Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:19:01.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Object relative pronoun use in native and non-native English: A variable rule analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

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

Abstract

This study examines the use of object relative pronouns by native (NS) and nonnative (NNS) speakers of Standard American English. Three hypotheses were tested: (1) relative pronoun choice by NNSs will differ from that of NSs, principally because of prescriptive grammar instruction abroad; (2) wh, that, and zero froms will be used variably by both NSs and NNSs, depending on the function of the object and the human/nonhuman status of its antecedent; and (3) increased exposure to native speaking environments will cause a shift toward NS norms of use by NNSs. Half the subjects were given a preference task and asked to mark the relative pronoun variants they would be most likely to use in speech and in writing. The other subjects were given a production task in which sentences were combined to produce relativization. The data and varbrul2 analyses supported all three hypotheses: NNSs used all forms roughly equally in speaking but preferred Wh in writing, whereas NSs favored That or no pronoun. A shift away from Wh was also evident in NNSs after extended exposure to NS English.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , July 1996 , pp. 203 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

References

Aarts, Flor. (1994). Relative who and whom: Prescriptive rules and linguistic reality. American Speech 69:71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, H. D. (1992). Social and processing constraints on relative clauses. American Speech 67:123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, H. D., & Regan, Vera M. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amercian Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Amercian Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Associated Press. (1992). Stylebook and Libel Manual (“Fully updated” ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Baker, Sheridan. (1962). The practical stylist. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. (1992). A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXI,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Beebe, Leslie M., & Zuengler, Jane. (1983). Accommodation theory: An explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In Wolfson, Nessa & Judd, Elliot (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 195–213.Google Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. (1987). The use of relative markers in Modern Amercian English. In Denning, Keith M., Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye C., & Rickford, John R. (Eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. Stanford: Stanford University, Linguistics Department. 13–21.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. (1982). Variation in an English dialect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
The Chicago manual of style (14th ed.). (1993). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crookes, Graham. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11:367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. (1991). The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech 66:3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanigan, Beverly Olson. (1995). Anaphora and relativization in child second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17:331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Bayley, Robert. (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70:148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1927). A Modern English grammar on historical principles, Part III. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Kikai, Akio, Schleppegrell, Mary, & Tagliamonte, Sali. (1987). The influence of syntactic position on relativization strategies. In Denning, Keith M., Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye C., & Rickford, John R. (Eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. Stanford: Stanford University, Linguistics Department. 266–277.Google Scholar
Krashen, Stephen D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S., & Small, Cathy. (1978). Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In Sankoff, David (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 45–55.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Malvar, Elisabete. (1995). Relative clauses in English: Analysis of which/that/0 context. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXIV,University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael, & Bailey, Guy. (1991). In which: A new form in written English? American Speech 66:147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. (1982). Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative island condition. The Linguistic Review 1:297–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, Dennis. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. (1991). Sorting out the variables in sociolinguistic theory. American Speech 66:33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. (1957). Relative clauses in Educated Spoken English. English Studies 38:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. (1968). Essays on the English language, medieval and modern. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Riley, Kathryn, & Parker, Frank. (1986). Anomalous prepositions in relative clauses. American Speech 61:291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1982). Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1984). The language of children and adolescents. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. (1973). Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In Bailey, Charles-James N. & Shuy, Roger W. (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 44–66.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. (1974). A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence. In Bauman, Richard & Sherzer, Joel (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 18–49.Google Scholar
Schachter, Jacqueline. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning 27:205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schremp, Mary Berni. (1995). Restrictive relative pronouns in Oklahoma. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXIV,University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10:209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaughnessy, Mina. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, Thomas, & Walsh, Natasha. (1989). Patterns of who/whom usage. American Speech 64:284–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1991). The linguistic variable: Fact and fantasy. American Speech 66:22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar