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2000c) : The validity of Hamilton's hypothesis in English relative clause production. Japan Language Testing Association Journal11, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2000d) : Is cloze test more sensitive to discourse constraints than C-test? International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice, 2, 67–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. [in press] : Japanese EFL learners' sensitivity to configurational distinction in English relativization. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 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.
  28. (1997) : Aptitude : Is it relative?Annual Report of Studies : The Faculty of Letters of Jissen Women's University38, 59–97.
  29. KEMPER, S.
    (1986) : Imitation of complex syntactic constructions by elderly adults. Applied Psycholinguistics7, 277–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. KAWAUCHI, C.
    (1988) : Universal processing of relative clauses by adult learners of English. JACET Bulletin19, 19–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. KEENAN, E.
    (1975) : Variation in universal grammar. In E. Fasold & R. Shuy (Eds.), Analyzing variation in language (pp.136–149). Washington : Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. KEENAN, E.L. , & B. COMRIE
    (1977) : Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8, 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. KUNO, S.
    (1974) : The position of relative clause and cognition. Linguistic Inquiry5, 117–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. LARSON, R.
    (1988) : On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry19, 335–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. LEECH, G.
    (1983) : Principles of pragmatics. London : Longman.
  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. PRIDEAUX, G.D.
    (1984) : Psycholinguistics : the experimental study of language. London : Routledge.
  39. (1987) : Strategies and structures: the processing of relative clauses. London : John Benjamins.
  40. ROMAINE, S.
    (1984) : The language of children and adolescents : The acquisition of communicative competence. Oxford : Basil Black-wells.
  41. SHELDON, A.
    (1974) : The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior3, 272–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. SHUMANN, J.H.
    (1980) : Acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp.119–131). Rowley, MA : Newbury House.
  43. SLOBIN, D.I.
    (1973) : Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In CA. Furgason & D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp.175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    (1994) : An analysis of relative clauses in the Lancaster/IBM spoken English corpus. English Studies75, 73–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  • 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