中国大学生英语关系从句使用不足及错误探究
|
摘要
关系从句是英语中的一个重要句式,研究者们一直在从各个角度对其加以研究。然而,用比较全面的观点来探讨关系从句的研究比较少,而采用多因素理论来研究中国英语学习者关系从句习得的研究就更是微乎其微了。其次,在对以英语为第二语言或外语的学习者关系从句习得的研究中,英语熟练程度很少被作为一个参数来研究。此外,有关二语或外语学习者是否回避使用英语关系从句的争论一直没有停止过。而且,语言共性对中国学生关系从句习得的影响也有待研究。
本研究克服以上不足,以迁移理论、对比分析假说、错误分析、关系从句形成策略、名词短语易接近等级假说以及感知困难假说等为理论基础,探讨三个不同语言层次的中国大学生英语关系从句的使用情况,以便为中国英语教学提供一些可供借鉴的启示。
本研究为一项实证研究。参与本研究的受试者—112名中国大学生和43名英语本族语大学生都是随机抽取的。中国大学生关系从句的语料是通过以下四个测试获取的:写作、选择题、语法判断题和合并句子。对英语本族语大学生只收集了作文的语料。本研究比较了中国学生和英语本族语学生的作文语料,同时也对不同层次中国学生的语料进行了对比。所有数据都借助于统计软件—社会科学统计软件(SPSS)进行了分析。
研究结果证实了本研究的所有假设。首先,写作中,中国学生所使用的关系从句的数目远远少于本族语学生,这一点从前的一些研究也曾讨论过。但是其原因并非是一些研究者所认为的“回避使用”,本课题的研究者拒绝承认“回避”现象的存在,因为“回避”这一术语本身就存在问题,而且它是否可以作为一种学习策略而存在还有待商榷。的确,中国大学生在预感到使用关系从句会有障碍时,会采取一些策略,如简化和结构转换等。其次,中国学生语料中出现的关系从句使用不足和错误多等问题主要是由以下三个方面的因素造成的:语际因素、语内因素和语言共性。本论文分别对其进行了详尽的分析和讨论。再次,本研究结果部分支持语言共性的主要假说之一—名词短语易接近等级假说,但是有两个位置的等级顺序不符合此假说—属格位置和介词宾语位置。前一个例外在从前的一些研究中也曾发现过,但第二个例外从未被讨论过,这一不符合此假说等级的特例似乎暗示出介词宾语位置的关系从句比间接宾语位置的关系从句更容易些。然而这一发现有待于进一步研究与证实。最后,本研究证明了英语熟练程度是影响中国大学生英语关系从句使用的一个重要因素。英语熟练程度不仅影响学生关系从句使用的数目,而且决定关系从句使用的多样性以及所犯错误的数目和种类。但是对于不同程度的学生而言,这种影响是不均衡的。英语熟练程度还影响母语的迁移,语言熟练程度越高,母语迁移越少。学生关系从句使用中转换策略的采纳也受英语熟练程度的影响,英语程度越低的学生越依赖于转换策略。
本研究丰富并发展了有关二语及外语学习者英语关系从句习得的研究。本研究的发现和建议有助于中国英语教学,给英语教材编写者和教师提供了一些启示。教材编写者可以根据中国学生英语关系从句习得的顺序合理地安排关系从句的讲授顺序和课时。英语教师可设计多种形式的练习和课堂活动来发现学生关系从句方面的弱项,从而调整教学方法,使学生最大程度地获益。
The relative clause is a very important structure in English and it has been studied from different angles in the literature. However, few studies are made from an overall perspective, and even fewer studies examine Chinese speakers’acquisition of English relative clauses by means of a multifactor theory. Besides, the English proficiency level is rarely taken as a parameter in investigating ESL or EFL learners’acquisition of English relative clauses. Moreover, the discussion about whether ESL or EFL learners avoid using English relative clauses never ceases. What’s more, the specific influence of language universal properties on Chinese speakers’English relative clause acquisition needs to be examined.
Based on the transfer theory, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, the Error Analysis, relative clause formation strategies, the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy and the Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis, the study probes into the use of English relative clauses by three different proficiency levels of Chinese college students so that some pedagogical implications may be provided for the teaching and learning of English relative clauses. This study is an empirical research. The subjects in this study, who are 112 Chinese college students and 43 English native college students, are randomly chosen. Four elicitation methods (the composition task, the multiple choice test, the grammaticality judgment test and the sentence combining test) are adopted to gather genuine data from the Chinese subjects. As for the native students, only composition corpus is collected.
Comparisons both between the native students and the Chinese students, and between different levels of Chinese students, are made. Data from the subjects are analyzed via the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
The results of the study have confirmed all the hypotheses of the study. To begin with, the Chinese college students do use fewer English relative clauses on the composition task compared with the native students, which is compatible with the findings of some previous researchers. The reason is not“avoidance”as is claimed by some researchers. The phenomenon of“avoidance”is denied by the researcher of the present study for the term“avoidance”itself is problematic and whether it exists as a learning strategy is still disputable. Indeed, the Chinese students resort to some strategies such as simplification and structural conversion when anticipating difficulties in using relative clauses. Next, the underproduction and various errors found in the Chinese students’corpora are attributed to three reasons: interlingual factors, intralingual factors and language universal properties, each of which has been analyzed and discussed in detail. Then, the universal hypothesis—the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy is partly supported by the results of the study, always with the genitive position and sometimes with the object of a preposition as exceptions. The former exception has been found by some previous researchers, while the latter has never been reported in any previous study. It seems to imply that the object of a preposition is more easily relativized than the indirect object position in English relative clauses, which needs to be further studied and confirmed. Finally, the English proficiency level is proved to be an important parameter in the use of English relative clauses by the Chinese college students. It not only influences the number of relative clauses the students use, but also determines the variety of relative clauses and the number and variety of errors they make. But the influence is not balanced among different levels of students. The proficiency level has an effect on L1 transfer and the effect diminishes with the increase of the proficiency level. The proficiency level also influences the learners’use of learning strategies. The lower the proficiency level of the students is, the more frequently the strategies are used.
The study can enrich the literature on the acquisition of ESL and EFL learners’English relative clauses. The findings and suggestions made in the study will benefit the English teaching in China. The application of the research to teaching is helpful to textbook compilers, teachers and learners. Textbook compilers can compile textbooks reasonably according to the Chinese learners’acquisition order; teachers can try every means to design exercises and classroom activities in order to find out in what aspects the learners are still weak and modify the teaching approaches accordingly; the learners can benefit a lot from the modification of the textbook and teaching approaches and proceed fast to the final acquisition.
本研究克服以上不足,以迁移理论、对比分析假说、错误分析、关系从句形成策略、名词短语易接近等级假说以及感知困难假说等为理论基础,探讨三个不同语言层次的中国大学生英语关系从句的使用情况,以便为中国英语教学提供一些可供借鉴的启示。
本研究为一项实证研究。参与本研究的受试者—112名中国大学生和43名英语本族语大学生都是随机抽取的。中国大学生关系从句的语料是通过以下四个测试获取的:写作、选择题、语法判断题和合并句子。对英语本族语大学生只收集了作文的语料。本研究比较了中国学生和英语本族语学生的作文语料,同时也对不同层次中国学生的语料进行了对比。所有数据都借助于统计软件—社会科学统计软件(SPSS)进行了分析。
研究结果证实了本研究的所有假设。首先,写作中,中国学生所使用的关系从句的数目远远少于本族语学生,这一点从前的一些研究也曾讨论过。但是其原因并非是一些研究者所认为的“回避使用”,本课题的研究者拒绝承认“回避”现象的存在,因为“回避”这一术语本身就存在问题,而且它是否可以作为一种学习策略而存在还有待商榷。的确,中国大学生在预感到使用关系从句会有障碍时,会采取一些策略,如简化和结构转换等。其次,中国学生语料中出现的关系从句使用不足和错误多等问题主要是由以下三个方面的因素造成的:语际因素、语内因素和语言共性。本论文分别对其进行了详尽的分析和讨论。再次,本研究结果部分支持语言共性的主要假说之一—名词短语易接近等级假说,但是有两个位置的等级顺序不符合此假说—属格位置和介词宾语位置。前一个例外在从前的一些研究中也曾发现过,但第二个例外从未被讨论过,这一不符合此假说等级的特例似乎暗示出介词宾语位置的关系从句比间接宾语位置的关系从句更容易些。然而这一发现有待于进一步研究与证实。最后,本研究证明了英语熟练程度是影响中国大学生英语关系从句使用的一个重要因素。英语熟练程度不仅影响学生关系从句使用的数目,而且决定关系从句使用的多样性以及所犯错误的数目和种类。但是对于不同程度的学生而言,这种影响是不均衡的。英语熟练程度还影响母语的迁移,语言熟练程度越高,母语迁移越少。学生关系从句使用中转换策略的采纳也受英语熟练程度的影响,英语程度越低的学生越依赖于转换策略。
本研究丰富并发展了有关二语及外语学习者英语关系从句习得的研究。本研究的发现和建议有助于中国英语教学,给英语教材编写者和教师提供了一些启示。教材编写者可以根据中国学生英语关系从句习得的顺序合理地安排关系从句的讲授顺序和课时。英语教师可设计多种形式的练习和课堂活动来发现学生关系从句方面的弱项,从而调整教学方法,使学生最大程度地获益。
The relative clause is a very important structure in English and it has been studied from different angles in the literature. However, few studies are made from an overall perspective, and even fewer studies examine Chinese speakers’acquisition of English relative clauses by means of a multifactor theory. Besides, the English proficiency level is rarely taken as a parameter in investigating ESL or EFL learners’acquisition of English relative clauses. Moreover, the discussion about whether ESL or EFL learners avoid using English relative clauses never ceases. What’s more, the specific influence of language universal properties on Chinese speakers’English relative clause acquisition needs to be examined.
Based on the transfer theory, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, the Error Analysis, relative clause formation strategies, the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy and the Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis, the study probes into the use of English relative clauses by three different proficiency levels of Chinese college students so that some pedagogical implications may be provided for the teaching and learning of English relative clauses. This study is an empirical research. The subjects in this study, who are 112 Chinese college students and 43 English native college students, are randomly chosen. Four elicitation methods (the composition task, the multiple choice test, the grammaticality judgment test and the sentence combining test) are adopted to gather genuine data from the Chinese subjects. As for the native students, only composition corpus is collected.
Comparisons both between the native students and the Chinese students, and between different levels of Chinese students, are made. Data from the subjects are analyzed via the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
The results of the study have confirmed all the hypotheses of the study. To begin with, the Chinese college students do use fewer English relative clauses on the composition task compared with the native students, which is compatible with the findings of some previous researchers. The reason is not“avoidance”as is claimed by some researchers. The phenomenon of“avoidance”is denied by the researcher of the present study for the term“avoidance”itself is problematic and whether it exists as a learning strategy is still disputable. Indeed, the Chinese students resort to some strategies such as simplification and structural conversion when anticipating difficulties in using relative clauses. Next, the underproduction and various errors found in the Chinese students’corpora are attributed to three reasons: interlingual factors, intralingual factors and language universal properties, each of which has been analyzed and discussed in detail. Then, the universal hypothesis—the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy is partly supported by the results of the study, always with the genitive position and sometimes with the object of a preposition as exceptions. The former exception has been found by some previous researchers, while the latter has never been reported in any previous study. It seems to imply that the object of a preposition is more easily relativized than the indirect object position in English relative clauses, which needs to be further studied and confirmed. Finally, the English proficiency level is proved to be an important parameter in the use of English relative clauses by the Chinese college students. It not only influences the number of relative clauses the students use, but also determines the variety of relative clauses and the number and variety of errors they make. But the influence is not balanced among different levels of students. The proficiency level has an effect on L1 transfer and the effect diminishes with the increase of the proficiency level. The proficiency level also influences the learners’use of learning strategies. The lower the proficiency level of the students is, the more frequently the strategies are used.
The study can enrich the literature on the acquisition of ESL and EFL learners’English relative clauses. The findings and suggestions made in the study will benefit the English teaching in China. The application of the research to teaching is helpful to textbook compilers, teachers and learners. Textbook compilers can compile textbooks reasonably according to the Chinese learners’acquisition order; teachers can try every means to design exercises and classroom activities in order to find out in what aspects the learners are still weak and modify the teaching approaches accordingly; the learners can benefit a lot from the modification of the textbook and teaching approaches and proceed fast to the final acquisition.
引文
Archibald, J., & Libben, G. (1995). Research perspectives on second language acquisition. Toronto: Copp Clark Ltd.
Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & D’Amico, S. (1999). Processing complex sentences: A cross-linguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 69-123.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Houng, C. (1988). Why do Chinese use few relative clauses in English? University of Hawai’I Working Paper in ESL 7, 93-98.
Brown, D. (1971). Children’s comprehension of relativized English sentences. Child Development, 42, 1923-1936.
Buteau, M. (1974). Students’errors and the learning of French as a second language: A pilot study. In J. Schumann and N. Stensen, eds., New frontiers in second language learning, 20-31. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425-455.
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cann, R., Kaplan T., & Kempson R. (2005). Data at the grammar-pragmatics interface: the case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua, 115, 1551-1577.
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkley: University of California Press.
Chen, M. Y. (2005). English prototyped small clauses in the interlanguage of Chinese/ Taiwanese adult learners. Second Language Research 21(1), 1-33
Chiang, D. (1980). Predictors of relative clause production. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen, eds., Research in second language acquisition, 142-145. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chuang, S. Y. (2002). A study of the use of English relative clauses by speakers of Chinese learning German in Taiwan. The University of Texas. Arlington. M. A. thesis.
Clancy, P., Lee, H., & Zoh, M. H. (1986). Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses: Universal principles and language-specific realizations. Cognition, 23, 225-262.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Cook, V. (1973). The comparison of language development in native children and foreignadults. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 13-28.
Cooper, R., Olshtain, E., Tucker, G. R., & Waterbury, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex English structures by adult native speakers of Arabic and Hebrew. Language Learning, 29(2), 255-273.
Crain, S., McKee, C., & Emiliani, M. (1990). Visiting relatives in Italy. In L. Frazier and J. G. de Villiers, eds., Language processing and language acquisition, 335-356. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs—a case for evidence from an empirical study of SL relativisation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 431-470.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 882-906.
Doughty, C. (1988). The effect of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Downing, B. T. (1978). Some universals of relative clause structure. In H. G. Joseph, ed., Universals of human language 375-418. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 34, 37-53.
Du?ková, L. (1969). On sources of errors in second language learning. IRAL, 7(1), 11-33. Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-30.
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, K. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1-11.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press. Fabb, N. (1990). The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Linguistics, 26, 57-78.
Felix, S. (1980). Interference, interlanguage, and related issues. In S. Felix, ed., Second language development: Trends and issues 93-107. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Flynn, S. (1989). The role of the head-initial/ head-final parameter in the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult Spanish and Japanese speakers. In S. Gass & J. Schachter, eds., Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition 89-108. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as foreign language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29(2), 327-344.
Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen, eds., Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers from the Los Angeles second language acquisition research forum 132-141. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hynes and W. Rutherford, eds., ON TESOL’81: Selected paper from the fifteenth annual conference of teachers of English to speakers of other languages 129-139. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko., K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313-353.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Universals of language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj, ed., Language development, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics 245-274. Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hamilton, R. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123-157.
Hawkins, J. A. (1987). Implicational universals as predictors of language acquisition. Linguistics, 25, 453-473.
Heinrichs, R. (2002). The acquisition of relative clauses by English as a second language learners. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Regina. Canada.
Hughes, A. (1980). Problems in contrastive analysis and error analysis. ERIC Documents ED. 192 573.
Hulstijn, J., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 241-55.
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen, ed., Second language: A crosslinguistic perspective. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Ioup, G., & Kruse, A. (1977). Interference versus structural complexity as a predictor of second language relative clause acquisition. In C. Henning, ed., Paper presented at the Los Angeles second language research forum.
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clausesby learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285-323.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman.
Jansen, B., Lalleman, J., & Muysken, P. (1981). The alternation hypothesis: Acquisition of Dutch word order by Turkish and Moroccan foreign workers. Language Learning, 31, 315-336.
Jordens, P. (1977). Rules, grammatical intuitions, and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 5-76.
Kamimoto, T., Shimura, A., & Kellerman, E. (1992). A second language classic reconsidered—the Case of Schachter’s avoidance. Second Language Research, 8(3), 251-277.
Keenan, E. (1975). Variation in universal grammar. In R. Fasold & R. Shuy, eds., Analyzing variation in language 136-161. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Keenan, E. (1975). (1985). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen, ed., Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. II: 141-70. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, E., & Hawkins, S. (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In E. Keenan, ed., Universal grammar: 15 essays 60-85. London: Croom Helm.
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58-146.
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37-57.
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass, and L. Selinker, eds., Language transfer in language learning. Newbury House, Rowley, Massachusetts.
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, 599-617.
Kleinmann, H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93-108.
Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Kubota, M. (1993). Accuracy order and frequency order of relative clauses as used by Japanese senior high school students of EFL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 020.
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117-136.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistic across cultures. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35-48.
Lehmann, C. (1986). On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics, 24, 663-80.
Liao Y., & Fukuya Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54(2), 193-226.
Li, J. (1996). Underproduction does not necessarily mean avoidance: Investigation of underproduction using Chinese ESL learners. In L. F. Bouton, ed., Pragmatics and language learning, 7, 171-87.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). Chinese. In B. Comrie, ed., The world’s major languages 811-833. New York: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. T. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/cecl/Cecl-Projects/Icle/locness1.htm
Mellow J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645-670.
Maxwell D. N. (1979). Strategies of relativization and NP accessibility. Language, 55(2), 352-371.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apologies. In S. Gass & L. Selinker, eds., Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Ozeki, H., & Shirai, Y. (2004). Semantic bias in the acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese. In A. Brugos, M. R. Clark-Cotton, & S. Ha, eds., Proceedings of the 29th annual Boston University conference on language development, 459-470. Somerville, Ma: Cascadilla Press.
Pavesi, M. (1984). The acquisition of relative clauses in a formal and informal setting: Further evidence in support of the markedness hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton & D. G.Little, eds., Language learning in formal and informal context 151-163. Proceedings of a Joint Seminar of the Irish and British Associations for Applied Linguistics. Dublin, Ireland.
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38-55.
Postman, L. (1971). Transfer, interference and forgetting. In J. N. King & L. A. Riggs, eds., Woodworth and Scholsberg’s experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1019-1132.
Richards, J. C. (1971). A noncontrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching, 25, 204-219.
Romaine, S. (1984). Relative clauses in child language, pidgins, and creoles. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 257-281.
Roth, F. (1984). Accelerating language learning in young children. Journal of Child Language, 2, 89-107.
Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Chinese, Japanese and Korean adult native speaker. IRAL, 32, 141-53.
Sah, P. (1981). Contrastive analysis, error analysis and transformational-generative theory: Some methodological issues in second language learning. IRAL, 19(2), 95-112.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-14.
Schuele, C. M., & Nicholls, L. M. (2000). Relative clauses: Evidence of continued linguistic vulnerability in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 14, 563-585.
Schumann, J. (1980). The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen, eds., Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers from the Los Angeles second language research forum 118-131. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seliger, H. (1989). Semantic constraints to the production of the English passive by Hebrew-English bilinguals. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach, eds., Transfer in language production 21-33. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Selinker, L. (1966). A psycholinguistic study of language transfer. Ph. D. dissertation. Georgetown University.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General linguistics, 9, 67-92.
Selinker, L. (1975). Interlanguage. In J. Schumann and N. Stenson, eds., New frontiers in second language learning 114-136. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Sharwood S. M., & Kellerman, E. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second languageacquisition: An introduction. In E. Kellerman & S. M. Sharwood, eds., Cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 271-81.
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin, eds., Studies in child language development 175-208. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stockwell, R, Bowen J., & Martin, J. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. University of Chicago Press.
Tallerman, M. (1990). Relativization strategies: NP accessibility in Welsh. Linguistics, 26, 291-314.
Tarallo, F., & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 55-76.
Tavakolian, S. (1981). The Conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In S. Tavakolian, ed., Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Teng K. (1992). A study of the use of English relative clauses by speakers of Madarin Chinese in Taiwan. Arlington, Texas: The University of Texas at Arlington.
Touchie, H. Y. (1983). Transfer and related strategies in the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult Arab learners. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Texas. Austin. Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123-130.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Language in contact. Linguistic Circle of New York.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 39-70.
Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (1991). Relative complexity: beyond avoidance. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 363 103.
Zhao, R. (1989). A discourse analysis of relative clauses in Chinese and English: An error in‘an error in error analysis’. IDEAL 4, 105-117.
王宗炎, 2006,《英汉语文问题面面观》。高等教育出版社。
许余龙, 2002,《对比语言学》。上海外语教育出版社。
朱武汉, 2007,中国英语学习者“存在句”习得之研究。《国外外语教学》第1期: 13-19。
Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & D’Amico, S. (1999). Processing complex sentences: A cross-linguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 69-123.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Houng, C. (1988). Why do Chinese use few relative clauses in English? University of Hawai’I Working Paper in ESL 7, 93-98.
Brown, D. (1971). Children’s comprehension of relativized English sentences. Child Development, 42, 1923-1936.
Buteau, M. (1974). Students’errors and the learning of French as a second language: A pilot study. In J. Schumann and N. Stensen, eds., New frontiers in second language learning, 20-31. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425-455.
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cann, R., Kaplan T., & Kempson R. (2005). Data at the grammar-pragmatics interface: the case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua, 115, 1551-1577.
Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkley: University of California Press.
Chen, M. Y. (2005). English prototyped small clauses in the interlanguage of Chinese/ Taiwanese adult learners. Second Language Research 21(1), 1-33
Chiang, D. (1980). Predictors of relative clause production. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen, eds., Research in second language acquisition, 142-145. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chuang, S. Y. (2002). A study of the use of English relative clauses by speakers of Chinese learning German in Taiwan. The University of Texas. Arlington. M. A. thesis.
Clancy, P., Lee, H., & Zoh, M. H. (1986). Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses: Universal principles and language-specific realizations. Cognition, 23, 225-262.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Cook, V. (1973). The comparison of language development in native children and foreignadults. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 13-28.
Cooper, R., Olshtain, E., Tucker, G. R., & Waterbury, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex English structures by adult native speakers of Arabic and Hebrew. Language Learning, 29(2), 255-273.
Crain, S., McKee, C., & Emiliani, M. (1990). Visiting relatives in Italy. In L. Frazier and J. G. de Villiers, eds., Language processing and language acquisition, 335-356. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs—a case for evidence from an empirical study of SL relativisation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 431-470.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 882-906.
Doughty, C. (1988). The effect of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Downing, B. T. (1978). Some universals of relative clause structure. In H. G. Joseph, ed., Universals of human language 375-418. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 34, 37-53.
Du?ková, L. (1969). On sources of errors in second language learning. IRAL, 7(1), 11-33. Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-30.
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, K. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1-11.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press. Fabb, N. (1990). The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Linguistics, 26, 57-78.
Felix, S. (1980). Interference, interlanguage, and related issues. In S. Felix, ed., Second language development: Trends and issues 93-107. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Flynn, S. (1989). The role of the head-initial/ head-final parameter in the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult Spanish and Japanese speakers. In S. Gass & J. Schachter, eds., Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition 89-108. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as foreign language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29(2), 327-344.
Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen, eds., Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers from the Los Angeles second language acquisition research forum 132-141. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hynes and W. Rutherford, eds., ON TESOL’81: Selected paper from the fifteenth annual conference of teachers of English to speakers of other languages 129-139. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko., K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 313-353.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Universals of language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj, ed., Language development, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics 245-274. Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hamilton, R. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123-157.
Hawkins, J. A. (1987). Implicational universals as predictors of language acquisition. Linguistics, 25, 453-473.
Heinrichs, R. (2002). The acquisition of relative clauses by English as a second language learners. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Regina. Canada.
Hughes, A. (1980). Problems in contrastive analysis and error analysis. ERIC Documents ED. 192 573.
Hulstijn, J., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 241-55.
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In Andersen, ed., Second language: A crosslinguistic perspective. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Ioup, G., & Kruse, A. (1977). Interference versus structural complexity as a predictor of second language relative clause acquisition. In C. Henning, ed., Paper presented at the Los Angeles second language research forum.
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clausesby learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285-323.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman.
Jansen, B., Lalleman, J., & Muysken, P. (1981). The alternation hypothesis: Acquisition of Dutch word order by Turkish and Moroccan foreign workers. Language Learning, 31, 315-336.
Jordens, P. (1977). Rules, grammatical intuitions, and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 5-76.
Kamimoto, T., Shimura, A., & Kellerman, E. (1992). A second language classic reconsidered—the Case of Schachter’s avoidance. Second Language Research, 8(3), 251-277.
Keenan, E. (1975). Variation in universal grammar. In R. Fasold & R. Shuy, eds., Analyzing variation in language 136-161. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Keenan, E. (1975). (1985). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen, ed., Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. II: 141-70. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, E., & Hawkins, S. (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In E. Keenan, ed., Universal grammar: 15 essays 60-85. London: Croom Helm.
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58-146.
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37-57.
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass, and L. Selinker, eds., Language transfer in language learning. Newbury House, Rowley, Massachusetts.
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, 599-617.
Kleinmann, H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93-108.
Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Kubota, M. (1993). Accuracy order and frequency order of relative clauses as used by Japanese senior high school students of EFL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 020.
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117-136.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistic across cultures. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35-48.
Lehmann, C. (1986). On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics, 24, 663-80.
Liao Y., & Fukuya Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54(2), 193-226.
Li, J. (1996). Underproduction does not necessarily mean avoidance: Investigation of underproduction using Chinese ESL learners. In L. F. Bouton, ed., Pragmatics and language learning, 7, 171-87.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). Chinese. In B. Comrie, ed., The world’s major languages 811-833. New York: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. T. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/cecl/Cecl-Projects/Icle/locness1.htm
Mellow J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645-670.
Maxwell D. N. (1979). Strategies of relativization and NP accessibility. Language, 55(2), 352-371.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apologies. In S. Gass & L. Selinker, eds., Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Ozeki, H., & Shirai, Y. (2004). Semantic bias in the acquisition of relative clauses in Japanese. In A. Brugos, M. R. Clark-Cotton, & S. Ha, eds., Proceedings of the 29th annual Boston University conference on language development, 459-470. Somerville, Ma: Cascadilla Press.
Pavesi, M. (1984). The acquisition of relative clauses in a formal and informal setting: Further evidence in support of the markedness hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton & D. G.Little, eds., Language learning in formal and informal context 151-163. Proceedings of a Joint Seminar of the Irish and British Associations for Applied Linguistics. Dublin, Ireland.
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38-55.
Postman, L. (1971). Transfer, interference and forgetting. In J. N. King & L. A. Riggs, eds., Woodworth and Scholsberg’s experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1019-1132.
Richards, J. C. (1971). A noncontrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching, 25, 204-219.
Romaine, S. (1984). Relative clauses in child language, pidgins, and creoles. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 257-281.
Roth, F. (1984). Accelerating language learning in young children. Journal of Child Language, 2, 89-107.
Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Chinese, Japanese and Korean adult native speaker. IRAL, 32, 141-53.
Sah, P. (1981). Contrastive analysis, error analysis and transformational-generative theory: Some methodological issues in second language learning. IRAL, 19(2), 95-112.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-14.
Schuele, C. M., & Nicholls, L. M. (2000). Relative clauses: Evidence of continued linguistic vulnerability in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 14, 563-585.
Schumann, J. (1980). The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen, eds., Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers from the Los Angeles second language research forum 118-131. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seliger, H. (1989). Semantic constraints to the production of the English passive by Hebrew-English bilinguals. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach, eds., Transfer in language production 21-33. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Selinker, L. (1966). A psycholinguistic study of language transfer. Ph. D. dissertation. Georgetown University.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General linguistics, 9, 67-92.
Selinker, L. (1975). Interlanguage. In J. Schumann and N. Stenson, eds., New frontiers in second language learning 114-136. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Sharwood S. M., & Kellerman, E. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second languageacquisition: An introduction. In E. Kellerman & S. M. Sharwood, eds., Cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 271-81.
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin, eds., Studies in child language development 175-208. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stockwell, R, Bowen J., & Martin, J. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. University of Chicago Press.
Tallerman, M. (1990). Relativization strategies: NP accessibility in Welsh. Linguistics, 26, 291-314.
Tarallo, F., & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 55-76.
Tavakolian, S. (1981). The Conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In S. Tavakolian, ed., Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Teng K. (1992). A study of the use of English relative clauses by speakers of Madarin Chinese in Taiwan. Arlington, Texas: The University of Texas at Arlington.
Touchie, H. Y. (1983). Transfer and related strategies in the acquisition of English relative clauses by adult Arab learners. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Texas. Austin. Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123-130.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Language in contact. Linguistic Circle of New York.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 39-70.
Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (1991). Relative complexity: beyond avoidance. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 363 103.
Zhao, R. (1989). A discourse analysis of relative clauses in Chinese and English: An error in‘an error in error analysis’. IDEAL 4, 105-117.
王宗炎, 2006,《英汉语文问题面面观》。高等教育出版社。
许余龙, 2002,《对比语言学》。上海外语教育出版社。
朱武汉, 2007,中国英语学习者“存在句”习得之研究。《国外外语教学》第1期: 13-19。