Teaching relative clausesin Japanese: Exploring alternative types of instruction and the projection effect

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 219-252

  Yabuki Soh, Noriko ^a  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247621361     PISSN: 02722631     EISSN: 14701545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S027226310707012X     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Aarts, F., & Schils, E. (1995). Relative clauses, the accessibility hierarchy and the contrastive hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 47-63.
2. Allen, Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
3. Ammar, A., & Lightbown, P. M. (2004). Teaching marked linguistic structures - More about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language learning (pp. 167-198). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Banno, E., Ohno, Y., Sakane, Y., Shinagawa, C., & Tokashiki, K. (1999). Genki: An integrated course in elementary Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.
5. Byrne, D. (1976). Teaching oral English. London: Longman.
6. Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol 1. The data (pp. 373-524). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Comrie, B. (1998). Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In W. Boeder, C. Schroeder, K. Wagner, & W. Wildgen (Eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Band 2 (pp. 51-60). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
8. Comrie, B. (2002). Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 19-37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
9. Croteau, K. C. (1995). Second language acquisition of relative clause structures by learners of Italian. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 115-128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249-276.
11. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning L2 grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
12. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.
13. 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, 431-469.
14. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford: Blackwell.
15. Doughty, C. J. (2004). Effects of instruction on learning a second language: A critique of instructed SLA research. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 181-202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. 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, 1-20.
17. Ellis, N. C. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-318.
18. Ellis, R. (2002). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 155-198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Gass, S. M. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327-344.
20. Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL '81: Selected papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 129-39). Washington DC: TESOL.
21. Hamilton, R. L. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123-157.
22. Hamilton, R. L. (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. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 101-113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Hansen-Strain, L., & Strain, J. (1989). Variation in the relative clauses of Japanese learners. JALT Journal, 11, 211-237.
24. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
25. Hawkins, R. (1989). Do second language learners acquire restrictive relative clauses on the basis of relational or configurational information? The acquisition of French subject, direct object and genitive restrictive relative clauses by second language learners. Second Language Research, 5, 158-188.
26. 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 languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 39-60). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
27. Inoue, K. (1976). Henkei bunpō to nihongo: Vol. 1. [Transformational grammars and Japanese: Vol. 1]. Tokyo: Taishūkan.
28. Izumi, S. (2000). The effects of output and input enhancement on the noticing and learning of relativization in English as a second language Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington DC.
29. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
30. Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53, 285-323.
31. Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587-609.
32. Kanno, K. (2001). On-line processing of Japanese English L2 learners. Research on Japanese as a Second Language, 4, 23-38.
33. Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
34. Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 177-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
37. Masuda, M. (2000). Nihongo gakushūsha to bogowasha no sutōrīteringu bun o hikaku suru [Comparing story-telling sentences between learners of Japanese and native speakers of Japanese]. Tama Ryūgakusei Sentā Kyōiku Kenkyū Ronshū [Tama Foreign Student Center Education Research Papers], 2, 13-25.
38. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Semantics and pragmatics of noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 14, 166-175.
39. Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
40. Mitchell, J. G. (2001). The acquisition of relative clause structures in French as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
41. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
42. O'Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433-448.
43. Ota, N. (2006). Lecture notes: AS/JP1000 6.0 Elementary modern standard Japanese. Retrieved August 18, 2006, from York University, Japanese Studies Program website: http://buna.yorku.ca/japanese/eljp/ ejlecnotes.html
44. Ozeki, H. (2003). Nani ga kankeisetsu shūtoku no nan'i o kimeru no ka: Kenkyū no dōkō oyobi Nihongo shūtoku kenkyū e no shisa [What determines the difficulty of relative clause acquisition: Review of research and its implication for the L2 acquisition of Japanese]. In Nihon Gengo Bunkagaku Kenkyū-kai [Association of Studies in Japanese Language and Culture] (Ed.), Daini gengo shūtoku kyōiku no kenkyū saizensen: 2003-nen ban [The state of the art in second language acquisition and instruction research: 2003 version] (pp. 32-50). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
45. Ozeki, H. (2005). Dainigengo ni okeru Nihongo no meishi shūshokusetsu no sanshutsu wa fuhenteki shūtoku nan'ido kaisō ni shitagau ka [Does the acquisition of noun-modifying constructions in L2 Japanese follow the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy?]. Dainigengo toshite no Nihongo no Shūtoku Kenkyū [Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language], 8, 64-82.
46. Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal models, and relative clause formation in a formal and informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38-55.
47. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
48. Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23-75). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
49. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 217-244.
50. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
51. Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45-141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
52. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217-243.
53. Roberts, M. (2000). Implicational markedness and the acquisition of relativization by adult learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu.
54. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-68.
55. Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instruction conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223-247.
56. Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1988). Grammar and second language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
57. Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean adult native speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 141-153.
58. Saito, H. (2002). Rentaishūshokusetsu no shūtoku ni kansuru kenkyū no dōkō [Second language acquisition research on Japanese noun modifying clauses]. In Nihon Gengo Bunka-gaku Kenkyū-kai [Association of Studies in Japanese Language and Culture] (Ed.), Daini gengo shūtoku kyōiku no kenkyū saizensen: 2002-nen ban [The state of the art in second language acquisition and instruction research: 2002 version] (pp. 45-69). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
59. Sakamoto, T., & Kubota, S. (2000). Nihongo kankeisetsu no shūtoku ni tsuite [The acquisition of Japanese relative clauses]. Nanzan Daigaku Kokusai Kyōiku Sentā Kiyō [Nanzan University International Education Center Bulletin], 1, 45-69.
60. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
61. Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.
62. Scott, S. (2003). Second language acquisition of relative clauses in Irish. In J. M. Liceras et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002) (pp. 260-268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
63. Shirai, Y. (1997). Linguistic theory and research: Implications for second language teaching. In G. R. Tucker & D. Corson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 4. Second language education (pp. 1-9). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
64. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1-22.
65. Tanaka, Y. (1996). The comprehension and acquisition of relative clauses by Japanese high school students through formal instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Tokyo.
66. Tarallo, F., & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 55-76.
67. Tosaku, Y. (2006). Yookoso!: An invitation to contemporary Japanese (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
68. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
69. Zobl, H. (1983). Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning, 33, 293-313.
70. Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329-344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.