A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in korean as a second language

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 433-448

  O Grady, William ^a   Lee, Miseon ^b   Choo, Miho ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85055301028     PISSN: 02722631     EISSN: 14701545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0272263103000172     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Babyonyshev, M., & Gibson, E. (1999). The complexity of nested structures in Japanese. Language, 75, 423-450.
2. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (2001). Working memory and syntactic processing in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Studies, 8, 10-24.
3. Carpenter, P., Miyake, M., & Just, M. (1994). Working memory constraints in comprehension: Evidence from individual differences, aphasia, and aging. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 1075-1122). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4. Cho, S. (1999). The acquisition of relative clauses: Experimental studies on Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai i at Manoa.
5. Cho, S. W. (1981). The acquisition of word order in Korean. Unpublished master s thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
6. Chung, G. (1994). Case and its acquisition in Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
7. Clancy, P., Lee, H., & Zoh, M. (1986). Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses: Universal principles and language-specific realizations. Cognition, 24, 225-262.
8. Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 45-61.
9. De Vincenzi, M. (1992). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
10. 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.
11. Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1-13.
12. Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327-344.
13. Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp. 132-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
14. Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL 81 (pp. 129-139). Washington, DC: TESOL.
15. Hamilton, R. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123-157.
16. Hamilton, R. (1995). The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy in SLA: Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 101-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Hankwuk E 1 [The Korean language 1]. (1997). Seoul: Korea University Folk Culture Research Center.
18. Hawkins, J. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244-285.
19. 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 clauses by second language learners. Second Language Research, 5, 156-188.
20. Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-100.
21. Kim, S., O Grady, W., & Cho, S. (1995). The acquisition of case and word order in Korean: A note on the role of context. Language Research, 31, 687-695.
22. Klein, E. (1998). Just parsing through: Notes on the state of L2 processing research today. In E. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of L2 grammars (pp. 197-216). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
23. Ko, Y. (2002). Investigating developmental stages in the acquisition of the relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai i at Manoa.
24. Koda, K. (1993). Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structure in L2 sentence comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 490-500.
25. Lee, S. (2001). Relative clauses and pro-drop in KFL learners writing: A sentence processing approach. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai i at Manoa.
26. Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2003). Relative clauses in early bilingual development: Transfer and universals. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 39-81). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
27. O Grady, W. (1987). Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. O Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. O Grady, W. (1999). Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 621-633.
30. Starosta, S. (1988). The case for lexicase. London: Pinter.
31. Tarallo, F., & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, 55-76.
32. Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and whquestions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 39-70.