Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T13:42:47.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anaphora and Relativization in Child Second Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Beverly Olson Flanigan
Beverly Olson Flanigan
Affiliation:
Ohio University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The focus of this study is the development of control over anaphoric reference and relativization by children learning ESL in a pull-out classroom employing little overt grammar instruction. Twenty-three children aged 6.5–14 representing ESL proficiency levels 3–5 on the Bilingual Syntax Measure (BSM)were given paper-and-pencil tests to determine comprehension of anaphoric (reflexive and pronominal)reference in English; in addition, they were tested on both comprehension and production of restrictive relative clause types (SS, SO, OO, and OS)in English. Scores were higher on reflexives than on pronominals, with length of residence significant in ambiguous references. Relative clause interpretation varied significantly with proficiency level, but production was not predictable from general proficiency except at BSM level 5, and then only on SO and SS relativization. Transfer from the L1 was minimal. It is concluded that exposure and overall L2 proficiency, rather than age or L1 background, are the most significant factors in the development of these generally untaught and untested “late-learned” rules.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 331 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In Rutherford, W. & Smith, M. Sharwood (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 19–30). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bos, P., & Aarssen, J. (1993, 08). Turkish and Moroccan children's errors in understanding complex syntax in L1 and L2. Paper presented at the Tenth World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA),Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Burt, M., Dulay, H., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1975). Bilingual syntax measure I. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, C. (1969). The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1990). The comparative study of first and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1990). Timed comprehension of binding in advanced L2 learners of English. Language Learning, 40, 557–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1993, April). Local and long-distance anaphora in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5, 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D. L. (1991). Binding parameters in second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 351–374). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D. L., & Broselow, E. (1986). Second language acquisition of reflexive binding. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 16, 154–168.Google Scholar
Flanigan, B. O. (1991). Variable competence and performance in child second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 7, 220–232.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. (1993, August). A psycholinguistic approach to classroom SLA: Theory, research methods, and pedagogical implications. Paper presented at the Tenth World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In Scarcella, R. & Krashen, S. (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition Research Forum (pp. 132–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. (1981). Children's grammar of complement-subject interpretation. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 139–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., & Birch, B. (1988). Late-learned rules in first and second language acquisition. In Pankhurst, J., Smith, M. Sharwood, & Van Buren, P. (Eds.), Learnability and second languages: A book of readings (pp. 94–115). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Rosen, S. T. (1990). Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 187–222.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.Google Scholar
Herman, R., & Flanigan, B. O. (1993). Adding grammar in a communicatively-based ESL program for children: Is raising consciousness helpful? Ohio University Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 13, 37–50.Google Scholar
Hickman, M. (1993, August). Functional determinants in language acquisition: Person, space, and time in children's discourse. Paper presented at the Tenth World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (1990). A study of the L2 acquisition of English reflexives. Second Language Research, 6, 60–85.Google Scholar
Ioup, G., & Kruse, A. (1977). Interference versus structural complexity in second language acquisition: Language universals as a basis for natural sequencing. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘77—Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 159–171). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (1984). On markedness and binding principles. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 14, 154–182.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). Some fundamental aspects of language development after age 5. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (2nd ed., pp. 455–474) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1990). A theory of language acquisition is not so easy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, J., & Reuland, E. (Eds.). (1991). Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalleman, J. (1987). The development of L1 and L2 proficiency in Dutch: A narrative analysis of a picture-based story, told by Turkish and native Dutch children at the ages of six and eight. Language Learning, 37, 217–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. (1993, April). The interpretation of English reflexives and pronouns by Korean/English bilingual children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B. (1981). Constraints on anaphora in child language: A prediction for a universal. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 74–96). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S., & Hsu, J. R. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, C. (1992). A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition, 2, 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, C., Nicol, J., & McDaniel, D. (1993). Children's application of binding during sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (1992). Linguistic prescriptions and anaphoric reality. Text, 12, 161–182.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. (1992, April). On becoming a bilingual: Strategy leading to U-shaped behavioral growth? Paper presented at the Twelfth Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1988). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In Rutherford, W. & Smith, M. Sharwood (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 85–106). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, C., & Hare, V. C. (1979). Children's interpretation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Eckman, F. & Hastings, A. (Eds.), Studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 98–116). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 272–281). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1981). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 59–73). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tavakolian, S. (1981). The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 167–187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (1989). The interpretation of English reflexive pronouns by nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1991). Do second language learners have “rogue” grammars of anaphora? In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point/counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 375–388). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. (1992, April). What do elicited imitation data reveal about comprehension? Paper presented at the Twelfth Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, M. (1990). The acquisition of restrictions on backward pronominalization by adult ESL learners. In Labarca, A. & Bailey, L. M. (Eds.), Issues in L2: Theory as practice/practice as theory (pp. 106–118). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L. (1992, April). Narrative production in first and second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Twelfth Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Chien, Y.-C. (1985). The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 24, 138–149.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1988). Zero anaphora in second language acquisition: A comparison among three varieties of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar