Chapter published 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

Modelling relative clauses in Processability Theory and Lexical-Functional Grammar

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).
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.10not
References

References

Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. A.
(1987) Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63(4), 741–782. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M.
(2001) Syntax and semantics. Lexical functional grammar 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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(1988)  The effects of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).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
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y.
(2001) Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gass, S.
(1979) Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29(2), 327–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Ard, J.
(1980) L2 data: Their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly 14(4), 443–452. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A.
(1989) The structure building framework. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R.
(1997) Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition 62(3), 325–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Scearce, K. A.
(1995) Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory & Cognition 23(3), 313–323. CrossrefGoogle 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
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
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B.
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
(1979) Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55(2), 333–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, P. R.
(2004) Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S.
(1974) The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry 5(1), 117–136.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
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, L.
(1981) Zum Thema “Thema”. Einführung in die Thema-Rhema-Theorie. Hamburg: Hamburger Buchagentur.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B.
(2006) Discourse analysis. An introduction. Bodwin, Cornwall: MPG Books.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
(1998) Language processing and second language development. Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.). Crosslinguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The psycholinguistic basis of PT. In M. Pienemann & J. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory,) (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S.
(1984) Relative clauses in child language, pidgins and Creoles. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4(2), 257–281. CrossrefGoogle 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
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
Traxler, M.
(2012) Introduction to psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar