scholarly journals Is English resumption different in appositive relative clauses?

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-51
Author(s):  
Sara S. Loss ◽  
Mark Wicklund
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
American English ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses

AbstractResumptive pronouns are produced in English in unguarded speech in restrictive relative clauses and appositive relative clauses. However, numerous studies have found that resumptive pronouns in restrictive relative clauses are not acceptable. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the acceptability of resumptive pronouns in appositive relative clauses, despite hints in the literature that they may be more acceptable in appositive than in restrictive relative clauses. This article fills that gap. We found that resumptive pronouns were rated as more natural in appositive relative clauses than in restrictive relative clauses. These findings may be due to which currently undergoing a reanalysis from a relative pronoun to a solely connective word, as has been suggested in the literature. A small-scale corpus search also reveals that appositive relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are increasing in American English.

Restrictive relative clauses in English and Korean learners' second language Chinese

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoling Hu ◽  
Chuanping Liu
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Head Direction ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
First Languages ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Korean Learners

This study investigates the second language (L2) acquisition of restrictive relative clauses (RRCs) in Chinese by two groups of learners speaking typologically different first languages (L1s): English and Korean. English RRCs, unlike those of Chinese, are head-initial whereas Korean RRCs, like those of Chinese, are head-final. The difference could be predicted to hinder English learners' acquisition of L2 RRCs but facilitate it for Korean learners. This prediction was not confirmed in this study, in fact the reverse was observed, and our data show contrasting patterns of acquisition between the two groups of learners. The English learners distinguished between target-like RRCs and non-target-like RRCs earlier than the Korean learners. A corresponding difference was observed for acquisition of resumptive pronouns. It is argued that where the L1 and the L2 share salient properties (such as head direction) restructuring of less salient features encoded in functional categories takes longer and may be persistently problematic. We suggest that the fact that Korean is more similar to Chinese (perhaps superficially, same head direction) leads learners not to restructure quickly, while the surface dissimilarity of English and Chinese gives rise to rapid restructuring in L2 grammars of learners.

scholarly journals REFERENTIALITY IN NOUN PHRASES AND RELATIVE PRONOUNS

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Chiaki Kumamoto
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Semantic Function ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
Relative Pronouns

This paper examines the use of who and which with human antecedents in non-restrictive relative clauses. Apart from the cases where the antecedent is a property NP, the contexts that require which are claimed to be those where the antecedent is a non-specifi c NP (Kuno 1970, Declerck 1991). However, the use of which is not limited to these cases. Moreover, there are cases where which is not allowed even though the antecedent is a non-specifi c NP. I will argue that in order to fully account for the choice between who and which, it is crucial to consider not only the referentiality and the specifi city of the antecedent NP but also the semantic function that the relative pronoun plays in the clause, specifi cally, whether it is a referential NP, a property NP, or an NP involving a variable.

West Caucasian relative pronouns as resumptives

Linguistics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 1239-1270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yury Lander ◽  
Michael Daniel
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
Reflexive Pronouns ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Cross Reference ◽  
Relative Pronouns ◽  
Verbal Complex

Abstract In polysynthetic West Caucasian languages, the morphological verbal complex amounts to a clause with all kinds of participants cross-referenced by affixes. Relativization is performed by introducing a relative affix in the cross-reference slot that corresponds to the relativized participant. However, these languages display several crosslinguistically rare features of relativization. Firstly, while under the view of the verbal complex as a clause this affix appears to be a relative pronoun, it is an unusual relative pronoun because it remains in situ. Secondly, relative affixes may appear several times in the same clause. Thirdly, relative pronouns are not expected to occur in languages with prenominal relative clauses. Fourthly, in the Circassian branch, relative pronouns are identical to reflexive pronouns. These features are explained by considering relative prefixes to be resumptive pronouns. This interpretation finds a parallel in the neighboring East Caucasian languages, where reflexive pronouns also show resumptive usages. Finally, since in some West Caucasian languages the relative affix is a morpheme with a dedicated relative function but still shows properties of a resumptive pronoun, our data suggest that the distinction between relative pronouns and resumptive pronouns may not be as clear as is usually assumed.

scholarly journals Hebrew relative clauses in HPSG

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Vaillette
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Local Feature ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
Modern Hebrew ◽  
Non Local ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses

One kind of relative clause in Modern Hebrew is formed with a gap, as in (1a). However, in certain situations, the gap can be replaced by a resumptive pronoun, as in (1b):           (1a)  ha-yeled she   ra'iti                   the-boy  that saw-1.SG             (b)  ha-yeled she   ra'iti         'otoi                   the-boy  that saw-1.SG himi                   'the boy that I saw' Some previous approaches, such as (Borer 1984) and (Sells 1984), have treated gaps and resumptives with different mechanisms. This paper examines several properties that Hebrew resumptive pronouns share with gaps, motivating a more unified treatment in HPSG using non-local feature propagation for both. This machinery is then used in the analysis a variety of Hebrew relative clause phenomena, including in situ resumptive pronouns, fronted resumptive pronouns, relative clauses lacking a complementizer, bare gap relatives, and subject-verb inversion.   References Borer, Hagit (1984). "Restrictive relative clauses in Modern Hebrew." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2:219-260. Sells, Peter (1984). Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Ph.D. Thesis, UMass Amherst.

scholarly journals Examining the Learnability of English Relative Clauses: Evidence from Kuwaiti EFL Learners

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah M. Alotaibi
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
English Proficiency ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Advanced Learners ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Intermediate Learners ◽  
Types Of Error

<p>This study aims to test the extent to which 120 Kuwaiti EFL learners are aware of the structure of relative clauses in English through measuring their ability to produce this structure. It also checks whether the English proficiency level of the participants plays a role in their answers on the test. For this purpose, a sentence combination task was used to measure the participants’ ability to produce correct relative clauses in English. This test was selected in order to examine the types of error made by the participants pertinent to relative clauses in English. The results reveal that Kuwaiti EFL learners may not be fully aware of the formation rules of relative clauses in English (total mean=60.4%). The t-test shows that the English proficiency level affected the participants' answers on the test. Specifically, there were statistically significant differences between the answers of the advanced (76.3%) and intermediate learners (44.4%). The number of errors made by the advanced learners was less than that made by the intermediate learners. Regarding the types of error made by the participants, the most noticeable ones were: deletion of the relative pronoun, wrong relative pronoun, repetitive use of resumptive pronouns, passivisation of the relative clause and problems with the indirect object and genitive relative clauses. The researcher analysed the participants' erroneous answers and provided potential reasons to account for them. Finally, the study concludes with some pedagogical implications and recommendations for further research.</p>

Visiting London relatives

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Levey
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Grammatical Function ◽  
Syntactic Function ◽  
Cross Variety ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
Comparison Of The Results ◽  
Selection Of

This small-scale study focuses on variation in the relative marker paradigm in the vernacular of a group of preadolescents recorded in the Greater London area. The distributional and multivariate analyses of variation in relative marker usage in restrictive relative clauses reveal that the wh-forms who and what are well-established in the relative marker paradigm of the preadolescents. Who and what are shown to be sensitive to the animacy of their antecedent heads: Who is strongly favoured by human antecedents, whereas what is preferred with non-human antecedents. The numerically dominant relativizer that is shown to be strongly conditioned by the grammatical function of the relative marker as well as being favoured by indefinite and inanimate antecedent heads. The zero variant is similarly sensitive to syntactic function, and is preferentially selected in non-subject position. Furthermore, the selection of zero relatives is found to be highly constrained by clause length. Cross-variety comparison of the results with previous research on other English dialects suggests that not only are there nuanced differences in the choice of relative marker, but that there are possibly construction-specific differences constraining the choice of specific variants.

Fossilized mistakes in Spanish relative clauses learned by Chinese students

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
María Guijarro Sanz
Keyword(s):  
Teaching Methods ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Chinese Students ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Cognitive Grammar ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract This article demonstrates how Cognitive Grammar and Construction Grammar can prevent Chinese students learning Spanish from fossilizing mistakes in restrictive relative clauses at the A2-B1 level of the European Framework of Reference for Languages. To address this issue, first, relative clauses in Spanish and Chinese were contrasted and, second, tailored solutions based on Cognitive Grammar were proposed. Among the cognitive based tailored solutions, certain geometry forms, colours and basic mathematics metaphors were compared with syntactic characteristics such as noun order, subordination hierarchy or resumption. To elucidate the impact of such teaching methods, an experiment with 74 Chinese students was performed. The results indicate that the efficacy of the proposed materials is statistically significant and as such, the Chinese students avoid fossilized mistakes while producing subject, object and locative relative clauses in Spanish.

Pied-piping in Russian relative clauses: A microdiachronic analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Olga Pekelis
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
Linear Order ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Structure Patterns

This paper presents an analysis of the pied-piping phenomenon in Russian relative clauses in the 18th–19th centuries and in present-day Russian. As is well-known, the relative pronoun kotoryj ‘which’ tended to precede its pied-piped head in the 18th–19th centuries and tends to follow it today. This difference, which has mainly been investigated for relativization on genitives, is demonstrated to be valid for a number of heterogeneous syntactic contexts. I propose to account for the syntactic shift undergone by the Russian relative clauses since the 19th century in terms of a more general shift in information structure: I argue that the linear order of the relative pronoun and its head that was acceptable in Russian two centuries ago, is now in contradiction with the modern inventory of felicitous information structure patterns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document