1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Cantonese-English learners in Hong Kong confront with substantial difficulty in development of English relative clauses. This study aims at verifying predictions of hypotheses about second language learners’ development of English relative clauses with data of written Hong Kong English. relatives and relatives in the Hong Kong component of the International Corpus of English were identified. Frequencies of occurrence of distinct types of relative clauses in the Hong Kong component were compared to evaluate whether predictions of Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, Kuno’s (1974) Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis, and Hamilton’s (1994) Subject-Object Hierarchy Hypothesis are supported by the corpus data respectively. Results indicate that the Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis is supported by data of written Hong Kong English whilst the other two hypotheses are partially supported only. Hypotheses supported by corpus data of written Hong Kong English are suggested to inform English language education in Hong Kong by illuminating the instructional order of different types of English relative clauses.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23008.ng
2024-02-19
2025-06-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.23008.ng
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1982) Functional approaches to grammar. InE. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of art (pp.173–218). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D., Johannson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex, England: Pearson Education Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J.
    (2002) A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7 (2), 165–182. 10.1075/ijcl.7.2.02bol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.7.2.02bol [Google Scholar]
  4. Brandt, S.
    (2011) Learning from social interaction: The form and function of relative clauses. InE. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 61–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tilar.8.05bra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.8.05bra [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, H. D.
    (1971) Children’s comprehension of relativized English sentences. Child Development, 42 (6), 1923–1936. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1127595
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J.
    (2008) Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. InP. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1984) Modular approaches to the study of the mind. San Diego: San Diego University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook, V.
    (1973) The comparison of language development in native children and foreign adults. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11 (1), 13–28. 10.1515/iral.1973.11.1‑4.13
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1973.11.1-4.13 [Google Scholar]
  9. Curriculum Development Council
    Curriculum Development Council (2017) English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 – Secondary 6). https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/eng-edu/Curriculum%20Document/ELE%20KLACG_2017.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Diessel, H.
    (2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486531
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486531 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2007) A construction-based analysis of the acquisition of East Asian relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 (2), 311–320. Retrieved from10.1017/S0272263107070167
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070167 [Google Scholar]
  12. Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M.
    (2000) The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (1/2), 131–151. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Holger_Diessel/publication/228785166_The_Development_of_Relative_Clauses_in_Spontaneous_Child_Speech/links/5412e6ec0cf2788c4b3586de.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81 (4), 882–906. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4490021
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Doughty, C.
    (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence form an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (4), 431–469. 10.1017/S0272263100010287
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010287 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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 Linguistics, 9 (1), 1–20. https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/9/1/1/232496
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fox, B. A.
    (1987) The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolute hypothesis?. Language, 63 (4), 856–870. https://www.jstor.org/stable/415720
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1990) A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses. Language, 66 (2), 297–316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/414888
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fries, C.
    (1945) Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Anbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gao, Q.
    (2014) Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of English relative clauses. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4 (3), 82–87. 10.5539/ijel.v4n3p82
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v4n3p82 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gass, S.
    (1979) Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29 (2), 327–344. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1979.tb01073.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01073.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Gass, S. M.
    (1987) The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8 (4), 329–350. 10.1017/S0142716400000369
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000369 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gass, S. M., Mackey, A.
    (2007) Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9780203826102
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826102 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K.
    (2005) Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (2), 313–353. https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/cogl/16/2/article-p313.xmleye
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Granger, S.
    (2002) A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. InS. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp.3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.6.04gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.6.04gra [Google Scholar]
  25. Greenbaum, S.
    (Ed.) (1996) Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198235828.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235828.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G.
    (1996) The International Corpus of English (ICE) project. World Englishes, 15 (1), 3–15. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1996.tb00088.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00088.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E.
    (2005) Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29 (2), 261–290. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hamilton, R. L.
    (1994) Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44 (1), 123–157. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ483575
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hatch, E.
    (1971) The young child’s comprehension of relative clauses. Technical Note 2-71-16. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawkins, J. A.
    (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. Y.
    (1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13 (3), 187–226. 10.1191/026765897671476153
     https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897671476153 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hsiao, F., & Gibson, E.
    (2003) Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition, 90 (1), 3–27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027703001240
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Huddleston, R. D., Pullum, G. K., & Peterson, P.
    (2002) Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. InR. D. Huddleston, G. K. Pullum, & L. Bauer (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.1031–1096). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ioup, G.
    (1983) Acquiring complex sentences in English. InK. Bailey, M. Long, & S. Peck (Eds.), Second language acquisition studies (pp. 25–40). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ioup, G., & Kruse, A.
    (1977) Interference vs. structural complexity in second language acquisition: Language universals as a basis for natural sequencing. InH. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 – Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 159–171). Washington, DC: TESOL.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Izumi, S.
    (2003) Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53 (2), 285–323. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00218
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00218 [Google Scholar]
  37. Keenan, E. L.
    (1975) Variation in universal grammar. InR. Fasold & R. Shuy (Eds.), Analyzing variation in language (pp. 136–148). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B.
    (1977) Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8 (1), 63–99. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4177973
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kennedy, G.
    (2003) Amplifier collocations in the British National Corpus: Implications for English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (3), 467–487. 10.2307/3588400
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588400 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kuno, S.
    (1974) The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5 (1), 117–136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177810
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lambrecht, K.
    (1988) There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics, 319–339. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1796
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1796 [Google Scholar]
  42. Larsen-Freeman, D., Celce-Murcia, M., Frodesen, J., White, B., & Williams, H. A.
    (2016) The grammar book: form, meaning, and use for English language teachers (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning, Heinle Cengage Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lau, E., & Tanaka, N.
    (2021) The subject advantage in relative clauses: A review. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6 (1), 1–34. 10.5334/gjgl.1343
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1343 [Google Scholar]
  44. Legum, S.
    (1975) Strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses. Technical Note 2-75-10. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, D. C. S.
    (2000) Hong Kong English: New variety of English or interlanguage?. English Australia Journal, 18 (1), 50–59. 10.3316/aeipt.113368
     https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.113368 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
    (2013) How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Loewen, S.
    (2015) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analysing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H.
    (2008) Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory & Cognition, 361, 170–181. 10.3758/MC.36.1.170
     https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.170 [Google Scholar]
  50. Matthews, S., & Yip, V.
    (2011) Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar (2nd ed.). Florence: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Ng, C. W.
    (2019) Acquisition of English cue strengths by Cantonese learners of English. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 42–53. https://www.caes.hku.hk/ajal/index.php/ajal/article/view/603
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (in press). Relative clauses in written Hong Kong English: A corpus-based study of untimed student essays. Asian Englishes. 10.1080/13488678.2023.2251732
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2023.2251732 [Google Scholar]
  53. O’Grady, W.
    (1987) Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2011) Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. InE. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tilar.8.03gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.8.03gra [Google Scholar]
  55. O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R.
    (2007) From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511497650
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497650 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ozeki, H., & Shirai, Y.
    (2007) Does the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of relative clauses?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 (2), 169–196. 10.1017/S0272263107070106
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070106 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pavesi, M.
    (1986) Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8 (1), 38–55. 10.1017/S0272263100005829
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005829 [Google Scholar]
  58. Piaget, J.
    (1970) Piaget’s theory. InP. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of psychology. New York: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Schachter, P.
    (1973) Focus and relativization. Language, 49 (1), 19–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/412101
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Schachter, J.
    (1974) An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24 (2), 205–14. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1974.tb00502.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00502.x [Google Scholar]
  61. Schumann, J.
    (1980) The acquisition of English relative clause by second language learners. InR. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers from the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum (pp. 118–131). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Stauble, A.
    (1978) A frequency study of restrictive relative clause types and relative pronouns usage in English (Unpublished paper). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Swan, M., & Smith, B.
    (Eds.) (2001) Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667121
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667121 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tarallo, F., & Myhill, J.
    (1983) Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33 (1), 55–76. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1983.tb00986.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00986.x [Google Scholar]
  65. White, L.
    (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815065
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wolfe-Quintero, K.
    (1992) Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (1), 39–70. https://www.cam​bridge.org/core/journals/studies​-in​-second​-language​-acquisition/article/learnability​-and​-the​-acquistion​-of​-extraction​-in​-relative​-clauses​-and​-wh​questions/8AD4​9D1F​89F7​5202​2465​3F08​F918​86C9
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Yip, V., & Matthews, S.
    (2007a) Relative clauses in Cantonese-English bilingual children: Typological challenges and processing motivations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 (2), 277–300. 10.1017/S0272263107070143
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070143 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2007b) The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620744
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620744 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23008.ng
Loading
A revisit of three hypotheses about second language development of English relative clauses
Pedagogical Linguistics 6, 78 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23008.ng
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23008.ng
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23008.ng
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; English relative clauses; Hong Kong English; second language development

Most Cited

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