CONSERVATION LAW IN RELATIVE CLAUSES

Authors

  • Chig-Chung Guey I-SHOU University, Taiwan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.713

Keywords:

relative clauses, relative pronouns, conservation law, antecedent

Abstract

The purpose of this present paper is to present a cognitive framework, coined as “Conservation Law,” which may shed new light on insightful understanding of the structures of sentences involving relative pronouns. Given that there are roughly four types of relative pronouns; namely, general, compound, relative adverbial, and quasi-relative, a conservation law in both structures and semantics exists. We start by combining two simple sentences into a resulting sentence with relative pronouns, and, through careful observation and calculation, we found the equivalence in word counts between original and resulting sentences. The conservation law mainly refers to the structure equivalence on either words or meanings among these four types of relative pronouns, or relative clauses. With the help of conservation law, the understanding of relative clauses can be much easier, because they are, among others, the most difficult and complex structures in English syntax, especially for EFL learners. Hopefully, this cognitive framework may be of great contribution to EFL English instruction. 

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

References

Cooper, G. and Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. J. Educ. Psychol.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hamilton, R. L. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123-157.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01096.x

Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.

Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117-136.

Paris, M. (1976). Relative Clause Formation in English and Mandarin Chinese and Ross’ Constraints: A contrastive Approach. The proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the English Contrastive Projects, University of Bucharest Press. Lock, 1996.

Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean adult native speakers. IRAL, 32, 141-153.

Safavi, K. (1994). Some Properties of Persian Relative Clauses. The proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Persian Linguistics, Allameh Tabatabaie University, Tehran.

Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 271-281.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.

Downloads

Published

2017-05-06

Issue

Vol 2, No 2 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).