INTRODUCTION
Learning English as a foreign language involves a complex process where grammar is crucial, particularly relative clauses, which often pose significant challenges for students This study investigates the effectiveness of various hypotheses regarding the acquisition of relative clauses in Vietnamese high school students.
In today's global landscape, English serves as a vital gateway to knowledge and success To effectively master the language, students concentrate on four essential skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing Yet, a strong foundation in grammar is crucial for enhancing all these language abilities.
As an English teacher, I recognize that relative clauses (RCs) pose significant challenges for students, leading to frequent errors despite their extensive study Many students struggle with the forms and functions of English relative clauses, often confusing restrictive and non-restrictive relatives This ongoing difficulty in combining sentences with relative clauses highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the issue.
Research on relative clauses (RCs) has been conducted globally, with a focus on testing various hypotheses related to their acquisition For instance, Alotaibi (2016) found that Kuwaiti EFL learners struggle most with object-object (OO) RCs, while Abdolmanafi and Rahmani (2012) noted that subject-object (SO) RCs present greater challenges for students In contrast, studies in Vietnam are limited; Lan (2009) highlights common errors made by Vietnamese students, including incorrect use of relativizers, improper application of relative clauses, and confusion between restrictive and non-restrictive relatives.
This study investigates the acquisition of relative clauses (RCs) by Vietnamese high school learners, focusing specifically on those where the roles of the two head nouns and the two relativized noun phrases function as either the subject or the object The research is based on four fundamental types of relative clauses: Subject-Object (SO) and Subject-Subject (SS).
OS, and OO, this study explored whether four hypotheses (SOHH, PDH, PFH and NPAH) could predict Vietnamese learners‟ acquisition of relative clauses
This study investigates errors in relative clauses among 11th-grade Vietnamese students in a Hanoi high school It aims to determine which hypothesis best predicts the difficulty hierarchy and acquisition order of English relative clauses for both high and low proficiency student groups Additionally, the research assesses whether high proficiency students perform better than their low proficiency counterparts in relative clause tests.
The study addresses the following research questions:
1 Which among the four hypotheses - SOHH, PDH, PFH and NPAH – best predicts Vietnamese high school learner‟s acquisition of relative clauses, regarding high and low proficiency learners?
2 To what extent does the high proficiency group outperform the low proficiency one in the relative clause test?
3 What are possible reasons for students‟ performance on the re lative clause test?
This quantitative study involves administering a test on reading comprehension (RC) to student participants, with the results analyzed using SPSS to draw conclusions Following the analysis, several students are selected for interviews to discuss their test-taking experiences and strategies.
The study is organized into five chapters
Chapter I – Introduction: This chapter describes the rationale, aims, research questions, methods and design of the study
Chapter II – Literature review: This chapter presents theoretical foundations for the research and summarizes previous studies on the same topic
Chapter III – Methodology: This chapter provides information regarding how the study is conducted
Chapter IV – Findings and Discussion: This chapter details the findings of the study and compares the findings with previous studies
Chapter V – Conclusion: This chapter concludes the study and suggests further investigation of the topic
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of relative clause
A relative clause, also known as an adjective clause, is a dependent clause that enhances a noun or pronoun by providing specific details or additional information Typically positioned after a noun phrase, relative clauses clarify or describe the person or thing referenced by that noun phrase, much like adjectives do.
Relative clauses, as defined by Cowan (2008), are a type of dependent clause introduced by specific relative pronouns According to Huddleston and Pullum (2005), these clauses serve as a unique form of subordinate clause primarily functioning to modify nouns or nominals.
Relative clauses (RC) are introduced by relative pronouns such as who, whom, which, that, and whose, or by relative adverbs like when, where, and why The concept of zero relative pronouns arises when these pronouns are omitted In relative clauses, "where" and "when" serve to replace prepositional phrases that indicate place and time, functioning as adverbials Consequently, "preposition + which" can be effectively substituted with the specific relative adverbs "where" and "when."
According to McArthur (1992, p.859), a restrictive relative clause, also known as a defining relative clause, serves to precisely define the noun it modifies Yule further elaborates on this concept, highlighting its significance in clarifying the meaning of the noun in context.
(1998, p.248), restrictive relative clauses are ones that “define” or “restrict” the reference of the antecedent noun They help to identify or classify the person or thing being talked about
This is an example of a restrictive relative clause:
The woman whom John is talking to is a teacher
The relative clause "whom John is talking to" serves to restrict the reference of "the woman," clarifying that it is specifically the woman John is addressing This restrictive modification is essential for identifying the woman mentioned by the speaker, helping to differentiate her from other women in the context.
Restrictive relative clauses play a crucial role in defining and identifying their antecedents, which helps narrow down the potential references and enhances sentence interpretation These clauses can be introduced by various wh-relative pronouns, adverbs, as well as the relative pronoun "that" or even a zero relative pronoun.
A non-restrictive relative clause, also known as a non-defining relative clause, provides supplementary information that is not essential for identifying the modified noun (McArthur, 1992) According to Yule (1998, p.248), this type of clause adds extra details about an antecedent without serving to identify it For instance, consider the following example of a non-restrictive clause.
My father, who is working in a hotel, will retire next year
Nonrestrictive relative clauses provide additional information about a noun without defining it, as seen in the example of "who is working in a hotel." The identity of the subject is already clear due to the possessive determiner "my." These clauses serve as extra explanations; if removed, the main sentence retains its meaning Unlike restrictive relative clauses, which are essential for identification, nonrestrictive clauses can be omitted without losing the sentence's core message.
Predictor hypotheses of relative clause acquisition
To assess the acquisition of English relative clauses, several hypotheses have been suggested, aiming to illustrate the varying levels of ease and difficulty associated with learning different types of relative clause sentences, as outlined by Hamilton.
(1994) Subject-Object Hierarchy Hypothesis (SOHH), Keenan and Comrie‟s (1977) Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Hypothesis (NPAH), Sheldon (1974) Parallel
Function Hypothesis (PFH), and Kuno‟s (1974) Perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis (PDH) This section presents an overview of these hypotheses
2.2.1 The parallel function hypothesis (PFH)
The PFH, introduced by Sheldon in 1974, outlines the difficulty children face in understanding relative clauses while learning English as their first language It categorizes the acquisition order of these clauses based on the grammatical relationship between the head noun in the main clause and the relative pronoun in the subordinate clause According to the hypothesis, difficulties arise when the grammatical roles of the head noun and the relative pronoun are identical, while easier acquisition occurs when these roles are parallel Thus, Sheldon’s framework predicts a specific order for learning relative clauses.
Subject – Subject (SS) & Object – Object (OO)
> Subject – Object (SO) & Object – Subject (OS) (“>” means “easier than”; “&” means “as difficult as”)
Research suggests that English learners are likely to acquire sentence structures in a specific order They tend to master sentences like "The girl who lives next door is beautiful" and "I know the girl who(m) I met yesterday" before progressing to more complex forms such as "The girl who(m) I met yesterday is beautiful" and "I know the girl who lives next door." This pattern highlights the importance of sentence structure in the language acquisition process.
In sentences (a) and (d), the head noun "the girl" serves as both the subject and object of the matrix clauses, functioning similarly to the relative pronouns in those sentences Conversely, in sentences (b) and (c), the head noun "the girl" does not maintain parallelism with the co-referential relative pronoun, as it appears in different roles within the matrix clauses.
2.2.2 The perceptual Difficulty Hypothesis (PDH)
The PDH hypothesis suggests that universal constraints on the embedding process across languages can serve as a foundation for making predictions It highlights that human cognitive processing within the matrix clause may be disrupted during embedding.
A restrictive relative clause can appear in the middle of a relative clause, which is crucial for understanding the matrix clause in the PDH framework Due to the limitations of human short-term memory, center embedding is predicted to be more challenging to process than right embedding This difficulty arises because center embedding disrupts the flow of the matrix sentence, whereas right embedding maintains it Consequently, sentences with center embedding are generally harder to acquire compared to those with right embedding.
The boy that the woman that the man loved scolded was intelligent
The man loved the woman that scolded the boy that was intelligent
The PDH suggests that relative clauses (RCs) are more challenging when formed on the subject than on the object Specifically, "object embedded, subject focus" (OS) and "object embedded, object focus" (OO) RC types are considered easier compared to "subject embedded, subject focus" (SS) and "subject embedded, object focus" (SO) types.
Object - Subject (OS) & Object – Object (OO)
> subject – Subject (SS) & Subject – Object (SO)
2.2.3 Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH)
Keenan and Comrie's Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH), established in 1977, has garnered significant interest among researchers examining the acquisition orders of various types of relative clauses (RCs) Their comprehensive comparative study of RC structures across different languages led to the proposal of the NPAH, which posits that the subject is prioritized over the object and other grammatical functions.
Subject > Direct object > Indirect Object > Object of preposition
> Genitive > Object of comparison (The symbol „>‟ here means “is more accessible than”)
Example of each RC type adopted Hamiton (1994) is as follows:
(a) Subject RC: the man [that knows the woman]
(b) Object RC: the man [that the woman knows ]
(c) Indirect Object RC: the man [that the woman gave a pencil to ]
(d) Object of preposition RC: the desk [that the woman put the pencil on ] (e) Genitive RC: the man [whose pencil the woman took ]
(f) Object of Comparison RC: the man [that the woman is taller than ]
Keenan (1975) proposed that relativized subjects are more accessible than relativized objects Consequently, the functions of head nouns and relative pronouns suggest that subject-subject (SS) and object-subject (OS) constructions are easier to process than subject-object (SO) and object-object (OO) constructions.
(“>” means “easier than”; “&” means “as difficult as”)
2.2.4 Subject - Object Hierarchy Hypothesis (SOHH)
Hamilton's (1994) SOHH posits an implicational relationship among four types of relative clause (RC) structures: OS, OO, SS, and SO The hypothesis suggests a specific order of difficulty based on the number of structural discontinuities, ranking them as OS being the easiest, followed by OO and SS, and finally SO as the most challenging According to the SOHH, the complexity of acquiring these structures correlates with the number of gaps present; OS types, featuring only one gap, are the simplest to learn, while OO types, with two gaps, present a greater challenge SS types, also containing two discontinuities, are equally difficult as OO types, whereas SO types, characterized by three gaps, are deemed the hardest to master.
To sum up, the orderings of acquisition difficulty of English relative clauses are predicted by the four hypotheses as follows:
PFH SS & OO > SO & OS
PDH OS & OO > SS & SO
NPAH SS & OS > SO & OO
SOHH OS > OO & SS > SO
Previous studies
Numerous studies have investigated various hypotheses regarding relative clause (RC) acquisition, with four primary hypotheses—PFH, PDH, NPAH, and SOHH—being the most extensively tested.
2.3.1 Previous studies on the PFH
Limited studies on relative clauses (RC) related to the Processing Facilitation Hypothesis (PFH) have shown mixed results Sheldon (1974) suggested that children better understand sentences where the head noun and relative pronoun serve the same function, but this finding has not been replicated by other EFL researchers Doughty (1991) concluded that the PFH lacks support from L2 relativization studies, with various research yielding inconsistent outcomes (Bowerman, 1979; Gass and Ard, 1980; Ozcan, 1997; Ozge, Marinis, and Zeyrek, 2010; Sadighi, 1994) For instance, Rahmany and Haghpour (2015) found that Persian-speaking EFL learners struggled most with subject-subject (SS) relative clauses, likely due to confusion between the object of the RC and the subject of the matrix clause This contradicts Sheldon’s predictions Additionally, research by Ozge, Marinis, and Zeyrek (2010) indicated that both Turkish children and adults produced more subject than object RCs, with children showing less accuracy in object RC production.
2.3.2 Previous studies on the PDH
In a study by Wong (1991), 170 English essays from four ESL learners across five secondary school classes in Hong Kong were analyzed to evaluate the validity of the NPAH in the sequence of relative clause acquisition Through pre- and post-error-frequency counts of six types of relative clauses produced by the learners, the findings supported Kuno's (1975) hypothesis, indicating a more consistent alignment with his analysis.
10 the order of the acquisition of relative clauses by these learners was: OS> OO> SS>
A study by S J Abdolmanafi (Rokni) and Z Rahmani (2012) examined the mastery of four types of relative clauses—SS, SO, OS, and OO—among Iranian EFL learners The findings revealed a rank order of mastery: OS (80%) was the highest, followed by OO (52.5%), SS (20%), and SO (2.5%) The combined scores for OS and OO (576) surpassed those of SS and SO (552), aligning with previous research by Ioup & Kruse (1977), Kuno (1974), Wong (1991), and Ramin Rahmany and Mina Haghpour (2015), which indicated that OS and OO relative clauses are generally easier for learners to acquire than SS and SO types.
A study by Song Tiehua (2016) challenges the validity of the Production-Distribution Hypothesis (PDH) by examining the comprehension and production tasks of English relative clauses among college EFL learners in China The findings reveal a specific difficulty order for production tasks among Chinese participants: O-DO > O-IO > S-DO > SS & S-IO > O-S > S-OPREP In comprehension tasks, the order was identified as O-DO > O-OPREP > S-OPREP > O-IO > S-S > O-S > S-DO > S-IO These results contradict the predictions made by the PDH, highlighting the complexities of acquiring English relative clauses in a foreign language learning context.
2.3.3 Previous studies on the NPAH
Numerous studies support the NPAH as a valid predictor of relative clause acquisition Gass (1979) conducted research on 17 high-intermediate and advanced learners from diverse linguistic backgrounds, including Korean, Thai, Italian, French, Japanese, Portuguese, and Persian Using a sentence combination task, the study examined the difficulty order of different types of relative clauses The participants' responses indicated that the NPAH was evident in a universal hierarchy, with the subject position being the easiest to relativize, while the most challenging position was identified as the object.
Jong-Bai Hwang's (2003) study examines the effectiveness of three hypotheses—PFH, PDH, and NPAH—in predicting how Korean learners acquire English relative clauses The research involved 59 advanced learners completing tasks such as grammaticality judgment, production, and gap filling, which included four types of clauses Findings revealed that the NPAH was the most relevant hypothesis, as evidenced by the highest mean score (M=76) for OS-type relative clauses in the grammaticality judgment task, followed by SS-type relative clauses (M=60.52) In contrast, the mean scores for SO and OO type relative clauses were lower (M=55.56 and M=48.68, respectively), confirming that the difficulty order aligns with the predictions of the NPAH.
Several studies have aligned their findings with the NPAH; however, others have indicated its limitations in explaining the order of relative clause (RC) difficulties for learners (Gibson, 2003; Hsiu-chuan, 2000; Ozeki and Shirai, 2007; Ramin Rahmany and Mina Haghpour, 2015) For instance, Rahmany and Haghpour (2015) found that Persian-speaking EFL learners faced the greatest challenges with subject-subject (SS) RC types, primarily due to difficulties in identifying subject-verb relationships, yielding a mean difficulty score of 3.88 This finding contradicts the predictions of the NPAH Similarly, Jong-Bai Hwang (2003) examined the relevance of three hypotheses—PFH, PDH, and NPAH—regarding the acquisition order of English restrictive relative clauses among Korean EFL learners Although the NPAH was deemed the most applicable of the three, it proved inadequate for predicting difficulty in gap-filling tasks, with the observed difficulty order being SS > OS > OO > SO, in contrast to the expected SS & OS.
The NPAH predicts the surface order of difficulty in gap-filling tasks for SO and OO However, the researcher notes that while this predicted order aligns with observations, statistical analyses do not support it, as no significant differences are found among various types of relative clauses.
2.3.4 Previous studies on the SOHH
The SOHH, which focuses on processing discontinuity in both relative clauses (RC) and matrix clauses, has been validated through various studies For instance, Izumi (2003) analyzed data from 61 English as a second language learners across three tasks, finding that the results aligned with SOHH predictions, although they diverged concerning two types of OPREP relatives (OO Prep and SO Prep) Similarly, Rahmany and Haghpour (2015) provided partial support for SOHH by examining the processing difficulty of relative clauses among 165 Persian-speaking university students, categorized by their English proficiency levels The study involved sentence comprehension exercises featuring four types of restrictive English relative clauses—SS, SO, OS, and OO—analyzed using ANOVA measurements.
The study examined the effects of relative clause (RC) types (SS, SO, OS, OO) as a within-group variable and proficiency levels (high, low) as a between-group variable Findings indicated no significant interaction between RC types and proficiency levels Pairwise comparisons revealed that participants performed similarly on OS (Mean= 4.58) and OO (Mean= 4.47) types, both of which outperformed the SO (Mean= 4.16) and SS types (Mean= 3.78) Thus, the processing order of RC types was established as OS & OO > SO > SS, with participants experiencing the greatest difficulty with SS Although SO was more challenging than OS and OO, SS proved to be the most difficult, contradicting the predictions of the Structural Overlap Hypothesis (SOHH), which suggested OS > OO & SS > SO, providing only partial support for the SOHH.
In a study by Gao (2014) involving 40 Chinese English learners, the findings did not support the Sentence Order Hypothesis (SOHH) The research revealed a difficulty order in sentence combinations as follows: OO > OS > OO prep > SO > SS > SO prep.
In summary, despite numerous studies investigating various RC hypotheses, the results remain inconsistent This research seeks to enhance the existing literature by presenting findings from Vietnamese high school students.
Error analysis
A study by Alotaibi (2016) investigates the awareness of relative clause structures among 120 Kuwaiti EFL learners, revealing that they may lack a complete understanding of English relative clause formation, with an overall mean score of just 4% The research highlights significant differences in performance between advanced learners (76.3%) and intermediate learners (44.4%) Common errors identified include the deletion of relative pronouns, incorrect pronoun usage, repetitive pronoun application, passivization of relative clauses, and difficulties with indirect object and genitive relative clauses.
Yee (2005) identifies a challenge in relative clause acquisition, specifically the incorrect repetition of pronouns, exemplified by the sentence, “The girl who was sick she went home.” This issue may stem from differences between Chinese and English, as Chinese requires a pronoun when the head noun is not in the subject or direct object position, potentially affecting Chinese learners' ability to form English relative clauses Additional factors contributing to this challenge include difficulties in adjusting the wh-movement parameter and the specifier-head agreement parameter, the irrelevance of universal principles governing wh-movement and wh-trace licensing, negative L1 transfer, and the cognitive processing load involved.
Research on the acquisition of relative clauses (RC) in Vietnam has been limited, with Lan (2009) highlighting semantic and syntactic challenges faced by high school students In a study involving 40 students, common errors included incorrect use of relativizers and confusion between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses Specifically, the misuse rates for the relativizers "that," "which," and "whose" were alarmingly high at 77.5%, 75%, and 70%, respectively Additionally, students struggled to identify the appropriate parts of sentences to form relative clauses and the correct head nouns to modify Lan attributes these difficulties to a lack of background knowledge and an insufficient understanding of the syntactic features of relative clauses, particularly their positional aspects.
Summary
This section discusses theoretical aspects of relative clauses (RC), including their definitions, types, and four key hypotheses relevant to language learners' acquisition of RC Additionally, it reviews previous studies on the topic The next section will outline the research methodology.
METHODOLOGY
Setting and participants
A study was conducted at a high school in Hanoi, Vietnam, involving ninety-eight students from two classes who participated in a reading comprehension (RC) test All participants began learning English in primary school and had completed three quarters of the school year at the time of data collection They were using the official English textbook, Tiếng Anh 11, which is designed for Vietnamese high school students By this point, the students had already been introduced to and taught about English relative clauses in their previous lessons.
Among 98 students who did the RC test, only 65 of them were selected to be participants of the study Because the study aims to identify differences between high proficiency students and low proficiency students in their acquisition of RC in English, I examined the students‟ academic record From the academic record, I picked up 30 students whose average score of English was 8.0 or above and 35 students whose average scores of English was 6.5 or lower The average score was calculated based on the students‟ oral and written English test from the beginning of the school year up to the moment of test delivery The 30 students with higher average scores formed the high proficiency group, and the other 35 students formed the low proficiency group.
Methods of collecting data
A number of methods were used to collect the data for the study, including a test and subsequent interviews with some students
A test is defined as a structured method to assess language abilities, which encompass what individuals can do with a language (Hughes, 1989) In studies examining learners' acquisition of reading comprehension (RC), proficiency tests are frequently utilized (e.g., Alotabi, 2016; Lan, 2009; Rahmany & Haghpour, 2015).
This study evaluates four hypotheses regarding RC acquisition through a test comprising 30 sentences divided into three tasks: multiple choice, error correction, and sentence combination The test format mirrors that of traditional English grammar books, utilizing familiar vocabulary to prevent students' performance from being affected by unfamiliar words It includes eight items each of OS and SO structures, along with seven items of SS and OO structures.
The pilot test was conducted with ten students from the same cohort but in different classes than those participating in the actual test Based on the pilot test results, adjustments were made to enhance the test's reliability The final test was then administered simultaneously to students in two classes and was completed within 30 minutes.
I personally graded all test papers, marking only those answers that fully met the test requirements as correct For instance, in the error correction task, a response was deemed correct if the student successfully identified the error and provided the appropriate alternative.
The format of the test and the purpose of each test item are represented as follows
MCQ OS SO OS SO SS OS OO OO SS SS
Error SS SO OS SS SO OS SO OO OO OO
Comp OO SS SO OS SO OS SS SO OS OO
This study employs a primarily quantitative approach, but aims to uncover the reasons behind students' choice of options and their explanations for answers To achieve this, I conducted interviews with select students, as interviews are purposeful conversations that allow participants to express their opinions (Berg & Lune, 2012; Richards, 2005) This method provides researchers with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand (Stake, 1995) All interviews were conducted in Vietnamese to ensure that students fully understood the questions and could respond in their native language, allowing for more accurate and insightful answers.
In a study involving 65 participants, I interviewed ten students—five with the highest scores (28/30) and five with the lowest scores (under 10/30) on the reading comprehension (RC) test Each interview lasted about 10 minutes, beginning with general questions about their English learning experiences, including their feelings and challenges I then focused on their test performance, discussing up to 15 specific items they answered correctly and incorrectly, to understand the reasoning behind their responses.
1 Why did you choose option “A” for the 7 th question?
2 You have said that you chose option B randomly for the first question in task 2 So, are there any clues for your choice?
3 Why did not you pick any options for the question six in task 2? Was this because you did not understand the meaning or because of any other reasons?
4 In error correction task, you underlined this word but you did not give the correction for it Can you complete it now?
Data analysis
The test results were analysed by me using SPSS software, version (64 Bit)
20 SPSS is software that allows comparison of data across different groups SPSS can handle data flexibly and perform statistic procedures accurately The data
The data from the two groups were analyzed using SPSS, with low and high proficiency levels serving as independent variables and student scores as dependent variables The analysis focused on the total scores for each type of clause tested, including SO clauses.
OS, SS, OO) was calculated as dependable variables
After entering the scores, I applied formulas to gather essential data I first calculated the means for each type of clause from both student groups, which aids in identifying which hypothesis most accurately predicts the acquisition of relative clauses (RC) in each group.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess statistically significant differences between the means of two groups, specifically comparing the performance of the high proficiency group against the low proficiency group.
A qualitative analysis of student interview transcripts revealed common patterns in their answer selections and the challenges they faced during the test.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Research question 1
Table 3 presents the responses of 65 study participants to a 30-question test The first section consists of ten questions where participants must choose the correct relativizer for each blank The second section features ten error correction tasks, requiring students to identify and correct mistakes Finally, the last ten questions involve combining sentences using relative clauses.
Table 3 Results of t-test of difference between high and low proficiency groups
Level OS SO SS OO
The chart indicates that among low proficiency students, the highest mean score was achieved in SO type reading comprehension (RC) tasks (M = 3.8571), followed closely by SS-type RCs (M = 3.8) In contrast, the mean scores for OO and OS types were significantly lower (M = 2.9143 and M = 1.8, respectively) Notably, SO RCs also had the highest standard deviation at 1.97250, suggesting that low proficiency students found SO and SS types easier, while OS was the most challenging Thus, the order of RC acquisition for this group is SO & SS > OO > OS, which does not align with any hypotheses Similarly, high proficiency students excelled in SO (M = 7.5667) and SS-type RCs (M = 6.8667), outperforming their scores in OO (M = 5.5) and OS types.
Among the four types of reading comprehension (RC) strategies, the OO-type RCs exhibited the highest standard deviation of 1.04221 There was a notable difference in the acquisition order of RCs between weak and high proficiency students Weak students scored higher in OO-type RCs compared to OS-type, while high proficiency students showed the opposite trend, favoring OS over OO Consequently, the difficulty order of RCs for high proficiency students is SO > OO.
SS > OS > OO, indicating that all hypotheses also fail to be proven
The study indicates that SO relative clauses are generally considered the easiest type; however, they still pose challenges for low-proficiency students Notably, four out of five students in this group made errors on both questions and struggled to articulate their reasoning For instance, in a question requiring the selection of a relativizer to complete the sentence, “The teacher with we studied last year no longer teaches in our school,” most students chose “who,” while some opted for “whose.” When asked about their choice, one low-proficiency student explained, “The teacher is a person, so I chose ‘who’ instead of ‘which.’ I don’t know how to use ‘whose’ or ‘whom.’” This highlights the difficulties these students face in understanding the correct usage of relativizers.
Many students, both in low and high proficiency groups, struggle with the correct use of relative pronouns in forming SO relative clauses For instance, a low proficiency student incorrectly stated, “The bed where I sleep on has no mattress,” neglecting the rule that the adverbial pronoun "where" should not be used with a preposition Similarly, high proficiency students demonstrated confusion, as seen in the sentence, “the woman to who I sent letter is at Mary's house,” where the correct form should use "whom" or reposition the preposition at the end of the clause This highlights a widespread lack of understanding regarding the application of relative pronouns among students.
Although participants made fewer errors on SS and SO reading comprehension tasks, they still demonstrated weaknesses in both SO and SS RCs.
In question 22, students were asked to create a complex sentence using a relative pronoun with the example, “The river is polluted It flows through the town.” However, many students incorrectly wrote, “The river is polluted which flows through the town,” demonstrating a misunderstanding of relative clause placement, which should follow the antecedent head noun directly When questioned about their reasoning, some students mentioned, “I translated the sentence in Vietnamese and I think it made sense.” A similar error occurred in question 23 regarding the SO form, where students combined sentences like, “The trousers are too small for me which I bought yesterday,” indicating that while they recognized the antecedents of the relative clauses, they overlooked proper grammatical structure.
22 positions to modify the antecedents “I know them means trousers here and it is a thing then I used which to connect these sentences I think it is correct.”
Relative clauses in the OS form are notably more challenging for students, particularly those with lower proficiency levels, as evidenced by question 29, where many struggled with the term "acquaintance," despite it being covered in the textbook Some students admitted to skipping the question due to a reluctance to read longer sentences Additionally, in question 16, only 6 out of 35 high proficiency students provided accurate corrections, mistakenly substituting "of whom" with "whose" without recognizing that "whose" cannot precede an article This misunderstanding led to incorrect sentence structures, highlighting a significant issue in their grasp of OS relative clauses.
Students in both proficiency groups struggled with the OO type relative clauses, particularly in question 20, which assessed their understanding of the OO relative clause in the sentence, “I have heard her on the violin, what she plays extremely well.” Many participants found it challenging to identify the error, with one high proficiency student expressing confusion over the use of "what" and suggesting an incorrect modification Additionally, question 21 highlighted further difficulties with OO relative clauses, as students were tasked with combining two sentences: “It may be the most important decision You will ever take the decision.” This question emphasized the importance of correctly using "that" over "which" and "who" when forming relative clauses.
The use of the relativizer "that" in sentences modified by an adjective in the superlative degree is often misunderstood by students, as evidenced by only 6 out of 65 participants providing correct answers Many informants incorrectly used "which" instead of "that" due to a lack of attention to the syntactic features of "that" and an inability to identify the head noun "decision," which is modified by the superlative adjective "important." This indicates that they recognized only the noun "decision" in the phrase, leading to the misuse of "which."
In conclusion, the study found that none of the four proposed hypotheses accurately predicted the order of difficulty in students' performance on reading comprehension tasks As previously discussed, the acquisition order for the low proficiency group is structured as SO and SS.
The study reveals that the acquisition order of relative difficulty for students varies, with high proficiency students ranking it as SO > SS > OS > OO An analysis of four hypotheses—PFH, PDH, NPAH, and SOHH—indicates that none were substantiated for either proficiency group Notably, SO-type relative clauses (RCs) emerged as the easiest for all students, contradicting predictions from the PFH and NPAH, which suggested it would be among the most difficult Conversely, OO RCs proved to be the most challenging for high proficiency students and second most difficult for low proficiency students, despite being anticipated as easier in the PFH, PDH, and SOHH While both the results and NPAH highlight OO as problematic, the NPAH's assertion that OO is as difficult as SO is disproven, as SO is identified as the easiest Consequently, the findings of this study challenge the validity of the four hypotheses regarding the acquisition of relative clauses.
> OO) to low proficiency group and high proficiency group respectively contradict
The findings of this study contrast with previous research by Wong (1991) and William O'Grady, Miseon Lee, and Miho Choo (2000), which identified the order of relative clause types as OS > OO > SS > SO, indicating that OS and OO are the most challenging Additionally, this study contradicts the results of Rahmany and Haghpour (2015), who determined that the SS type was the most demanding for Persian-speaking EFL learners.
Despite significant differences in predicting learners' acquisition of English relative clauses, this study shares some similarities with previous research, such as the findings of Jong-Bai Hwang.
In 2003, research highlighted the significance of the NPAH (Subject-Subject and Object-Subject > Subject-Object and Object-Object) in forecasting Korean learners' acquisition of English relative clauses The findings revealed that in a grammaticality judgment task, Subject-Subject clauses achieved a mean score of 60.52, indicating they were among the easiest types for learners, aligning with the current study's results Additionally, Jong-Bai Hwang's study (2003) established a similar difficulty order for English restrictive relative clauses among Korean EFL learners, ranking them as Subject-Subject > Object-Subject.
OO > SO, which indicated that SS was the least demanding to students.
Research question 2
A post-hoc analysis utilizing the Test of Homogeneity of Variances was conducted to investigate the impact of participants' English proficiency levels on their test performance.
Table 4 Results of statistical analyses basing on Test of Homogeneity of
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig
The analysis of the data shows that the p-values for OS (p = 0.174) and OO (p = 0.345) exceed the threshold of 0.05, indicating that there is a valid basis for comparing the two proficiency groups in these types of reading comprehension tasks Consequently, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the impact of the participants' English proficiency levels on their responses to OS and OO types.
Table 5 Results of statistical analyses using ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig
As can be seen from the table the difference between the answers on OS and
The statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups, with a p-value lower than 0.05 Additionally, the high proficiency group demonstrated higher mean scores on both OS and OO RCs, indicating their superior performance compared to the low proficiency group.
Levene's test evaluates the homogeneity of variances, with the null hypothesis asserting that all variances are equal For the other types of RCs (SO and SS), p-values below 0.05 indicate unequal variances, rendering parametric tests like ANOVA inappropriate Consequently, when this assumption is violated, the Welch statistic is utilized, and the Robust Tests of Equality of Means table reveals that all significance values are below 0.05, confirming the presence of significant differences.
26 students in high proficiency group did better than those in low proficiency in all types of RCs
Table 6 Results of statistical analyses basing on Robust Test of Equality of Means
The test results indicated significant differences in the acquisition of relative clauses (RCs) between low and high proficiency student groups Specifically, while low proficiency students made errors with subject relative clauses (SS RCs), high proficiency students performed better For instance, in question 14, which assessed knowledge of SS relative clauses, low proficiency students struggled to justify their correct answers, whereas high proficiency students effectively omitted the conjunction "and," providing sound reasoning One high proficiency student articulated that omitting "and" was necessary for the sentence to maintain its complexity and clarity, emphasizing that the use of the relative pronoun "who" after a proper name, along with a comma, rendered the sentence semantically and syntactically complete without the conjunction.
Many students participating in the interview expressed confusion regarding the correction of question 12, which assessed the use of SO relative clauses The original sentence, “The person to whom he is phoning is his mother,” posed challenges, with only a few high-proficiency students successfully making the necessary corrections Among those who did, three provided rational explanations, one of which highlighted the appropriateness of using "whom" to refer to an animate head noun.
Weak students often struggle with sentence structure, as evidenced by their inability to correctly use prepositions with verbs like "phone." This confusion leads to vague responses, such as one student stating, "I do not know what is wrong with this sentence." Additionally, in a test question assessing their understanding of relative clauses, many students incorrectly combined sentences, resulting in: "The woman is a doctor who Bill passed a note to," instead of the correct form, "The woman who Bill passed a note to is a doctor." This highlights a significant gap in their understanding of head nouns, demonstrating the need for improved grammatical knowledge.
Table 3 reveals that while OS relative clauses posed challenges for both groups, students, particularly those in the high proficiency group, excelled in the multiple-choice task However, a significant concern for weaker students emerged; although they could identify correct answers, their explanations were inadequate For instance, questions 3 and 6 aimed to assess students' understanding of forming OS relative clauses In question 3, students needed to choose the appropriate relativizer for the sentence: "I don’t know the girl …………is wearing a long blue dress." Similarly, question 6 required selecting the correct option for "the police are looking for the paintings…………stolen last night." Mistakes were rare, even among low proficiency students An interview revealed that four out of five students correctly identified "who" for question 3 and "which" for question 6, yet their explanations lacked depth, suggesting reliance on intuition rather than a solid understanding A low proficiency student exemplified this by stating, "In question 3, I chose 'who' to connect the sentence because I saw 'the girl' before."
“is” When being asked for the reason why he did not choose “whom” instead, he
Students in the high proficiency group demonstrated a strong understanding of relative clauses during reading comprehension exercises One student noted the importance of placing the relative pronoun "who" immediately after the noun "the girl" to accurately modify the noun and function as a subject This highlights their ability to effectively analyze and apply grammatical rules in context.
In question 24, it is highlighted that low proficiency students struggle with the use of the relative pronoun "whose" in the context of possession, particularly in sentences like “It is a Tudor house Its sitting room looks out over a wonderful walled garden.” Many students mistakenly associate "whose" exclusively with people, leading one to prefer "which" for inanimate objects like houses Additionally, confusion arises between "whose" and "whom," further complicating their understanding Some students also find it challenging to identify the shared referent between the two sentences, expressing difficulty in grasping the meaning of "its" and often confusing it with "it." This misuse of "whose" reflects a broader issue of comprehension among weaker students.
Students in the high proficiency group demonstrated a superior understanding of Object-Specific (OS) and Object-Oriented (OO) concepts compared to their peers For instance, in question 1, participants were asked to select the appropriate relativizer from four options to complete the sentence: “We’d like to buy the house …………overlooks West Lake.”
He went to the sport club where he first met his wife During the interview, most students in the high proficiency group easily articulated their choices One student explained, “In question 1, I selected answer D because the subject of the sentence is 'We,' who are taking the action of buying the house, and I noticed it overlooks…”
The house that overlooks West Lake serves as the subject for the verb "overlook." Relative clauses are useful for condensing sentences by allowing us to describe something without needing a separate sentence In this case, "which" is the most appropriate choice to refer to the house When discussing the differences between the two sentences in question 7, it's clear that they vary in both meaning and structure, particularly as question 1 lacks a subject.
Students in low proficiency groups experience anxiety when selecting the correct answers for object subject (OS) and object object (OO) relative clauses For instance, three out of five students struggled to differentiate between "which" and "where" while forming these clauses, indicating a lack of clarity in their understanding of adverbial pronouns and their appropriate usage in context.
Understanding the correct usage of "which" and "where" is essential, as many people often misunderstand their meanings and semantic features For instance, a student selected "where" for both questions 1 and 7, illustrating a common confusion in distinguishing between the two relativizers.
Other findings
Apart from the main findings to the three research questions, some other findings are also significant
* The ability of students in distinguishing restrictive and non-restrictive clauses
Exercise 3 results from the study participants demonstrated a strong ability to differentiate between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses When tasked with combining original sentences into new ones using relative clauses, the informants provided persuasive evidence of their understanding (see Appendix 1).
More than half of the participants struggled to differentiate between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, primarily forgetting to use commas for the latter This confusion likely stems from a lack of understanding regarding how to identify these two types of clauses, specifically in relation to the modification of antecedents Typically, unique antecedents can be followed by non-restrictive clauses, which require commas This misunderstanding contributes to students' difficulties in correctly placing commas in relative clauses, highlighting a significant barrier to their ability to produce these structures accurately For instance, when asked to combine the sentences “Do you remember Mr Darnell? He taught us English Literature,” many participants incorrectly responded with “Do you remember Mr Darnell who taught us English Literature,” failing to include the necessary comma before the relative pronoun.
In a recent study, students were questioned about the use of commas in restrictive clauses, exemplified by the sentence, “Do you remember Mr Darnell, who taught us English Literature?” Surprisingly, only 20% of the interviewed students correctly identified the need for a comma, despite the common oversight among their peers Notably, one student from the high proficiency group recognized her error upon reflection, stating, “For this question, I should have added a comma after Mr Darnell because it is a proper name which should be followed by a non-restrictive relative clause.” Conversely, some students expressed indifference towards the rules, with one admitting, “I do not know when and where a comma should be used or placed To be honest, I do not care about it.”
Informants often made the mistake of using non-restrictive relative clauses with general antecedents, as seen in examples like "The woman, whom Bill passed a note to, is a doctor," and "The bed, which I sleep on, has no mattress." A student from the high group acknowledged this confusion, stating, "I understand the sentence but I am not sure if I had the correct answer."
I have no idea about commas and I just put it there.”
The informants appear to confuse restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses due to a lack of understanding of their syntactic features They overlook the distinction between proper nouns and general nouns, which contributes to their confusion Additionally, their inability to punctuate sentences correctly leads to misunderstandings and sentences that lack meaning.
* The ability of students in using relative pronoun “that”
The decision to use "that" over "which" or "who" often hinges on whether the noun is modified by a superlative adjective Analysis of the data reveals that students struggle with this distinction, as only six participants provided correct answers As noted in section 4.1, the majority of informants incorrectly opted for "which" instead of "that," indicating a lack of understanding of the syntactic rules governing these relative clauses.
32 neutral relativizer that On the other hand, they did not identify the head noun modified by an adjective in the superlative degree.
Summary
The study has found answer to the three research questions
The analysis of data from three tasks reveals that none of the four hypotheses—PDH, PFH, SOHH, and NPAH—adequately explain the challenges faced by Vietnamese learners in acquiring English relative clauses Both low and high proficiency groups found Subject-Object (SO) and Subject-Subject (SS) structures to be less complex than Object-Object (OO) and Object-Subject (OS) structures, contradicting the predictions of the PDH and SOHH, which suggested that SS and SO would be the most difficult For the low proficiency group, OO was perceived as easier than OS, aligning with the PFH; however, the SO-type results did not support this hypothesis, leading to its rejection Similarly, the high proficiency group found OS to be less demanding than OO, which aligns with the NPAH, but the SO-type results ultimately invalidated this hypothesis as well.
The analysis revealed that students in the high proficiency group outperformed their low proficiency counterparts across all types of reading comprehension tasks, despite both groups making numerous errors This finding was supported by Robust Tests of Equality of Means, with all significance levels being less than 0.05.
Many high-proficiency students demonstrated a strong understanding of their test performance, while weaker students struggled to articulate their reasoning A key issue identified was the lack of knowledge regarding the proper use of relativizers in forming relative clauses For instance, students often confused "which" with "where" and overlooked the rule that the adverbial pronoun "where" cannot be preceded by a preposition Additionally, they frequently misused "whose," "whom," and "who," failing to recall fundamental English rules, such as that "whose" cannot be followed by an article and that "who" can function as both the subject and object within a relative clause.
Many students struggle with identifying correct antecedents for relative clauses, leading to errors due to their placement in sentences Additionally, a lack of vocabulary knowledge often causes students to leave answers blank, as they may not understand the meanings of certain words and tend to avoid lengthy questions Lastly, some learners rely on instinct, choosing answers randomly and providing vague or unconvincing justifications.
Students exhibit confusion between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, struggling to grasp their syntactic features and often neglecting the use of commas Additionally, the relativizer "that" poses significant challenges, as it is associated with the highest number of errors among students.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Implication
The data elicitation measures indicate that while most students participating in the test demonstrated an understanding of various types of relative clauses (RCs), they struggled to identify certain errors and lacked precision in their usage The findings discussed in Chapter IV carry important pedagogical implications for English teachers.
Teachers should instruct students on the use of relative pronouns and adverbs, emphasizing the distinctions between them It is crucial for students to understand that "where," a relative adverb indicating place, functions as an adverbial rather than a subject or object A helpful tip is that "where" is never followed by a verb and cannot be used with a fronted preposition in a relative clause Additionally, students should be made aware that antecedents of place are not always modified by "where"; instead, "which" can serve this purpose, and "where" can often be substituted with "preposition plus which."
In subject relative clauses, "who" and "which" serve as subjects that introduce the clauses, leading to confusion among students due to their differing associations with personal and non-personal antecedents To address this issue, teachers can enhance students' vocabulary and their ability to differentiate between personal and impersonal antecedents through engaging activities like crossword puzzles, jumbled words, and taboo games Additionally, guiding students to look for contextual clues can aid them in identifying the gender type of the antecedent For instance, in the sentence, "The contestants took part in the party need to pay the fee," students must choose between "who" or "which" to complete the sentence, and if they struggle with the term "contestants," they can refer to surrounding words for meaning.
It is a common misconception that only individuals can participate in the party and pay the associated fee Based on this understanding, students may recognize that the appropriate relative pronoun to use in this context is "who."
Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are often challenging for students to master Teachers must clarify key criteria to help students distinguish between these two types of clauses A primary guideline involves the use of the relative pronoun "that," which is never found in non-restrictive relative clauses—those that include commas Additionally, when head nouns are proper nouns or are modified by possessive or demonstrative determiners, the clauses must be non-restrictive and should include commas.
To enhance students' understanding of relative clauses and pronouns, teachers can incorporate engaging activities alongside explicit instruction Assigning authentic reading materials, such as newspapers or magazines, allows students to identify and underline relative clauses and pronouns, helping them connect these elements to their corresponding head nouns Additionally, using games like guessing word activities can significantly boost motivation In these games, students work in pairs or groups, with one student using relative clauses to describe words on a card related to a specific topic, such as occupations, while their partner(s) guess the words by asking questions that also utilize relative clauses This interactive approach not only reinforces learning but also makes the process enjoyable.
Students enhance their understanding of relative clauses through an engaging game that requires them to define words such as "teacher" and "salon." For example, they might say, "This is a person who gives lectures at school" for a teacher, or "This is a place where a hairdresser works" for a salon This interactive approach allows for natural practice and improvement of relative clauses.
Conclusion
The study enhances the understanding of English relative clause acquisition among high school students in Vietnam by analyzing their comprehension and production tasks Findings indicate that none of the four proposed hypotheses adequately explain the challenges faced in learning English relative clauses Common errors identified include incorrect use of relativizers, misuse of relative clauses, and confusion between restrictive and non-restrictive relatives Additionally, a comparison between high and low proficiency groups revealed that students with higher proficiency levels significantly outperform their lower proficiency counterparts.
Suggestion for further research
This study can be expanded by including a larger participant pool and additional test questions to enhance the validity of the findings Future research should also consider learners of varying proficiency levels from diverse educational institutions Furthermore, the current investigation focused solely on specific types of relative clauses (SS, SO, OO, and OS), thus further studies are recommended to explore additional types such as GEN, OPREP, and OCOMP.
Alotaibi, A (2016) Evidence from Kuwaiti EFL Learners English Language Teaching doi:10.5539/elt.v9n2p57
Abdolmanafi S J & Rahmani Z (2012) An Investigation of the Learnability of Relative Clauses by EFL Doi:10.5430/wjel.v2n3p29
Berg, B L., & Lune, H (2012) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences: Boston : Pearson Education, 2012
Bowerman, M (1979) “The Acquisition of Complex Structures” Language Acquisition: Studies in First Language Development Ed P Fletcher and M.Garman.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
In her 2005 research paper, Yee, M C explores the acquisition of English relative clauses among Hong Kong students educated in a Chinese medium This study was submitted as part of the requirements for a Master of Arts degree in Linguistics Instruction at the secondary school level The full paper can be accessed online at http://www.clicktoconvert.com.
Cowan, R (2008) The Teacher's Grammar of English: Cambridge University Press Doughty, C J (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence form an Empirical Study on Second Language Relativization
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469
Gao, Qing – Qiang (2014) Chinese EFL learners‟ acquisition of English relative clauses http://dx.doi.org/105539/ijel.v4n3p82
Gass, S (1979) Language transfer and universal grammatical relations Language Learning, 29, 327-344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01073.x Gass, S and Ard J (1980): “L2 data: Their Relevance for Language Universals‟‟ TESOL Quarterly14.4443-452
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
Hsiao, Franny, and Gibson E (2003): “Processing Relative Clauses in Chinese‟‟ Cognition 903-27 Print
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G K (2005) A Student's Introduction to English Grammar: Cambridge University Press
Hughes, A (1989) Testing for Language Teachers: Cambridge University Press Hwang, Jong – Bai (2003) Korean EFL learners‟ acquisition of English relative clauses: PFH, PDH, or AHH? English teaching, 58(3), 189- 208
In their 1977 study, Ioup and Kruse explore the influence of interference and structural complexity on second language acquisition, emphasizing the role of language universals in determining the sequence of learning Their research, presented at the TESOL '77 conference in Washington, DC, highlights key trends in teaching and learning English as a second language, contributing valuable insights into effective language instruction practices.
Izumi, S (2003) Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language Language Learning, 53(2), 258-323
Keenan, E L., & Comrie, B (1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63-99
Keenan, E L (1975) Variation in Universal Grammar In Fasold and
R Shuy (eds), Analysing Variation in Language Washington DC:
Kuno, S (1974) The position of relative clauses and conjunction Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117-36
Lan, Trinh Dinh (2011) Semantic and syntactic problems in using relative clauses in English of Yendinh high school students, M.A minor thesis MA Thesis Vietnam National University - College of Foreign Languages
In "The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Revisited: A view from Ergative Languages," Liao Hsiu-chuan explores the complexities of noun phrase accessibility in ergative languages, presenting a comprehensive analysis that contributes to the understanding of linguistic structures This work, published in the 31st volume of Working Papers in Linguistics in 2000, spans pages 121 to 142 Additionally, McArthur's "The Oxford Companion to the English Language," published by Oxford University Press in 1992, serves as a valuable reference for English language studies, offering insights into its evolution and usage.
O‟Grady, W, M Lee, & Choo, M (2000) The acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as the second language Department of linguistics, University of Hwaii
The comprehension of relative clauses plays a crucial role in the acquisition of the Turkish language, as discussed in the works of Ozcan (1997) and Ozge et al (2010) Ozcan's research highlights the understanding of relative clauses among Turkish speakers, while Ozge and colleagues focus on the differences in comprehension between subject and object relative clauses in monolingual Turkish children Both studies contribute valuable insights into the linguistic development of Turkish, emphasizing the importance of relative clause comprehension in language acquisition.
Ozeki, Hiromi, and ShiraiYasuhiro “Does the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Predict the Difficulty Order in the Acquisition of Relative Clauses?‟‟.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2007):169–196 Print
Rahmany, R and Haghpour, M (2015) The effect of relative clause types on processing difficulty Retrieved from http://www.rjelal.com
In "Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide," Richards (2005) offers valuable insights for researchers navigating qualitative research methodologies Additionally, Sadighi (1994) explores the acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by adult native speakers of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, contributing to the understanding of language learning challenges in the context of applied linguistics These works highlight the importance of qualitative analysis and the complexities of language acquisition among diverse linguistic backgrounds.
Sheldon, A (1994) The Role of Parallel Function in the Acquisition of Relative Clauses in English Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 271-281
Stake, R E (1995) The art of case study research Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Tiehua – Song (2016) Study in Chinese college EFL learners’ comprehension and production of English relative clauses: Testing three hypotheses
Chinese journal of Applied linguistic Doi: 10.1515/cial-2016-0002
Wong, J (1991) Learnability of relative clauses: A Hong Kong Case Working Papers of the Department of English, 3(1), 108-117
Yule, G (1998) Explaining English grammar: Oxford University Press.
Exercise 1: Choose the correct answer by circling A, B, C or D
1 We‟d like to buy the house …………overlooks West Lake
2 The letter.…………she received this morning is from the USA
3 I don‟t know the girl …………is wearing a long blue dress
4 The teacher with………… we studied last year no longer teaches in our school
5 Our house, …………was destroyed in the storm, is now being rebuilt
6 The police are looking for the paintings …………stolen last night
A which B were C which were D who was
7 He went to the sport club …………he first met his wife
8 Have you found the wallet …………you lost yet?
9 The books …………written by Jack London are very interesting
A which were B were C whose D which
10 The girl, …………injured in the accident yesterday, is my friend
A which B were C which were D who was
Exercise 2: Identify the words or phrases that need correcting and correct them
11 Rice, which it still forms the main diet of much of the world‟s population, grows best in hot, wet lands
12 The person to whom he is phoning is his mother
13 I like the beach where is very nice and clean
14 Van Cliburn, who studied piano from 1951 to 1954 and won multiple awards between 1958 and 1960
15 Dr Harder, that my father is more professional than, is well-known
16 I saw the man of whom the red car is parked in front of our house
17 The woman to who I sent a letter is at Mary's house
18 Look at the bottle of milk who she drunk
19 Do you know the girl which he studies better than
20 I have heard her on the violin, what she plays extremely well
Exercise 3: Combine the following sentences, using an appropriate relative word: who, whom, which, that, whose Put commas where necessary
21 It may be the most important decision You will ever take the decision
22 The river is polluted It flows through the town
23 The trousers are too small for me I bought them yesterday
24 It is a Tudor house Its sitting room looks out over a wonderful walled garden
25 The woman is a doctor Bill passed a note to the woman
26 Do you remember Mr Darnell? He taught us English Literature
27 The man made no comment on the situation He was appointed just last week
28 The bed has no mattress I sleep on this bed
29 I invited my old acquaintance She seemed not to undestand my situation to give me any advice
30 This is the man The girl is taller than the man
APPENDIX 2 Survey Test Suggested answers Exercise 1: Choose the correct answer by circling A, B, C or D
Exercise 2: Underline the words or phrases that need correcting and correct them
11 Rice, which it still forms the main diet of much of the world‟s population, grows best in hot, wet lands
Rice, which still forms the main diet of much of the world‟s population, grows best in hot, wet lands
12 The person to whom he is phoning is his mother
The person whom he is phoning is his mother
13 I like the beach where is very nice and clean
I like the beach which is very nice and clean
14 Van Cliburn, who studied piano from 1951 to 1954 and won multiple awards between 1958 and 1960
Van Cliburn, who studied piano from 1951 to 1954 won multiple awards between 1958 and 1960
15 Dr Harder, that my father is more professional than, is well-known
Dr Harder, whom my father is more professional than, is well-known
16 I saw the man, of whom the red car is parked in front of our house
I saw the man whose red car is parked in front of our house
17 The woman to who I sent a letter is at Mary's house
The woman to whom I sent a letter is at Mary's house
18 Look at the bottle of milk who she drunk
Look at the bottle of milk which she drunk
19 Do you know the girl which he studies better than
Do you know the girl whom he studies better than
20 I have heard her on the violin, what she plays extremely well
I have heard her on the violin, which she plays extremely well
Exercise 3: Combine the following sentences, using an appropriate relative word: who, whom, which, that, whose Put commas where necessary
21 It may be the most important decision You will ever take the decision
It may be the most important decision that you will ever take
22 The river is polluted It flows through the town
The river which flows through the town is polluted
23 The trousers are too small for me I bought them yesterday
The trousers which I bought yesterday are too small for me
24 It is a Tudor house Its sitting room looks out over a wonderful walled garden
It is a Tudor house whose sitting room looks out over a wonderful walled garden
25 The woman is a doctor Bill passed a note to the woman
The woman whom Bill passed a note to is a doctor
26 Do you remember Mr Darnell? He taught us English Literature
Do you remember Mr.Darnell, who taught us English Literature?
27 The man made no comment on the situation He was appointed just last week
The man who was appointed just last week made no comment on the situation
28 The bed has no mattress I sleep on this bed
The bed on which I sleep has no mattress
29 I invited my old acquaintance She seemed not to undestand my situation to give me any advice
I invited my old acquaintance, who seemed not to undestand my situation to give me any advice
30 This is the man The girl is taller than the man
This the man whom the girl is taller than
An example of interview scripts in Vietnanese (From a student in high proficiency group)
1 Giáo viên (GV): Em đã học mệnh đề quan hệ (MĐQH) từ khi nào?
Học sinh (HS): Em đã học từ khoảng 1 năm trước
GV: ừ, tức là khoảng đầu năm lớp 10 đúng không em?
2 GV: Khi học MĐQH em thấy hay gặp khó khăn gì?
HS gặp khó khăn trong việc phân tích các trường hợp phức tạp khi học GV hỏi HS có đi học thêm tiếng Anh ở đâu không, bao lâu và mấy buổi một tuần HS trả lời rằng em đã học ở một số nơi.
3 GV: Khi làm bài kiểm tra em vận dụng kiến thức ở trên lớp là chủ yếu hay ở lớp học thêm (nếu có) là chủ yếu? Vì sao?
Khi làm bài kiểm tra, em chủ yếu áp dụng kiến thức từ lớp học thêm và sách vở Ở lớp học thêm, cô giáo không chỉ cung cấp công thức mà còn đưa ra những ví dụ cụ thể và tình huống thực tế để giúp học sinh hiểu rõ cách sử dụng đúng và sai Trong khi đó, ở trên lớp, giáo viên thường chỉ dạy công thức mà chưa giải thích rõ ràng về MĐQH, có thể do số lượng học sinh đông và thời gian hạn chế.
1 GV: Em xem lại 1 lượt bài làm của mình, em có muốn thay đổi câu trả lời nào không?
2 GV: Bài 1 câu 1, tại sao em chọn đáp án D
I choose option D because the subject of the sentence is "We," which performs the action of "buying the house." Additionally, there is a section that describes the house and mentions that it overlooks the West Lake.
Mệnh đề quan hệ giúp rút ngắn câu khi miêu tả một sự vật mà không cần đến câu thứ hai Trong trường hợp này, khi chủ ngữ đề cập đến ngôi nhà nhìn ra hồ Tây, cần sử dụng mệnh đề quan hệ chỉ sự vật, và "which" là lựa chọn phù hợp nhất.
3 GV: Bài 1 câu 7 em chọn đáp án “where” Em thấy 2 câu này giống hay khác nhau và ở đâu?
Hai câu này khác nhau về nghĩa và cấu trúc Câu 1 thiếu chủ ngữ cho hành động "overlook the West Lake", trong khi câu 7 đã có một vế hoàn chỉnh Do đó, cần sử dụng một mệnh đề quan hệ (MĐQH) để liên kết với vế câu hoàn chỉnh trong câu 7.
4 GV: Bài 2 câu 4, em giải thích cách làm câu này như nào Tại sao em lại bỏ “and” HS: Em bỏ and đi vì trước tiên đây là một câu có sử dụng mệnh đề quan hệ nên ta thấy theo câu gốc: Van Cliburn người mà học và giành được … Về nghĩa câu này sẽ bị cụt Cho nên việc bỏ and đi sẽ hoàn chỉnh cấu trúc của câu có sử dụng MĐQH và giúp câu có nghĩa đầy đủ hơn
An example of interview scripts in Vietnanese (From a student in low proficiency group)
1 Giáo viên (GV): Em đã học mệnh đề quan hệ (MĐQH) từ khi nào?
Học sinh (HS): Em nhớ em học MĐQH từ năm lớp 10 ạ
2 GV: Khi học MĐQH em thấy hay gặp khó khăn gì?
HS: Em chưa nắm rõ được cách vận dụng ạ
GV: cách vận dụng của trường hợp nào?
HS: Tất cả các loại ạ
3 GV: Em có đi học thêm tiếng Anh ở đâu không? (Bao lâu, mấy buổi một tuần) HS: Em không đi học thêm tiếng Anh ở đâu ạ
4 GV: Khi làm bài kiểm tra em vận dụng kiến thức ở trên lớp là chủ yếu hay ở lớp học thêm (nếu có) là chủ yếu?
HS: Khi làm bài kiểm tra em vận dụng kiến thức em nhớ được khi ở trên lớp ạ vì em không đi học thêm ạ
1 Giáo viên (GV): Em xem lại 1 lượt bài làm của mình, em có muốn thay đổi câu trả lời nào không?
2 GV: Bài 1 câu 1, tại sao em lại chọn “which”, đáp án D
HS: Vì em nghĩ nó thay thế cho từ house, thay thế cho vật làm tân ngữ ạ
3 GV: Bài 1 câu 3, tại sao em lại chọn “whom”
HS: Vì nó thay thế cho người làm tân ngữ ạ
4 GV: Bài 1, câu 4 em cũng chọn “whom” Tại sao vậy? Câu này có giống với câu 3 không?
HS: Em sửa lại câu này em sẽ chọn “Who” ạ Nó thay thế cho người làm chủ ngữ ạ
5 GV: bài 1 câu 8 cô thấy em bỏ trống Tại sao vậy?
HS: Em sẽ chọn “which” vì nó thay thế cho vật làm tân ngữ ạ
6 GV: Bài 1 câu 9, cô thấy em chọn đáp án C “whose”, tại sao vậy? HS: Vì em nghĩ cuốn sách thuộc sở hữu của Jack ạ
7 GV: Bài 2 câu 1 cô thấy em bỏ “it”, tại sao vậy?
HS: Em nghĩ which thay thế cho rise rồi sẽ không cần it nữa ạ
8 GV: Bài 2 câu 2, cô thấy em bỏ “to”, tại sao vậy?
HS: Vì em nhớ đến cấu trúc này ạ : N + whom + s + v
9 GV: Tức là sẽ không có giới từ đi kèm “whom” hả em?