Está en la página 1de 20

On the Generalization of Relative Clause Instruction in the Acquisition of English as a Second Languagel

FRED R. ECKMAN, LAWRENCE BELL, and DIANE NELSON


University of WisconsinMilwaukee

This paper reports on an experimental study intended to test the generalization of instruction in second language learning. A group ofstudents in an English as a second language program served as subjects for special instruction in relative clause formation. The subjects were given a pre-test on combining two sentences into one sentence containing a relative clause where either the subject, object, or object of a preposition was the relativized noun phrase. Based on the pre-test results, four equal groups were formed, three of which served as experimental groups and one as the control group. Each experimental group was given instruction on theformation ofonly one type ofrelative clause. The subjects were then given a post-test. From the results of the experiment, it is argued that maximal generalization*of learning takes place from structures which are typologically more marked to those structures which are typologically less marked, and not the reverse. Some implications of this interpretation are discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

The interaction between theory and practice in linguistics and language study, or more specifically, between theories of second language acquisition on the one hand and language pedagogy on the other hand, has not always been optimal. There has been doubt that insights into linguistic theory have any implications for language teaching (Chomsky 1966), and there has been scepticism that, where linguistic tenets have been applied to language pedagogy, the applications have not always borne fruit (Wardhaugh 1970). The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a pilot study which suggest that there are some important questions in language pedagogy that can be answered by linguistics and second language acquisition theory. This study attempts to replicate and extend the findings in a similar study by Gass (1982), to be discussed below. The questions to which we address ourselves in this paper are listed in 1. 1 (a) What aspects of the target language (TL) will be the easiest to acquire for any given learner? (b) What aspects of the TL will be the most difficult to acquire for any given learner? (c) What aspects of the TL will, if learned, result in maximal generalization of that learning to other structures?
Applied Linguistics Vol. 9, No. 1 Oxford University Press 1988

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

While all of the questions in 1 are both important and pertinent to language pedagogy, it can be argued that 1 (c) is the most important, because it raises the issue of whether a learner can actually have 'learned' more than he/she has been taught. This would be true if it could be shown that by having learned some aspect, A, of the TL, the learner was able to generalize this learning to some other aspect, B, of the TL, without having been taught B. If facts like these could be demonstrated, then they would suggest a strategy of interlanguage (IL) intervention which would claim that, with respect to the example in question, it would not be necessary to teach both A and B, rather, only A would have to be taught. A review of a number of current ESL texts reveals that such a theory or strategy is difficult tofind,if it exists at all. Thus, texts usually differ in the order in which they present similar or identical material, and there is little or no presumption that the learner will generalize what is taught to different but related structures. This contention is supported by the fact that texts give explanations and exercises explicitly designed to teach these related structures, rather than assuming that the learner will be able to generalize his/her knowledge to these structures. For example, in the area of teaching English pronunciation, Bens (1977) generally presents phonemes in word-initial position followed by the presentation of these phonemes in final or medial positions. However, since each phoneme is introduced and drilled separately, there is no presumption that a learner who has acquired, say, a /p-b/ contrast will generalize that contrast to other obstruents, or even to other stops. Similarly, there is no presumption that a learner who acquires a /p-b/ contrast word-initially will be able to generalize that contrast to medial or final position. This is shown by the fact that Bens introduces the initial /p-b/ contrast with accompanying drills in lesson twelve, and introduces the /p-b/ contrast medially and finally in lesson thirteen, again with accompanying exercises. Thus, implicit in this presentation of the material is the assumption that the learner knows only what he/she is taught. Moreover, this is not an isolated case, since we have found similar or identical characteristics in a number of other texts also. Those that we have investigated are summarized in Table 1. The situation is similar when we consider the teaching of related grammatical structures, such as relative clauses. For example, Krohn (1971) introduces relative clauses in which the relativized noun phrase, that is, the relative pronoun, functions as a subject or an object. Since both types of relative clauses are taught, there is no assumption that the learner would be able to acquire only one type of relative clause, say, those with relativized objects, and be able to generalize this learning to sentences with relativized subjects. Likewise, Rutherford (1975) and Azar (1981) both introduce relative clause structures containing relative pronouns functioning as the subject, object, or object of a preposition in the same chapter. Since the authors find it necessary to

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

F. R. ECKMAN, L. BELL, AND D. NELSON

Table 1: Presentation of some phonological contrasts by text


Text Bens 1977 Contrast p-b Position initial medial/final initial medial/final Chapter 12.4 13.4 14.5 17.2-3

t-d
ELS 1966 Lado/Fries 1981 Prator/Robinett 1972

initial medial/final

7.4 7.5

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

Voice contrasts presented in all positions in same chapter Point of articulation contrasts presented instead of voice contrasts; contrasts presented in all possible positions Contrasts presented according to vowel context rather than word position

introduce and drill each relative clause type, there is presumably no assumption that a learner will be able to generalize his/her learning from one type of relative clause to another. Again, this situation characterizes a number of other texts that we have investigated, as summarized in Table 2? While we have cited only a few texts in the area of both pronunciation and grammar, the situation which we depicted is, to the best of our knowledge,

Table 2: Presentation of relative clause types by grammar text


Text Subj. rel. Dir. obj. rel. Obj.ofa prep. reL 83.2 26.1C Whose Where When

Azarl981 Fingado 1981 Frank 1972 Krohnl971 Harris/Rowel981 Praninskasl981 Rutherford 1975 Sutherland 1982 Wohl 1969

8.2
26.1A 3.2* 17A.1

8.3.1 26.1B

8.4
26.1D

8.5
26. IE

8.6
26.1E

3.3
17A.1 12Ct

3.4
17A.2 12Ct

12B
10.7b 12.B 11.2

12D
13.3 E.2 and 3

12
13.3

10.7a 17.D 13.1

10.72 12.E


12.E

E.4

except for one item on where t exercises presented in a different section X presented in Book III presented together in 16.9

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

representative of the state of the field in general, and was also noted in Gass (1982). Moreover, although it seems that few, if any, current ESL texts presume any systematic generalization of learning (but see note 2), there have been some recent proposals in the area of second language acquisition theory which could have a bearing on the questions raised in 1. For example, it is proposed in Eckman (1977) that the notion of typological markedness, defined as in 2, can be correlated with the notion of degree of difficulty in second language acquisition. This idea is contained in the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH), which is formulated in 3. 2 A phenomenon, X, in some language is relatively more marked than some other phenomenon, Y, if, cross-linguistically, the presence of X in some language necessarily implies the presence Y, but the presence of Y in a language does not necessarily imply the presence of X. 3 Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) The areas of difficulty that a learner will have with a given TL can be predicted on the basis of a systematic comparison of the NL and TL, such that: (a) those areas of the TL which are different from the NL and relatively more marked than in the NL will be difficult; (b) the degree of difficulty of any aspect of the TL which is different from the NL and relatively more marked than in the NL will correspond to the relative degree of markedness of that aspect; (c) those aspects of the TL which are different from the NL, but which are not more marked than in the NL will not be difficult. If we make the assumption that human beings win learn to do things which are less difficult before they learn to do related things which are more difficult, or relatedly, if we assume that by virtue of being able to do something which is more difficult a person has learned to do the related things which are less difficult, then it is possible to formulate some hypotheses about the questions in 1. The MDH would predict that those aspects of the TL which are least marked relative to a learner's NL will be the easiest to learn. Conversely, those aspects of the TL which are most marked relative to the NL will be the most difficult to learn. More importantly, however, the MDH suggests that it is the most marked aspects of a TL from which it should be possible for a learner to gain maximal generalization of his/her learning. This would follow from the above assumption that the learners would be able to do easier (i.e. less marked) things by virtue of having learned to do more difficult (i.e. more marked) things. If we look at this question from the point of view of relative clause formation, then according to the Keenan and Comrie (1977) Accessibility Hierarchy shown in 4, the easiest position to relativize should be the subject, while the most difficult should be the object of a comparative particle. The position of relativization which, if learned, will result in maximal generalization of learning to all other positions is the object of a comparative particle.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

F.R.ECKMAN,L. BELL, AND D. NELSON

4 Accessibility Hierarchy subject direct object indirect object object of a preposition possessive object of a comparative particle

least marked

most marked

The purpose of this paper is to replicate and extend some research conducted by Gass (1982). In particular, the goal of the present study is to determine whether students generalize instruction to other related structures when they are taught only one particular structure. We were looking not at how Spanish speakers performed in comparison to speakers of Arabic, or some other language, but rather at whether students across language backgrounds were able to generalize language learning from one structure to another, and further, whether such generalization followed a predictable pattern. More specifically, we wanted to see whether students who were instructed how to form relative clauses only where the subject is relativized (the least marked structure) would be able to generalize this learning to structures where an object (which is more marked) or an object of a preposition (which is the most marked of the three) was relativized. And conversely, whether a'student who was taught how to form relative clauses where only an object of a preposition is relativized would be able to generalize this knowledge to relative clauses involving direct objects and subjects. The results from Gass (1982) suggest that generalization of learning proceeds from more marked structures to less marked structures. She found that an experimental group, which was instructed on relative clauses where only the object of preposition was relativized, generalized this instruction more than did the control group, which was taught relative clauses using a standard text, namely Krohn (1971). In this study, we used four groups rather than two: three experimental groups and one control group. Each experimental group was given instruction on a different relative clause type: one group was taught how to form relative clauses where only the subject was relativized; another group was taught how to form relatives where only the direct object was relativized, and the third group was instructed in the formation of relative clauses where only objects of a preposition were relativized. The control group was not given instruction on relative clauses, but was given a lesson on an unrelated point of grammar. By using three different treatments for the experimental groups, it was possible to determine more precisely whether the generalization was unidirectional, and in which direction it went. With this in mind, let us turn to the discussion of our methodology. 2. METHOD 2.1 Procedure The subjects for this experiment were thirty-six ESL students who were enrolled in the English as a Second Language Intensive Program at the

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

University of WisconsinMilwaukee. All students were from the intermediate or low-intermediate proficiency levels of the program, as determined by the students' scores on the Michigan Test of English Language Placement. Each of the subjects was given a written pre-test consisting of a sentence combining task which was to be performed on twenty-one pairs of sentences. The only directions given to the subjects are those in 5; these instructions appeared on the front page of the test booklet, and were also given orally by the instructor monitoring the test. 5 Combine the following sentences, attaching sentence B to sentence A, using the words who, whom, which, or that.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

Examples of the test sentences to be combined, as well as the target sentence containing the relative clause are shown in 6. The entire pre- and post-tests are given in Appendix 1. 6 (a) A Joan likes the professor. B The professor gives easy exams to the class. Joan likes the professor who/that gives easy exams to the class. (b)A Janet rode the bicycle. B Your father gave the bicycle to Jim. Janet rode the bicycle which/that your father gave to Jim. (c) A The chairman listened to the student. B The professor gave a low grade to the student. The chairman listened to the student who(m)/that the professor gave a low grade to. The chairman listened to the student to whom the professor gave a low grade. As can be seen from the above examples, sentence A is always of the form NP V NP, and sentence B is always of the form NP V NP Prep. NP, where the indexed NP in sentence A is identical to one of the NPs in sentence B. This is shown schematically in 7. 7 A NPVNPi B NPVNPPrep.NP The location of the head NP is an important aspect of sentences containing relative clauses, since head position has been shown to be a factor in the degree of difficulty associated with relative clauses in both first language acquisition (Sheldon 1974) and in second language acquisition (Gass and Ard 1980). The twenty-one questions on the pre-test contain seven pairs of sentences which are to be combined into resultant sentences containing a relativized subject, seven which are combinable into a sentence with a relativized direct object, and seven which are to result in sentences with a relativized object of a preposition. The different pairs of sentences are randomly ordered in the test booklet.

F.R-ECKMAN,L. BELL, AND D. NELSON

To lessen the possibility of some students doing poorly on the first few sentences they encountered on the pre-test, and thereby biasing the results, the subjects were given a warm-up exercise consisting of three pairs of sentences which were to be combined using co-ordinate conjunctions instead of relative pronouns. The warm-up exercise used different sentence-types and was therefore not task-related. This was in order to guard against a learning effect. After the pre-test was administered, the thirty-six subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups which were blocked according to native language, pre-test score, and English proficiency level. Each group consisted of nine subjects, made up of four Arabic speakers, three Spanish speakers, one Japanese speaker, and one Korean speaker. Three of the four groups were given a one-hour class on the formation of relative clauses in English. The fourth group acted as a control group and was given a placebo lesson that was not relevant to relative clauses. The three experimental groups were thus given treatments which differed with respect to the sentence type in which they were instructed: one group was instructed in the formation of relative clauses involving the relativizing of only subject NPs; another group received instruction on relativizing only direct object NPs, and the third group was taught how to form relative clauses where only the object of a preposition was relativized. Thus, for each of the three groups, all instruction centered around only one type of relative clause. Two days after the instruction, all of the subjects were given the post-test under exactly the same conditions as the pre-test. As mentioned above, this methodology differs somewhat from that used in Gass (1982), in which she used a control group and one experimental group. Moreover, unlike the present study, in Gass's study the control group was given instruction on relative clauses following the order of presentation in a text. In our study, the control group was given no relative-clause-related instruction. In Gass's study, the experimental group was instructed only on relative clauses in which the object of the preposition was relativized. In the present study, three experimental groups were used, thereby giving us the potential to test more finely for generalization of learning. 2.2. Instruction Following the pre-test and the grouping, each group of students received instruction for one class hour. The procedure for that hour was essentially the same for the three groups receiving instruction on relative clauses, with only the focus varying. Thefirstgroup received instruction on only subject relatives, the second on only direct object relatives, and the third group on only object of a preposition relatives. The fourth group, the control group, received instruction on sentence combining techniques not related to relative clauses. Each group was given a brief explanation on modifiers and told that they were going to be shown a technique for combining sentences or ideas using one sentence to modify or further describe another. The students in each of the three groups were told that for the purpose of that lesson they would be using the second idea

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

(sentence) to modify the first, and that it would have to be slightly changed in order to become part of the first sentence. Part of the change would be to add a marker, that (for people and things), which (for things), and who/whom (for people). Then, in each of the classes, the teacher proceeded to write out quickly on the board pairs of short sentences and a simple sketch illustrating each. These pairs were interrelated and told a short story. These pairs of sentences were controlled so that those used with the first group of students were appropriate for subject relativization, those used with the second group were appropriate for direct object relativization, and those with the third group for object of a preposition relativization. The sentences used for each group are shown in Appendix 2. Thus, for each of the groups, all instruction and examples centered around only one relative clause type. The students were then instructed to find the phrases in each sentence pair that referred to the same person or thing. They were shown how to substitute a marker for the second coreferential element and move the now-changed second sentence to the correct position in the first. At this point in each class the students then did an oral exercise in which they listened to seven or eight pairs of sentences, again telling a story (a new story). They were instructed to repeat each sentence pair, first mentally combining them with a relative clause structure as they had just done with the sentences on the board. Again the sentences were controlled so that the students were working only with the relative clause type that was the focus of their group. The third activity for each class was a written exercise. The students were again given pairs of sentencesanother storyand instructed to rewrite each pair, putting the second sentence inside the first as a modifier. This was done individually, with the teacher walking around checking for problems and reinstructing when necessary. The sentences used in all three groups centered around the same stories, ensuring that the lexical content for the groups was nearly identical. They differed only according to whether the relative clauses that were to be formed involved a relativized subject, direct object, or object of preposition. Two days after the instruction, the subjects were given the post-test. 2.3 Scoring Each of the pre- and post-tests was scored on the basis of whether or not the student produced the correct target sentence. Only errors relevant to the formation of the target relative clause were counted. Thus, for example, errors involving subject-verb agreement or spelling were ignored, as were errors where the subject used the wrong relative pronoun {what for that, or whom for who). On the other hand, if the subject combined the sentences in the wrong order by attaching sentence A to B, the sentence was scored as an error, regardless of whether a grammatically correct sentence was produced. Examples of this type of error are shown in 8.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

F.R.ECKMAN,L. BELL, AND D. NELSON

8 A I saw the professor. B Joan sent a note to the professor. Target: I saw the professor to whom Joan sent a note. Error: Joan sent a note to the professor that I saw. This manner of scoring is justified by the fact that no subject miscombined more than one quarter of the sentences, and by the fact that such miscombinations occurred in sentences in which the direct object or object of a preposition was relativized. Moreover, the miscombinations always resulted in a sentence in which the relativized NP was higher on the Accessibility Hierarchy than the one in the target sentence. These facts strongly suggest that the subjects understood the directions for combining the sentences, and that the miscombinations were not a random error, but instead constituted a form of avoidance. In fact, most of the errors did not involve miscombinations; rather, the majority of errors involved the structure of the relative clause itself. A frequent error typewas the insertion of a resumptive pronoun in the position from which the NP was relativized. Another error type involved the failure to delete the relativized NP from its original, pre-relativized position. These errors are shown in 9 (a) and (b) respectively. 9 (a) Target: Joan read the book that Martin sold to BUI. Error: Joan read the book that Martin sold it to Bill, (b) Target: The teacher found the paper that Alex threw in the trash can. Error: The teacher found the paper that Alex threw the paper in the trash can. Target sentences which contained one or more of the above error types were scored as incorrect, and the subject received no credit for the sentence. Since multiple errors on one sentence were not counted, the maximum number of errors that any subject could make on either the pre- or post-test was twentyone.
3 . RESULTS

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pre-test scores and on the differences between the pre- and post-test scores. The main effects were (1) the instructional group into which the students were placed, and (2) the

Table 3: Analysis of variance on pre-test scores


Source Group Rel. cl. structure Group X structure df 3 2 6 SS 9.17 36.7 5.99 MS 3.06 18.35 .99 F 1.01 6.06* .33

10

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

Table 4: Analysis of variance on pre- and post-test differences


Source Group Rel. cL structure Group X structure df 3 2 6 SS 336.78 37.75 62.14 MS 112.26 18.88 10.37 F 34.01 5.72 3.14

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

students' performance on a particular relative clause type. The results of the ANOVA are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 shows the results of the ANOVA on the pre-test scores. The effect of instructional group was not significant for the pre-test, indicating that there were no initial differences between the groups. The effect of relative clause structure, however, was significant, indicating a difference in performance in relative clause types. A multiple comparisons test (Scheffe) on the means showed that performance on 'object of the preposition' relative clause types was different from that on the 'subject' and the 'direct object' types; but the subjects' performance on the subject and direct object relatives was not statistically different.3 The number of errors per group, broken down by relative clause structure, for both the pre- and post-test is shown in Table 5. The interaction of group x relative clause structure on the pre-test was not significant, indicating that no instructional group did better than any other group on a particular relative clause type. Thus, it was not the case that one group knew one type of relative clause structure better than any of the other groups. The results of the ANOVA on the differences between the pre- and post-test scores is shown in Table 4. As can be seen, the effect of instructional group was significant (p < .01). A multiple comparisons test (Scheffe) indicated that all four groups were significantly different from each other.

Table 5: Number of errors per group by relative clause structure


Pre-test Subj. str. Subj. group Obj. group OP group Control group 34 32 35 27 Obj. str. 36 32 39 30 OP str. 42 42 42 42 Post-test Subj. str. 4 10 0 23 Obj. str. 25 12 4 30 OP str. 38 38 1 42

F. R. ECKMAN, L. BELL, AND D. NELSON

11

4 . DISCUSSION

The results of the analysis of the pre-test indicate that the effect of relative clause structure is significant. The fact that the number of errors made on a relativized object of a preposition is significantly greater than that made on the object supports the Markedness Differential Hypothesis.4 This is true because the relative degree ofmarkedness of the structures in question corresponds directly to the number of errors made. The results of the analysis of the post-test scores indicate that the group which scored the best was the one trained on the object of a preposition, with the object group next, subject group next, and control group last. The interaction of the group x structure, which is graphed in Figure 1, shows the following: (1) all groups did best on the structure on which they were trained; (2) though the subject group generalized their learning somewhat to object position, neither the subject nor object group generalized to object of a preposition relatives, and (3) virtually all of the generalization of learning took place in the direction of the less marked structures. These results support the hypothesis underlying both Gass's study and this one, namely, that the structure from which one will obtain maximal generalization is the relatively more marked structure rather than the less marked structure. Thus, if one were forced to choose only one relative clause structure
Key
/

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

~ 6
/

Subject group Direct object group Object of preposition group Control group

2 5 a
u o. c

I
* 3
\ \

w
\

Dir. obj. Objof prep. Relativized position

Subj.

Figure 1: Interaction of group and relativized position

12

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

to teach, that structure should be relativized objects of a preposition. This is true because the students in these studies not only learned to relativize objects of a preposition, in contrast to the other instructional groups, but they also generalized this learning to object structures to a greater extent than did students trained on subjects, and generalized this learning to subject structures more than those students trained on direct objects. Before concluding, it is appropriate that we add a caution concerning how our results are interpreted. It would be incorrect to conclude, on the basis of our results alone, that the best way to teach relative clauses is to give instruction on only the most marked of the structures to be taught. Before this conclusion can be reached, it is necessary to determine how time is a factor in the learning. That is, our study does not address the question of whether results similar to ours could have been obtained by teaching all three relative clause structures, allocating the one-hour instructional time as follows: ten minutes on the subject, twenty minutes on the object, and thirty minutes on the object of a preposition. This alternative is a real possibility, since no control was exercised in our study to determine whether die same amount of time was required to learn to relativize each position.
5 . CONCLUSION

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

In conclusion, we have presented data in support of the hypothesis that maximal generalization of learning will result from the acquisition of relatively more marked structures. Such generalization will be unidirectional, and will be in the direction of those structures which are relatively less marked. Thus, if only a single structure of a set of implicationally related structures is to be taught, maximal generalization will result from teaching that which is most marked. (Received September 1986)
NOTES

The authors wish to acknowledge the following for numerous comments and criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper Elizabeth Cassell, Daniel Dinnsen, Jean Mileham, Edith Moravcsik, Jessica Wirth, and two anonymous reviewers. Of course, none of these people is responsible for any remaining errors or inconsistencies. We would also like to express our appreciation to Karen Levy for teaching each of the groups of subjects. 2 Since some of the texts omit some relative clause types, it may be possible to conclude that these authors anticipate generalization. However, this conclusion seems somewhat dubious in view of the fact that the omitted relative clauses most often involve those formed with whose, when, and where. We believe that it is more likely that the authors are postponing instruction on these relative clauses rather than that the authors are assuming that the learners can automatically generalize their learning to these structures. 3 We have no explanation for why there is no difference in performance on the subject and object relatives. In fact, the Markedness Differential Hypothesis would predict that such a difference should exist 4 The data in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that the treatment had a larger impact on the group trained on the object of a preposition than on either the subject or direct object group, a fact for which we have no explanation, at present.

F. R. ECKMAN, L. BELL, AND D. NELSON REFERENCES

13

Azar, B. 1981. Understanding and Using English Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bens, A. 1977. Active English Pronunciation and Speech. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Eckman, F. 1977. 'Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis.' Language Learning 27:315-30. English Language Services, Inc. 1966. Drills and Exercises in English Pronunciation. New York: Collier Macmillan International. Fingado, G. et al. 1981. The English Connection. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Company. Frank, M. 1972. Modern English Exercises for Non-native Speakers, Part II. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gass, S. 1982. 'From theory to practice' in M. Hines and W. Rutherford (eds.) On TESOL '81. Washington, DC: TESOL. Gass, S. and J. Ard. 1980. 'L2 data: Their relevance for language universals.' TESOL Quarterly 14:443-52. Harris, T. and A. Rowe. 1981. Practical English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Keenan, E. and B. Comrie. 1977. 'Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.' Linguistic Inquiry 8:63-99. Krohn, R. 1971. English Sentence Structure. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press. Lado, R. and C. Fries. 1981. English Pronunciation. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press. Praninskas, J. 1981. Rapid Review ofEnglish Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Prator, C. Jr. and B. W. Robinett. 1972. Manual of English Pronunciation (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rutherford, W. 1975. Modern English (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Sheldon, A. 1974. 'The acquisition of relative clauses in English.' Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Sutherland, K. 1982. English Alfa. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Wohl, M. 1969. Preparation for Writing and Grammar. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
APPENDIX 1

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

Pre-test

Directions: Combine the following sentences, attaching sentence B to sentence A, using the words who, whom, which, or that. 1. A B 2. A B 3. A B 4. A B Amy grabbed the letter. Jason handed the letter to Julie. Betty dropped the note. Bill wrote the note to the teacher. Joan likes the professor. The professor gives easy exams to the class. The teacher looked at the girl. I explained the sentence to the girl.

14 5. A B 6. A B 7. A B 8. A B 9. A B 10. A B 11. A B 12. A B 13. A B 14. A B 15. A B 16. A B 17. A B 18. A B 19. A B 20. A B 21. A B

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION We ate the candy. My father brought the candy to my mother. I read the magazines. Jill sent the magazines to Mary. Bob admires the student. The student wrote a letter to John. The professor talked to the student. You lent your book to the student. Your sister saw the present. My mother gave the present to me. The chairman listened to the student. The professor gave a low grade to the student. Janet rode the bicycle. Your father gave the bicycle to Jim. John works for the man. My father sold a car to the man. My roommate studied the chapter. The teacher assigned the chapter to the class. The woman knows the boy. Mary handed the exam to the boy. Jerry likes the teacher. The teacher explained the answers to the class. Judy knows the man. The man sent a letter to Tom. Your brother saw the girl. The girl handed the pencil to me. John telephoned the girl. Bill passed a note to the girl. The father spanked the little girl. The little girl threw the dish to the little boy. My mother met the student. The student lent the grammar book to me. Lenny spoke to the bus driver. The policeman gave a ticket to the bus driver.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

Post-test

Vocabulary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. actor beans director editor medal 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. present (verb) publish singer statement vase

F. R. ECKMAN, L. BELL, AND D. NELSON

15

Directions: Combine the following sentences, attaching sentence B to sentence A, using

the words who, whom, which, or that. 1. A You talked to the teacher. B The class sent theflowersto the teacher. 2. A The editor published the story. B Bill sent the story to the magazine. 3. A Lester obeyed the policeman. B The policeman gave a ticket to Mary. 4. A I saw the player. B The player kicked the ball to the people. 5. A Frank talked to the student. B The student lent the pen to Bill. 6. A Judy knows the professor. B The professor gave a lecture to the English class. 7. A Phillip read the book. B Jane gave the book to my mother. 8. A We saw the actor. B The director gave an award to the actor. 9. A Alice met the man. B The man told the story to the children. 10. A The child broke the vase. B Jerry gave the vase to my mother. 11. A Joan knows the writer. B I sent some questions to the writer. 12. A The farmer grew the beans. B John sold the beans to the woman. 13. A Sam listened to the singer. B We sent a letter to the singer. 14. A Betty helped the teacher. B The teacher showed a film to the class. 15. A Susan met the artist. B Jack showed some pictures to the artist. 16. A We listened to the secretary. B The secretary read a statement to the crowd. 17. A Lisa ate the apple. B I gave the apple to Julie. 18. A Carol met the soldier. B The President presented a medal to the soldier. 19. A Elaine wrote the story. B You sent the story to the publisher. 20. A Barry read the letter. B You sent the letter to your friend. 21. A Dan knows the priest B The Pope sent a letter to the priest

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

16

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

APPENDIX 2

Adjective clause instruction Note: Many of the ideas in this instructional plan are taken from Rutherford (1975). Preliminary thoughts Why? An adjective clause (also known as a relative clause) is one kind of modifier. It tells us something more about what we are talking about in the sentence. It gives us more information about our subject.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

What? Some modifiers are single words (colors, size, etc.). Some are phrases (preposition + noun): e.g. 'on the table', 'after lunch', 'next to your left hand'. Some are also entire sentences which we put into (embed in) our main idea. These adjective clauses are sentences, too. They provide us with information about something we are already thinking about. Either they identify that thing for us or they make it more interesting. We want to embed the second sentence into the first (main) one. Put B inside of A. By using a marker + subject + verb phrase. (Sometimes the marker and the subject are the same.) Markers: that (the most common), which (for things only), and who(m) (for people). That cannot be used in non-restrictive clauses, i.e. those which do not define but only provide more information. I'm going to a country which/that has a lot of space Australia which has a lot of space First. I'm going to write some sentences on the board which we'll put together to make a story.
First group

How?

Subject focus (1) On the board: a. I saw a woman. She was carrying a little boy. b. The child was wearing a hat. The hat had a feather in it. c. It was a long, brown feather. The feather came from a very big bird. d. The bird was caught by a man. The man was the little boy's father. e. He caught the bird with a big net. The net was waiting high in the bird's tree. f. The woman was very fat. (what woman?) She was carrying the child. g. The woman was wearing a skirt. She was fat. h. The skirt was huge. It was bright red. i. The woman was eating bananas, (what woman? who was wearing...) j . The woman was eating bananas. They were yellow and ripe. 1. Find the pair. 2. Substitute a marker. 3. Move NP to immediately after the word it modifies.

F. R. ECKMAN, L. BELL, AND D. NELSON Subject focus (2) Practice to be done together orally. A. Directions: Listen to the following pairs of sentences. They are all about John. With each pair, embed the second sentence into the first one. 1. John is a student He has a few problems. 2. Yesterday he saw a doctor. The doctor told him to stop smoking. 3. Then at the gym he lost his racket The racket was a present from his brother for his birthday. 4. The racket was a present. It cost his brother twenty dollars. 5. Once he got back to his room he had a phone call from his teacher. The teacher taught him English. 6. The teacher told him he was not going to get a good grade, (what teacher?) 7. Finally he sat down to read his mail. The mail came everyday at four. 8. He got a letter from his mother. It came at four. 9. The letter was from his mother. She wrote and told him some bad news. 10. She told him about his brother. His brother crashed their car. 11. His brother crashed their car. It was a new expensive sports car. 12. They had bought the car together only a few months ago. (It was a...) B. Now answer these questions with a sentence beginning with: / like 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What kind of movies do you like? (interesting) What kind of food do you like? (hot) What kind of work do you like? (easy) What kind of music do you like? What kind of clothes do you like? that

17

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

Integration (subject forms) Tell me about some of the people in your life and identify them in some way. Example There's John, who's my best friend. There's Rita, who is both my mother and my friend. There's my father-in-law, who enjoys sleeping in front of the TV. Written practice Now read each of the following pairs of sentences carefully. Then combine the two by putting the second sentence into the first one as we did in class. Use that, which, who. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Charlie Smith is a man. He has a few problems. Yesterday he saw a doctor. The doctor told him he was too fat. Charlie Smith likes to eat food. The food is sweet and sugary. The day before he received a letter. The letter was from the government The government wanted some money from Charlie. He didn't pay enough taxes last year. 6. A week ago Charlie got a phone call. It was from a bill collector. 7. The bill collector was trying to get some money from Charlie. Charlie doesn't have any money.

18

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

8. Now Charlie is trying to sell his car for $500. The $500 will help him buy a plane ticket to Mexico. 9. He will buy a ticket to Mexico. It will be a one-way ticket. Second group Direct object focus (1) On the board: a. I saw a little boy. A woman was carrying him. b. The child had a hat He was wearing it. c. There was a feather in the hat. (what hat? that...) d. The feather was long and brown. It was in the hat. e. A man got the feather from a big bird. He caught the bird with a net. f. The man gave the feather to the boy. He got it from a big bird. g. The little boy was very fat. (what little boy? whom the woman...) h. He was wearing short pants. His mother had made them. i. The short pants were striped. His mother made them. j . The little boy was eating a banana. His mother gave him one. k. The banana was ripe and yellow. His mother gave him the banana. I. The little boy smiled at his mother. He loved her very much. Direct object focus (2) Practice to be done together orally. A. Directions: Listen to the following pairs of sentences. They are all about John. With each pair, embed the second sentence into the first one. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. John told me about some problems. He has some problems. Yesterday he had a bad headache. His heavy weight started the headache. A doctor told him to stop eating so much. He saw a doctor. The doctor also told him to exercise. He saw a doctor. So, he went to the new gym. The "university just opened it. At the gym he lost his racket. His brother gave it to him for his birthday. The racket cost $20. (what racket? which his...) Once he got back to his room, he had a phone call from one of his teachers. He likes this teacher very much. The teacher told him he was not going to get a good grade, (what teacher?) Finally he sat down to read his mail. The mailman delivers it at four. He got a letter. The postman brought it at four. The letter was from his mother. She wrote it only a few days before. She told him about his car. His brother crashed the car. He and his brother had bought the car. His brother crashed it. The car was a new expensive sports car. His brother crashed it that I

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

B. Now answer these questions with a sentence beginning with: / like find {1 don't like that I find .) 1. What kind of movies do you like? (find interesting) 2. What kind of food do you like? (find hot) 3. What kind of work do you like? (find easy, interesting)

F. R. ECKMAN, L. BELL, AND D. NELSON 4. What kind of clothes do you like? 5. What kind of teachers do you like? 6. What kind of cars do you like? Integration (direct object forms)

19

Tell me about some of the cities and towns (or countries) you've visited and identify each. Examples I've been to London which I visited twice last year. the second time last year. I went hiking in the Sierra Mountains which I drove to from Sacramento. I saw Athens which the ancient Greeks built centuries ago.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013

Written practice Now read each of the following pairs of sentences carefully. Then combine the two by putting the second sentence into the first one as we did in class. Use that, which, whom. I got an invitation to visit My cousins sent the invitation from London. My uncle's job is in London. He just started the job. The ticket cost me $200.1 bought itrightaway. I traveled on a 747 jumbo jet. I took it from Chicago to London. In the airport I bought some souvenirs. I saw them in the gift shop. I gave the souvenirs to my cousins. I bought them in the gift shop. On the flight I enjoyed a cocktail. The stewardess brought it soon after the plane took off. 8. The dinner was delicious, but unusual. We were served dinner. 9. I ate snails in butter. The dinner included snails. 10. During dinner, I spoke to the stewardess. I could see her. Now revise these statements with sentences beginning with: I don't like ... 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I can't chew this food. I can't understand the teacher. I can't eat this food with my fingers. I can't read this book. I can't do this exercise. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Third group Object of a preposition focus (1) On the board: a. I saw a little boy. A woman was talking to the little boy. b. The child was wearing a hat. A feather was attached to the hat. c. Near the child's home lived a big brown bird. The feather came from the big brown bird. d. Now, the boy's father was a very tall man. The bird was caught by him. e. High in the bird's favorite tree, he put a big net. He caught the bird with a big net. f. The man loved the little boy. He gave the feather to him. g. The little boy was very fat (A woman was talking to him.) h. The little boy liked bright colors very much. The woman made striped short pants for him. i. The little boy was eating a banana. The woman gave some fruit to him.

20

ON THE GENERALIZATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE INSTRUCTION

j . The banana looked ripe and delicious. The woman paid 10 cents for it. k. The woman loved her son very much. The little boy was smiling at her. Object of a preposition focus (2) Practice to be done together orally. 1. John had a lot of problems. I was talking to him. 2. Yesterday he went to a clinic. His doctor has his offices at the clinic. 3. The doctor told him he had to stop smoking immediately. John told his problem to the doctor. 4. (Then he went to the gym). At the gym he lost his racket He paid $20 for it. 5. (Then he went back to his room.) John was studying English and he liked one of his teachers very much. He got a phone call from this teacher. 6. The teacher told him he was not going to get a good grade. He was speaking to the teacher on the phone. 7. (Finally he sat down to read his mail.) His letter was written by his mother. John got some more bad news from her. 8. She told him about his sister. John had lent his new car to his sister. 9. His sister had crashed the car. John had paid a lot of money last summer for it. (His sister was fine but she destroyed his car.) Now answer the questions using this pattern: The which I enjoy -ing the most is . 1. What is your favorite music? (listen to) 2. What is your favorite hobby? (work at) 3. What is your favorite car? (drive in) 4. What is your favorite transportation? (travel by) 5. What is your favorite kind of friend? (relaxing with) Written practice Now read each of the following pairs of sentences carefully. Then combine the two by putting the second sentence into the first one as we did today in class. Use one of the markers: that, which, or whom. My cousins live in London. I got an invitation from them to come and visit. My uncle works in London. I received a check from him. I bought my ticket right away. I paid $200 for it. Chicago has a very large international airport. I took off from Chicago. In the airport I thought about my cousins. I bought some souvenirs for them. My cousins will be surprised. I bought some presents for them. On the flight I enjoyed the music. I listened to it all the way. I also enjoyed drinking a beer. I had to pay $2.00 for it. Unfortunately, the dinner was strange and unusual. 1 became ill from it. However, during the flight I enjoyed talking to a very interesting young lady. I was sitting next to her. 11. We also enjoyed the movie. We were looking at the movie during the flight Now using the same type of answers that we did in class, answer these: 1. What is your favorite music? 2. What is your favorite hobby? 3. What is your favorite car? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ochanomizu University on June 2, 2013