Probable topic

Looking at the example sentences, I am not sure whether the results you have
obtained count as viable results about subject/ object asymmetries. Your text
presents the following as examples of what you call the object relative clause
construction:

(2) 4.Je chele-ta Sita-r saathe kotha bolche, se amarbhai. [postnominal ORC]

REL boy-sgSita with word speak, CoP my brother.

‘The boy who is speaking to Sita, is my brother.’

(3) 5.Amar bhai, je porashonae khub bhalo, se ebaro prothom hoyeche.

[prenominal ORC]

My brother, REL studies very good, CoP this time also first came.

‘My brother who is very good in his studies came first in exams even this
time.’

but i do not understand what leads you to describe these examples as 'object relative
clauses' in any known sense of the term 'object', Debarpita. while i concur with your
judgment that your SRC examples are indeed 'subject' relative clauses, i get the
impression that your ORC examples are a mixed bag, including both subject and
object relative clauses, and that this problem vitiates the quality of the results you have
obtained.

it is possible that the overall trend you claim to find will turn out to be accurate even
when the study is done with more rigour, but right now, when no such careful follow-
up study has yet been carried out, surely we are not in a position to make any claims
with confidence, are we?
 oo

thus it is not easy for me to offer any really useful advice. if you wish to assemble a
ph.d. proposal, it is most important to survey what other people, working on other verb-
final languages, have found about the acquisition of relatives. when you start looking
at the literature you are bound to find a preponderance of results on japanese. in that
language, what correspond to relatives, and are called relatives, are in fact structures
where the 'relative phrase' is null. in bangla, there are participial constructions that
have gaps and that share certain properties with relatives --

(a) tumi je gan Sikhecho Sei gan

(b) tomar Sekha gan

-- but in japanese these constructions do not have the limitations that constrain bangla
participials. japanese allows you to say things like tomar dillite kaloati ganer aSore
Sona kintu tOkhon na Sekha ar Sei ghOTonar dOS bOchor bade kolkatae ganer
iSkule giye Sekha gan, which are too heavy a burden for the participial construction
to carry in bangla.

To summarize: (i) a phd proposal must include a survey of earlier writings in the domain;
(ii) when surveying these writings you will face japanese; (iii) japanese 'relatives' have a
structure that looks a little like the bangla participial (having gaps where you would expect
the relative phrase) but in fact has the freedom of the bangla relative clause; therefore
(iv) i think you might want to look at the acquisition of different types of _participial_ and
_relative_ construction in bangla, focusing on not just the distinction between objects and
subjects which is a grammatical function contrast and may not be relevant, but also on
the distinction between agents and themes which is a theta-role contrast and may be the
factor that plays a demonstrable role in child language acquisition.

while doing this research you will also need to look at the fact that the options for
participials in bangla are limited compared to those available for relatives in bangla
(see my example tomar dillite kaloati ganer aSore Sona kintu tOkhon na Sekha ar Sei
ghOTonar dOS bOchor bade kolkatae ganer iSkule giye Sekha gan -- ill-formed as a
participial but corresponding to the well-formed relative tumi je gan dillite kaloati ganer
aSore Sunechile kintu tOkhon Sekhoni, Sei ghOTonar dOS bOchor bade kolkatae
ganer iSkule giye je gan Sikhechile, Sei gan). it is likely that there is no syntactic factor
per se that makes the participial structure worse than the relative structure -- perhaps
the difference has to do with processing issues, so putting this issue in your basket
will enrich the psycholinguistic content of your thesis proposal.