Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 131/132 (2001) ► pp.11–33

Japanese EFL Learners' Sensitivity to Configurational Distinction in English Relativization

 | Aichi Gakuin University Japan
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 Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy in second language acquisition re-search was criticized.
Published online: 1 January 2001
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.131-132.02ito
References (38)
References
American Psychological Association (1994) : Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
CELCE-MURCIA, M. &D.E. LARSEN-FREEMAN (1983): The grammar book-An esl/efl teacher's course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
BROWN, J.D. (1990) : The use of multiple t tests in language research. TESOL Quarterly 241, 770–773. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) : Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
DOUGHTY, C. (1991) : Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of sl relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 131, 431–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 91, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EBEL, R.L. (1979) : Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
ELLIS, R. (1994) : The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1979) : Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 291, 327–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1982) : From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On tesol '81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, D.C.: TESOL 129–139.Google Scholar
HAMILTON, R.L. (1994): Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning 441, 123–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 pedagogy 101–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
HANSEN-STRAIN, L. & J. E. strain. (1989): Variation in the relative clause of Japanese learners. JALT Journal 111, 211–237.Google Scholar
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 Research 51, 156–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
ITO, A. (1996): Testing English tests: A language proficiency perspective. JALT Journal 181, 183–197.Google Scholar
(1997a) : Japanese efl learners' test-type related interlanguage variability. JALT Journal, 191, 89–105.Google Scholar
(1997b): An analysis of test-type related variability of interlanguage performance among Japanese efl learners. JACET Bulletin 281, 29–45.Google Scholar
(1997c): An investigation of the influential factors on the difficulty of the unit 'whose + np.' Annals of Educational Research 431, 67–72.Google Scholar
(1998): The author responds : More on test-type. JALT Journal 201, 89–90.Google Scholar
(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).Google Scholar
(1999b): An investigation of influential factors on the difficulty of English relative clauses. Journal of the Hiroshima University Curriculum Research and Development Association 141, 1–10.Google Scholar
(2000a): Tests as a second language research method: Their types, reliability, validity, and variable research results. Review of Applied Linguistics 127–128, 1–36.Google Scholar
(2000b): The relation between the two Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchies. Journal of the Hiroshima University Curriculum Research and Development Association 151, 1–11.Google Scholar
(2000c): The validity of Hamilton's hypothesis in English relative clause production. Japan Language Testing Journal 111, 1–10.Google Scholar
(2000d): Is cloze test more sensitive to discourse constraints than C test? International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice 21, 67–77.Google Scholar
JAKENDOFF, R. (1990): On Larson's treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 211, 427–56.Google Scholar
JONES, A. (1992): Generalization in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Annual Report of Studies: The Faculty of Letters of Jissen Women's University 331, 1–39.Google Scholar
(1997): Aptitude: Is it relative? Annual Report of Studies: The Faculty of Letters of Jissen Women's University 381, 59–97.Google Scholar
KAWAUCHI, C. (1988): Universal processing of relative clauses by adult learners of English. JACET Bulletin 191, 19–36.Google Scholar
KEENAN, E.L., & B. COMRIE (1977): Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 81, 63–99.Google Scholar
LARSON, R. (1988): On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 191, 335–391.Google Scholar
MATSUNAMI, Y., Y. IKEGAML, K. IMAI. (Eds.) (1983): Taishukan dictionary for English studies. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar
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 Hokkaido 211, 19–35.Google Scholar
PINKER, S. (1989): Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
SIEGEL, A.F. (1990): Multiple t tests: Some practical considerations. TESOL Quarterly 241, 773–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ito, Akihiro
2005. Japanese EFL Learners' Sensitivity To Configurational Distinction In English Relative Clause Comprehension. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 147-148 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.