Relation between Frequency and Processing Difficulty of English Relative Clauses by L2 Learners: A Learner Corpus Analysis

doi:10.18627/jslg.34.3.201811.491

All Issue

2018 Vol.34, Issue 3 Preview Page Next Page

Research Article

Relation between Frequency and Processing Difficulty of English Relative Clauses by L2 Learners: A Learner Corpus Analysis: Shin, Keun Young

30 November 2018. pp. 491-504

PDF

Abstract

This paper explores whether frequency can play a role in accounting for difficulties in processing English relative clauses (RCs) by L2 learners. Previous experimental studies showed that the processing difficulty of RCs in L2 is modulated by the syntactic function of the head noun and noun animacy. By analyzing a corpus of essays written by Korean adult learners of English, this paper shows that the distribution patterns of the RCs in the learner corpus are consistent with the experimental findings. Object-extracted RCs almost exclusively occur with inanimate head nouns, while subject-extracted RCs occur about two times more frequently with animate head nouns than inanimate head nouns. It is also found that the object-extracted RCs with inanimate head nouns often contain animate subjects and have the animacy configuration reflecting typical thematic structures of transitive clauses. The results of the corpus analysis provide support to frequency-based approaches for L2 processing, claiming that a higher frequency of a particular RC form makes it easier for L2 learners to acquire and process. (Chonnam National University)

Keywords

relative clause

language processing

second language

frequency

learner corpus

References

Baek, S. 2012. Processing of English Relative Clauses by Adult L2 Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Choi, I., and J. Kim. 2009. The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy and Second Language Acquisition: Corpus Analyses. Studies in British and American Language and Literature 92, 317-335.
Cuetos, F. and D. C. Mitchell. 1988. Cross-Linguistic Differences in Parsing: Restrictions on the Use of the Late Closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30, 73-105.10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2
Desmet, T., C. De Baecke, D. Drieghe, M. Brysbaert, and W. Vonk. 2006. Relative Clause Attachment in Dutch: Online Comprehension Corresponds to Corpus Frequencies When Lexical Variables are Taken into Account. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 453-485.10.1080/01690960400023485
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547-619.10.2307/41503710.1353/lan.1991.0021
Ellis, N. C. 1998. Emergentism, Connectionism, and Language Learning. Language Learning 48, 631-664.10.1111/0023-8333.00063
Ellis, N. C. 2002. Frequency Effect on Language Acquisition. Studies on Second Language Acquisition 24, 143-188.10.1017/S027226310200202410.1017/S0272263102002140
Ellis, N. C. 2003. Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure. In C. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 33-68.10.1002/9780470756492.ch4
Ellis, N. C. and L. Collins. 2009. Input and Second Language Acquisition: The Roles of Frequency, Form, and Function Introduction to the Special Issue. Modern Language Journal 93, 329-335.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.x
Fillmore, C. J. 1971. Some Problems for Case Grammar. In R. J. O’Brien (ed.), Report of the 22nd Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 35-56.
Frazier, L. and C. Clifton. 1989. Successive Cyclicity in the Grammar and the Parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93-126.10.1080/01690968908406359
Gennari, S. P. and M. C. MacDonal. 2009. Linking Production and Comprehension Processes: The Case of Relative Clauses. Cognition, 111, 1-23.10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.00619215912
Gennari, S. P. and M. C. MacDonald. 2008. Semantic Indeterminacy in Object Relative Clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 161-187.10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.004 19724662 PMC2735264
Gibson, E. and C. T. Schütze. 1999. Disambiguation Preferences in Noun phrase Conjunction do not Mirror Corpus Frequency. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 263-279.10.1006/jmla.1998.2612
Gibson, E., C. Schütze, and A. Salomon. 1996. The Relationship between the Frequency and the Processing of Linguistic Structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25, 59-92.10.1007/BF017084208789367
Gordon, P. and Lowder, M. 2012. Complex Sentence Processing: A Review of Theoretical Perspectives on the Comprehension of Relative Clauses. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2012, 403-415.10.1002/lnc3.347
Gordon, P. and R. Hendrick. 2005. Relativization, Ergativity, and Corpus Frequency. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 456-463.10.1162/0024389054396953
Gordon, P., R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. 2001. Memory Interference during Language Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27, 1411-1423.10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.141111713876
Gordon, P., R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Noun Phrase Type on Sentence Complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 97-114.10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.003
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hamilton, R. L. 1994. Is implicational Generalization Unidirectional and Maximal?: Evidence from Relativization Instruction in a Second Language. Language Learning 44, 123-157.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01451.x
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackson, C. and L. Roberts. 2010. Animacy Affects the Processing of Subject-Object Ambiguities in the Second Language: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading with German Second Language Learners of Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics 31, 671-691.10.1017/S0142716410000196
Just, M. A. and P. A. Carpenter. 1992. A Capacity Theory of Comprehension: Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity. Psychological Review 99, 122-149.10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.1221546114
Keenan, E. L. and B. Comrie. 1997. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63-99.
Kim, C-E. 2016. Processing Direct Object and Oblique Relative Clauses. Language Research 52.2, 151-170.
King, J. and M. A. Just. 1991. Individual Differences in Syntactic Processing: The Role of Working Memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 580-602.10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H
Krashen, S. 1989. We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 73, 440-464.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x
Kuno, S. 1974. The Position of Relative Clauses and Conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 117-136.
Lee, J. and K. Y. Shin. 2017. A Syntactic Analysis of English Relative Clauses Used by Korean EFL Speakers: A Corpus-Based Study. English 21 30, 219-245.
MacDonald, M., N. Pearlmutter, and M. Seidenberg. 1994. Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676-703.10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.6767984711
Mak, W., W. Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2002. The Influence of Animacy on Relative Clause Processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 50-68.10.1006/jmla.2001.2837
Mitchell, D. C., F. Cuetos, M. Corley, and M. Brysbaert. 1995. Exposure-Based Models of Human Parsing: Evidence for the Uuse of Coarse-Grained (nonlexical) Statistical Records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Special Issue: Sentence Processing 24, 469-488.10.1007/BF02143162
Omaki, A. and K. Ariji, K. 2005. Testing and Attesting the Use of Structural Information in L2 Sentence Processing. In L. Dekydtspotter, R. A. Sprouse and A. Liljestrand (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 205-218.
Pickering, M. J. and M. J. Traxler. 1998. Plausibility and Recovery from Garden paths: An Eye-Tracking Study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24, 940-961.10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.940
Roland, D., F. Dick, and J. L. Elman. 2007. Frequency of Basic English Grammatical Structures: A Corpus Analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57, 348-379.10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002 19668599 PMC2722756
Schumann, J. H. 1980. The Acquisition of English Relative Clause by Second Language Learners. In Scarcella, R.C. and K. D. Krashen (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 118-131.
Stauble, A. 1978. A Frequency Study of Restrictive Relative Clause types and Relative Pronoun Usage in English. Unpublished manuscript.
Sung, H. 2014. A Study on the Use of English Relative Clauses in Korean EFL Learners’ Writing. English Language Teaching 26, 65-83.10.17936/pkelt.2014.26.1.004
Swain, M. 1995. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-144.
Swain, M. 1998. The Output Hypothesis, Focus on Form, and Second Language Learning. In V. Berry, B. Adamson, and W. Littlewood (eds.), Applying Linguistics: Insights into Language in Education. Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong, 1-21.
Traxler, M. J. and M. J. Pickering. 1996. Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies: An Eye-Tracking Study. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 454-475.10.1006/jmla.1996.0025
Traxler, M. J., R. Morris, and R. Seely. 2002. Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 69-90.10.1006/jmla.2001.2836
Traxler, M. J., R. S. Williams, S. A. Blozis, and R. K. Morris. 2005. Working Memory, Animacy, and Verb Class in the Processing of Relative Clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53, 204-224.10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010
Trueswell, J. C., M. K. Tanenhaus, and S. M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic Influences on Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 285-318.10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
Wong, J. 1991. Learnability of Relative Clauses: A Hong Kong Case. Perspectives 3, 108-117.

Information

Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
Volume : 34
No :3
Pages :491-504
DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.34.3.201811.491

[1] Baek, S. 2012. Processing of English Relative Clauses by Adult L2 Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

[2] Choi, I., and J. Kim. 2009. The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy and Second Language Acquisition: Corpus Analyses. Studies in British and American Language and Literature 92, 317-335.

[3] Cuetos, F. and D. C. Mitchell. 1988. Cross-Linguistic Differences in Parsing: Restrictions on the Use of the Late Closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30, 73-105.10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2

[4] Desmet, T., C. De Baecke, D. Drieghe, M. Brysbaert, and W. Vonk. 2006. Relative Clause Attachment in Dutch: Online Comprehension Corresponds to Corpus Frequencies When Lexical Variables are Taken into Account. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 453-485.10.1080/01690960400023485

[5] Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547-619.10.2307/41503710.1353/lan.1991.0021

[6] Ellis, N. C. 1998. Emergentism, Connectionism, and Language Learning. Language Learning 48, 631-664.10.1111/0023-8333.00063

[7] Ellis, N. C. 2002. Frequency Effect on Language Acquisition. Studies on Second Language Acquisition 24, 143-188.10.1017/S027226310200202410.1017/S0272263102002140

[8] Ellis, N. C. 2003. Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure. In C. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 33-68.10.1002/9780470756492.ch4

[9] Ellis, N. C. and L. Collins. 2009. Input and Second Language Acquisition: The Roles of Frequency, Form, and Function Introduction to the Special Issue. Modern Language Journal 93, 329-335.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.x

[10] Fillmore, C. J. 1971. Some Problems for Case Grammar. In R. J. O’Brien (ed.), Report of the 22nd Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 35-56.

[11] Frazier, L. and C. Clifton. 1989. Successive Cyclicity in the Grammar and the Parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93-126.10.1080/01690968908406359

[12] Gennari, S. P. and M. C. MacDonal. 2009. Linking Production and Comprehension Processes: The Case of Relative Clauses. Cognition, 111, 1-23.10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.00619215912

[13] Gennari, S. P. and M. C. MacDonald. 2008. Semantic Indeterminacy in Object Relative Clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 161-187.10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.004 19724662 PMC2735264

[14] Gibson, E. and C. T. Schütze. 1999. Disambiguation Preferences in Noun phrase Conjunction do not Mirror Corpus Frequency. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 263-279.10.1006/jmla.1998.2612

[15] Gibson, E., C. Schütze, and A. Salomon. 1996. The Relationship between the Frequency and the Processing of Linguistic Structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25, 59-92.10.1007/BF017084208789367

[16] Gordon, P. and Lowder, M. 2012. Complex Sentence Processing: A Review of Theoretical Perspectives on the Comprehension of Relative Clauses. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2012, 403-415.10.1002/lnc3.347

[17] Gordon, P. and R. Hendrick. 2005. Relativization, Ergativity, and Corpus Frequency. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 456-463.10.1162/0024389054396953

[18] Gordon, P., R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. 2001. Memory Interference during Language Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27, 1411-1423.10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.141111713876

[19] Gordon, P., R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Noun Phrase Type on Sentence Complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 97-114.10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.003

[20] Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[21] Hamilton, R. L. 1994. Is implicational Generalization Unidirectional and Maximal?: Evidence from Relativization Instruction in a Second Language. Language Learning 44, 123-157.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01451.x

[22] Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[23] Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[24] Jackson, C. and L. Roberts. 2010. Animacy Affects the Processing of Subject-Object Ambiguities in the Second Language: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading with German Second Language Learners of Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics 31, 671-691.10.1017/S0142716410000196

[25] Just, M. A. and P. A. Carpenter. 1992. A Capacity Theory of Comprehension: Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity. Psychological Review 99, 122-149.10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.1221546114

[26] Keenan, E. L. and B. Comrie. 1997. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63-99.

[27] Kim, C-E. 2016. Processing Direct Object and Oblique Relative Clauses. Language Research 52.2, 151-170.

[28] King, J. and M. A. Just. 1991. Individual Differences in Syntactic Processing: The Role of Working Memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 580-602.10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H

[29] Krashen, S. 1989. We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 73, 440-464.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x

[30] Kuno, S. 1974. The Position of Relative Clauses and Conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 117-136.

[31] Lee, J. and K. Y. Shin. 2017. A Syntactic Analysis of English Relative Clauses Used by Korean EFL Speakers: A Corpus-Based Study. English 21 30, 219-245.

[32] MacDonald, M., N. Pearlmutter, and M. Seidenberg. 1994. Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676-703.10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.6767984711

[33] Mak, W., W. Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2002. The Influence of Animacy on Relative Clause Processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 50-68.10.1006/jmla.2001.2837

[34] Mitchell, D. C., F. Cuetos, M. Corley, and M. Brysbaert. 1995. Exposure-Based Models of Human Parsing: Evidence for the Uuse of Coarse-Grained (nonlexical) Statistical Records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Special Issue: Sentence Processing 24, 469-488.10.1007/BF02143162

[35] Omaki, A. and K. Ariji, K. 2005. Testing and Attesting the Use of Structural Information in L2 Sentence Processing. In L. Dekydtspotter, R. A. Sprouse and A. Liljestrand (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 205-218.

[36] Pickering, M. J. and M. J. Traxler. 1998. Plausibility and Recovery from Garden paths: An Eye-Tracking Study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24, 940-961.10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.940

[37] Roland, D., F. Dick, and J. L. Elman. 2007. Frequency of Basic English Grammatical Structures: A Corpus Analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57, 348-379.10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002 19668599 PMC2722756

[38] Schumann, J. H. 1980. The Acquisition of English Relative Clause by Second Language Learners. In Scarcella, R.C. and K. D. Krashen (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 118-131.

[39] Stauble, A. 1978. A Frequency Study of Restrictive Relative Clause types and Relative Pronoun Usage in English. Unpublished manuscript.

[40] Sung, H. 2014. A Study on the Use of English Relative Clauses in Korean EFL Learners’ Writing. English Language Teaching 26, 65-83.10.17936/pkelt.2014.26.1.004

[41] Swain, M. 1995. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-144.

[42] Swain, M. 1998. The Output Hypothesis, Focus on Form, and Second Language Learning. In V. Berry, B. Adamson, and W. Littlewood (eds.), Applying Linguistics: Insights into Language in Education. Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong, 1-21.

[43] Traxler, M. J. and M. J. Pickering. 1996. Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies: An Eye-Tracking Study. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 454-475.10.1006/jmla.1996.0025

[44] Traxler, M. J., R. Morris, and R. Seely. 2002. Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 69-90.10.1006/jmla.2001.2836

[45] Traxler, M. J., R. S. Williams, S. A. Blozis, and R. K. Morris. 2005. Working Memory, Animacy, and Verb Class in the Processing of Relative Clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53, 204-224.10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010

[46] Trueswell, J. C., M. K. Tanenhaus, and S. M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic Influences on Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 285-318.10.1006/jmla.1994.1014

[47] Wong, J. 1991. Learnability of Relative Clauses: A Hong Kong Case. Perspectives 3, 108-117.

The Journal of Studies in Language ISSN:1225-4770(Print) 2671-6151(Online) 언어연구

All Issue