Morpho-Syntax Development Stages of English L2 - Essay Example

Morpho-Syntax development stages of English L2 Customer Inserts His/Her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 27 October, 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Linguistic development under Organic Grammar 4 Results and Discussion 7 Conclusion 10 References 11 Morpho-Syntax development stages of English L2 Introduction Second language acquisition (SLA) studies have caught the attention of numerous linguistics scholars since the groundbreaking findings of morpheme studies by Dulay, Burt and Krashen in 1982(Harley & Rentz, 2002). Since then, extensive and diverse empirical studies have been conducted among L2 learners of various languages as researchers try to gather supplementary evidence to support or refute the initial findings. Interestingly, most empirical studies concur that L2 learners’ of any language follows a similar developmental sequence regardless of the learner’s age, context, L1 or educational background (Hawkins, 2001). Against this claim, is the Pienemann Processability theory that attempts to explain the universality of L2 acquisition path has gained considerable attention among researchers as they attempt to test its validity in regard to languages of different and similar typologies (Harley & Rentz, 2002). Similarly, the tenets of Processability theory were utilized in this current project to analyze the informant’ utterance in an attempt to place his English L2 competency within the respective developmental stage. Results of this study indicated that the learner was in stage 4 and that he committed several errors during obligatory speech production. Consequently, this research offers several insightful instruction suggestions that are likely to assist the leaner to overcome those developmental errors. Literature review Background to the study This study sought to identify the morpho-syntax development stage of a Turkish English L2 leaner. In line with other studies carried out previously, this current study concentrated on error analysis in terms of absence or suplliance of certain morphological and syntactical concepts in order to understand the development stage of the learner under study. The idea of error analysis in developmental studies was introduced by Roger Brown in 1973 in a longitudinal study carried out among three children of English L1 learners (Hawkins, 2001). On analysis, the learners were found to have committed 14 grammatical functors that ranged from third person singular –s and bound morphemes –ing to the free morphemes (articles and copula be). Interestingly, the above functors portrayed a common order among the three children in spite of differences in environment input (Hawkins, 2001). Following the above findings, a cross- sectional study by deVillers and deVillers also arrived at similar findings. This affirmation by the latter authors, paved way for other cross-sectional studies by Dulay and Burts and Bailey et al. whose findings identified a common order in L2 English. The findings in these two studies were based on learners’ suppliance of grammatical functors while performing certain obligatory tasks (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 2005). Linguistic development under Organic Grammar Concurrently, Vainikka and Young-Scholten (2005) combined the ideas of previous researches about common path of language development together with further ideas theorised in L1 acquisition studies to formulate their own ideas on L2 development stages. Against this background, the above authors postulated that at the initial stages of development, L2 learners portrayed only some basic syntactic relation in terms of the relationship between non-finite verb and its compliment (VP). Additionally, they claimed that L2 development and build up of syntactic structure portrayed various similarities to child language acquisition based on the interaction of several elements as posited in Chomsky Universal grammar in 1981 (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 2005). Chomsky idea posited that development of syntactic structure in child language acquisition (as well as L2) is based on the interaction between context, linguistic input and innate linguistic mechanisms (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 2005). On the same note, Organic Grammar portrays a clear cut relationship that occurs between inflectional morphology and syntax during the various development stages of L2. Aims of the study The brief review of SLA literature above, clearly indicates that learners indeed follow some defined development path during the process of L2 learning. Against this backdrop, this current project was carried out whereby one English L2 leaner was investigated to establish their development level of English L2 learning. As epitomized above, error analysis is a constant feature in language development studies. On the same note, this current project was aimed at identifying possible morphological and syntactical errors that leaner’s in this informant developmental stage were likely to make. Consequently, the identified errors would form a basis for recommendations that would enable a language teacher to assist L2 leaners to attain competency. Theoretical framework Overview of Processability theory To account for the various development stages in L1 and L2, Processability have been a common feature in the various longitudinal and cross sectional studies in SLA and CLA studies. This theory which was developed by Pienemenn in 1998 regards the process of Second language acquisition as gradual hierarchical construction of complex computational mechanisms (Harley & Rentz, 2002). In this theory, the process of speech production by leaner at any given time is a reflection of his/her limitations during processing of L2 information. That is, while native speaker’s ability to produce grammatical utterances is automatic, an L2 leaner must constantly pay attention to grammatical items during the initial stages of language acquisition (Harley & Rentz, 2002). Apparently, this kind of attention is highly dependent on the level of working memory whose capacity is bound by numerous shortcomings. The above propositions implies that the process of speech production by an L2 learner is also constrained by limited working capacity as well as time factor during information processing (Lardiere, 2000) Based on the above constraints which are universal to all learners, Processability theory postulates a significant logic that L2 learners’ will first grasp sentences that requires less information processing capacity while the highly tasking sentences are leant at a latter stage. According to Pienemann theory, information processing in speech production follows a certain hierarchical order that is arranged in linguistics units i.e word, the phrase, the clause and the sentence (Lardiere, 2000). The above implies that development stages of language acquisition follow a certain defined order and the leaner uses resources in one stage as a prerequisite for the next information processing in the next stage (Harley & Rentz, 2002). In summary, language acquisition is developmental, and a learner has to pass through all stages since there is no room for skipping to a particular stage. Methodology Alongside the1970’s studies outlined in literature review section, Hawkins (2001) explain in details other studies in Europe among adult guest workers and immigrants, which sought to identify the syntactic development stages as these individuals strived to acquire English as the target language. Similar to this project, the studies utilized oral data that was collected through unstructured interviews/ conversations or elicitation. In elicitation, informants were presented with pictures (photography or silent film) and their grammatical functors were analyzed and this formed the basis for classifying learners’ in their respective developmental stages. However, it is imperative to mention that, there have been several methodological challenges in language studies because of the prescriptive nature of language (Lardiere, 2000). Most importantly, performance analysis among L2 speakers can be erroneous because their speech utterances are determined by time and context such that speakers style may vary based on language medium, linguistic task, physical surroundings, amount of attention paid to speech and social status between addresser/addressee(Harley & Rentz, 2002). Nonetheless, it is not within the scope of this paper to address these shortcomings. On the same note, this paper applied elicitation method to collect data from an English L2 speaker. The participating informant (Turkish L1 English L2) was presented with two different photographs by the interviewer (Turkish English bilingual) who asked several unstructured questions based on those photographs. This method was chosen because of the constraints of time and scope of this paper. Results and Discussion In an attempt to correctly place the participant within the respective developmental stage, data was analyzed bearing in mind that development of inflectional morphology translates to the syntactical development associated with morphology. From the data, the L2 leaner fails under stage 4 of English language development. This conclusion was arrived at after comparing his utterances with the tabulated information in Table 1 above. According to Harley and Rentz (2002), in stage 4 L2 learners portray additional functional morphology and their sentences construction show simple subordination. In addition, relative clauses and complementizer with the exception of that is a common feature of this subordination. The results can be summarized as follows Table 1: Comparing data from transcript interview and English developmental stages Word order (resembles the TL apart from complex syntax) Type of verbs (thematic verbs, modals, copula forms beyond ‘is’ and auxiliaries in all forms and tenses emerge) verbal agreement; tense marking (productive tense, aspect; some agreement, esp. forms of ‘be’) Pronouns (pronouns obligatory, ‘there’ and existential ‘it’ emerge) Complex syntax productive wh-Qs, but all Qs may lack inversion; simple subordination e.g 26 I am a retired now pension er . that’s I using my life that’s it 91 I don’t know name of that but bag looks like bag ha 32 am I’m sorry I didn’t get you 59. second one I saw is four ducks four ducks here 131 I’ve been .. Korea and I’ve been . English Ingiltere ( England) London England I’ve been Italya (Italy) . so I’ve be 26 . I am a retired now pension er . that’s I using my life that’s it en Turkey 49 she is eating ice-cream 119 why you asking me prime minister why? 43. what do you want ? I wanna ( want to) help you On further analysis, the leaner was found to have committed various morphological errors that are common within this developmental stage. These errors were analyzed under the five levels of morphological development and three categories (-supplied, +supplied and >supplied) were utilized to understand the areas the learner experienced most problems. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the identified errors could be due to language developmental constraints or limitations of obligatory context. On the procedure (interphrasal ) morphologic level the learner was found to have committed the three errors whereby he failed to supply 3 person singular –s (e.g. in 115 and 113) , he supplied correctly (e.g. 91) or oversupplied (e.g. 109). In the phrasal procedure category the leaner was found to have supplied VP elements correctly with under-suplliance or over-suplliance observed (e.g. 32, 38, 49, and 51). The NP category had some instances of –suplliance (e.g. 51, 75, and 105). Plural –s under category procedure was –/+supply (e.g 105, 125, 83, 63) , past-ed was –/+supply (e.g 20, 123, 127) while –ing was +/>supplied (e.g 36, 121, 75, 97). Finally, words and formulaic expressions were correctly supplied (41, 23). Suggested plan for instruction According to Lardiere (2000), in stage 4 and 5 learners may consistently use non-target forms depending of the presence or absence of certain grammatical features in L1. However, assuming the errors committed by the informant are based on information processing and working memory capacity restrictions, some instruction strategies might assist the learner to overcome his shortcomings and eventually graduate to level five. According to Harley and Rentz (2002) teachers of L2 learners should first establish what the learners know and also establish what can (not) be taught. Although there are various strategies for assisting L2 learners, Harley and Rentz (2002) suggestion about focusing on form is the most suitable for this learner. The instructor can focus on form of grammar that the learner seems to have problems. For instance, the learner has a problem with Plural-s where he tend to –supply. Harley & Rentz (2002) underscore that this strategy have been found to exhibit positive results among learners. On the same note, the instructor can utilize several options such as; planning and monitoring output and identifying the gaps between the produced utterances and the target. Conclusion Language acquisition is an uphill task due to the numerous factors that come into play during this crucial process. While child language acquisition might turn out to be a smooth and exciting process, second language acquisition is notoriously challenging especially for individuals who have passed the critical period. However, it is imperative to note that, all learners (L1 & L2) assumes a universal development path during this crucial process, and that mistakes are inevitable as exposed in this research project. References Harley, M. L & Rentz, P. (2002). Applying SLA Research and Theory To Practice: What Can a Teacher Do?. Journal for English as a Second Language, 5(4): Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax. A Generative Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten (2005). The roots of syntax and how they grow: Organic Grammar, the Basic Variety and Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Read More

Aims of the study The brief review of SLA literature above, clearly indicates that learners indeed follow some defined development path during the process of L2 learning. Against this backdrop, this current project was carried out whereby one English L2 leaner was investigated to establish their development level of English L2 learning. As epitomized above, error analysis is a constant feature in language development studies. On the same note, this current project was aimed at identifying possible morphological and syntactical errors that leaner’s in this informant developmental stage were likely to make.

Consequently, the identified errors would form a basis for recommendations that would enable a language teacher to assist L2 leaners to attain competency. Theoretical framework Overview of Processability theory To account for the various development stages in L1 and L2, Processability have been a common feature in the various longitudinal and cross sectional studies in SLA and CLA studies. This theory which was developed by Pienemenn in 1998 regards the process of Second language acquisition as gradual hierarchical construction of complex computational mechanisms (Harley & Rentz, 2002).

In this theory, the process of speech production by leaner at any given time is a reflection of his/her limitations during processing of L2 information. That is, while native speaker’s ability to produce grammatical utterances is automatic, an L2 leaner must constantly pay attention to grammatical items during the initial stages of language acquisition (Harley & Rentz, 2002). Apparently, this kind of attention is highly dependent on the level of working memory whose capacity is bound by numerous shortcomings.

The above propositions implies that the process of speech production by an L2 learner is also constrained by limited working capacity as well as time factor during information processing (Lardiere, 2000) Based on the above constraints which are universal to all learners, Processability theory postulates a significant logic that L2 learners’ will first grasp sentences that requires less information processing capacity while the highly tasking sentences are leant at a latter stage. According to Pienemann theory, information processing in speech production follows a certain hierarchical order that is arranged in linguistics units i.

e word, the phrase, the clause and the sentence (Lardiere, 2000). The above implies that development stages of language acquisition follow a certain defined order and the leaner uses resources in one stage as a prerequisite for the next information processing in the next stage (Harley & Rentz, 2002). In summary, language acquisition is developmental, and a learner has to pass through all stages since there is no room for skipping to a particular stage. Methodology Alongside the1970’s studies outlined in literature review section, Hawkins (2001) explain in details other studies in Europe among adult guest workers and immigrants, which sought to identify the syntactic development stages as these individuals strived to acquire English as the target language.

Similar to this project, the studies utilized oral data that was collected through unstructured interviews/ conversations or elicitation. In elicitation, informants were presented with pictures (photography or silent film) and their grammatical functors were analyzed and this formed the basis for classifying learners’ in their respective developmental stages. However, it is imperative to mention that, there have been several methodological challenges in language studies because of the prescriptive nature of language (Lardiere, 2000).

Most importantly, performance analysis among L2 speakers can be erroneous because their speech utterances are determined by time and context such that speakers style may vary based on language medium, linguistic task, physical surroundings, amount of attention paid to speech and social status between addresser/addressee(Harley & Rentz, 2002).

Read More