Cover not available
Part of
Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 255–282

Chapter 11
Early development and relative clause constructions in English as a second language

A longitudinal study

This study examines the development of relative clause (RC) constructions in a child learning English as a second language in a naturalistic environment. Processability Theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998, 2005; Pienemann & Kessler, 2011) does not treat RCs, hence the present study looks at four major approaches to RC development and attempts to find points of convergence with PT’s developmental stages. In order to trace RCs’ development empirically, we audio-recorded at regular intervals the spontaneous and elicited speech production of a Japanese child learning English from age 5;08 to age 7;08. Our study found that infinitival and participial RC constructions, such as those considered by Diessel (2004) as building blocks for RC development in FLA, also emerge early in child ESL.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Major theoretical approaches to relative clause acquisition
    • 2.1Emergentism and Usage-based approaches
    • 2.2The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH)
    • 2.3Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis (PDH)
    • 2.4SO Hierarchy Hypothesis (SOHH)
  • 3.Morpho-syntactic development in Processability Theory
  • 4.The study
    • 4.1Research question
    • 4.2The informant and the data
    • 4.3Analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Morphological development
    • 5.2Development of Relative Clause Constructions
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Emergentism and Usage-based approaches
    • 6.2Testing the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH)
    • 6.3Testing the Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis (PDH)
    • 6.4Testing the SO Hierarchy Hypothesis (SOHH)
    • 6.5Acquisition of RC constructions and PT stages
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.11kaw
References (59)
References
Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47(2), 383–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (1991). Language development from two to three. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (pp. 285–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. (1987). Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheˆa. Language 63(4), 741–782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In J. von Stechow J. A. W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: an international handbook of contemporary research (pp.13–127). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (2003). Language change during language acquisition. In M. Lamb & A. Brown (Eds.), Advances in child development (Vol. 2, pp. 173–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. (2001). Syntax and semantics: Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second language research 18(3), 274–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2015). The development of English as a second language. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 85–115). Paris: The European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). A construction-based analysis of the acquisition of East Asian relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29(2), 311–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2000). The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1-2), 131–151.Google Scholar
(2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: a corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2), 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Languages 81(4), 882–906.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(4), 431–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27(2), 315–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). Universals, typologies and interlanguage. In W. E. Rutherford (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). A functional-typological approach to second language acquisition theory. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clauses instruction on the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics 9(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2008). Constructing another language – Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(3), 335–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). What counts as developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning 65(1), 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5), 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29(2), 327–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning 44(1), 123–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1987). Implicational universals as predictions of language acquisition. Linguistics 25(3), 453–473. 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. Andersen (Ed.), Second language: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 39–58). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. M., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.). The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173–281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2002). English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses: Evidence for general-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31(6), 599–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5(1), 117–136.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1988). There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14, 319–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 169–185). New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Pleh, C. (1988). The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29(2), 95–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellow, D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics 27(4), 620–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Dial Press.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1987). Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(4), 621–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). How children learn language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics 28(1), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal models, and relative clause formation in a formal and informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8(1), 38–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199–251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Itani-Adams, Y. (2011). Comparing levels of processability across languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 15(2), 128–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language learning 24(2), 205–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1980). The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners. In R. C. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Lost Angeles Second Language Acquisition Research Forum (pp. 118–131). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1974). On the role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(3), 272–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1-2), 61–82.Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2004). What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Commentary on Wunderlich. Studies in Language 28(3), 642–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (2001). An introduction to syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y. (2013). Child second language learning: A study of English as a second language acquisition. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y., & Kawaguchi, S. (2016). Development of relative clause constructions in English L2. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 5(1), 83–93.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Keßler, Jörg‐U. & Anke Lenzing
2022. Grammar in Foreign and Second Language Classes. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Côté, Stephanie
2020. Examining Processability Theory's predictions for grammatical gender agreement in intermediate L2 French. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:3 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 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.