Cover not available

In:Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 231–254

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 10
Modelling relative clauses in Processability Theory and Lexical-Functional Grammar

Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.10not
This chapter formally analyses English relative clause (RC) constructions within the framework of Processability Theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998, 2005) using the grammatical formalism of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) (Bresnan, 2001) as an analytical tool. A theoretical account of (a) the classification of RCs in terms of the PT hierarchy of processing procedures and (b) a processing hierarchy of different types of RCs is provided that is based on the linear and non-linear mapping processes between c- and f-structure. This approach is extended by the discussion of the syntactic role of the head noun phrase (NPhead) in the matrix clause considering general assumptions about working memory (Kuno, 1974) and the grammatical memory store (Levelt, 1989).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relative clauses
    • 2.1Relative clauses in LFG
    • 2.2RCs in Processability Theory
  • 3.Classification of RCs
    • 3.1Inter-clausal information exchange
    • 3.2Syntax and phrase structure rules
  • 4.Differences in mapping processes
    • 4.1The NPhead as subj of the matrix clause
    • 4.2Processing of the NPhead as subj vs. obj of the matrix clause
  • 5.Future research
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (31)
References
Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. A. (1987). Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63(4), 741–782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. (2001). Syntax and semantics. Lexical functional grammar 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1988). The effects of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(4), 431–469. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29(2), 327–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1980). L2 data: Their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly 14(4), 443–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27(6), 699–717. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). The structure building framework. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition 62(3), 325–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Scearce, K. A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory & Cognition 23(3), 313–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 39–60). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ioup, G. (1983). Acquiring complex sentences in English. In K. Bailey, M. Long, & S. Peck (Eds.), Second language acquisition studies, (pp. 25–40). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1979). Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55(2), 333–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroeger, P. R. (2004). Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5(1), 117–136.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition. The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lutz, L. (1981). Zum Thema “Thema”. Einführung in die Thema-Rhema-Theorie. Hamburg: Hamburger Buchagentur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. An introduction. Bodwin, Cornwall: MPG Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, (pp. 23–76). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.). Crosslinguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The psycholinguistic basis of PT. In M. Pienemann & J. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory,) (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1984). Relative clauses in child language, pidgins and Creoles. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4(2), 257–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1980). The acquisition of English relative clause by second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers from the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, (pp. 118–131). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 272–281). New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traxler, M. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Keßler, Jörg‐U. & Anke Lenzing
2022. Grammar in Foreign and Second Language Classes. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue