Developmental Progression in Interlanguage

1

• Developmental Progression in Interlanguage
• Fu-hsing Su
• Department of Foreign Languages
• National Chiayi University, Taiwan

2
Influences on an Interlanguage Grammar
(Archibald, 1997, p. 504)
Interlanguage Grammar
3

• Selinker (1972 214)
• IL is a separate linguistic system based on the
  observable output which results from a learners
  attempted production of a TL norm.

4

• Archibald (1997 504 )second language learners
  have a systematic interlanguage (IL)
  grammar--so-called because it is influenced by
  both the first and the second language and has
  features of each.

5
Gradual separation of two languages
(Gawlitzek-Maiwald Tracy, 1996)
6
Three types of errors (Richards, 1974)

• 1.interference errors--caused by the structure of
  the native language
• Ex (L1 Spanish speakers of L2 English (I) no
  speak English
• 2. intra-lingual errors--originating in the
  structure of the TL
• Ex dummy do for question formation in L2
  English Did he talked)

7
Three types of errors (Richards, 1974)

• 3. developmental errors--reflecting the
  strategies employed to acquire the TL
• Ex. is as a present tense marker in L2 English
  She is speaks Japanese).

8
Error patterns predicted by the Ontogeny Model
(Archibald, 1997, p. 506)
9
Intra-lingual or interference errors of Chinese
learners of English (Schachter Celce-Murcia,
1977)

• (a) There are so many Taiwan people live around
  the lake.
• (b) and there is a mountain separate two lakes.
• The topic-comment analysis would constitute an
  interference error caused by the structure of
  Chinese, the native language

10

• Corder (1967167) Errors provide evidence of
  the system of the language that he is using (i.e.
  has learned) at a particular point

11
Selinker (1972221) on fossilization

• Many IL linguistic structures are never really
  eradicated for most second language learners
  manifestations of these structures regularly
  reappear in IL productive performance, especially
  under conditions of anxiety, shifting attention,
  and second language performance on subject matter
  which is new to the learner.

12
Ellis (198220)

• The systematicity of interlanguage can only be
  adequately described in terms of variable rules
  which capture the context-dependency of the
  learners use of his internalized grammar.

13
(No Transcript)
14
Interlingual Identifications Mechanism (Selinker,
1972)
interlanguage
Interlingual Identifications Mechanism
native language
target language
15
Related Literature

• Variety and difficulty in processing
  syllables--the syllable as a very vague notion
  Gussmann (2002)
• Examples of sound replacement Bybee (2001)
• 1. nasalized vowels ? non-nasalized
• 2. front rounded vowels ? front unrounded
• 3. fricatives ? stops

16
Related Literature

• Factors influencing syllabic awareness and
  sensitivity
• 1. Distribution of stress pattern (heavy vs.
  light syllables)
• --heavy syllables CV, CVV, CVC, CVVC, or CVCC
  etc.)
• --change of vowel value or duration (e.g., bit
  vs. bee and beat)

17
Related Literature

• Influencing factors
• 1. Pattern of phonotactic distribution
• --constituent parts of a broken word should form
  individual syllables (mo-ther but not mot-her)
  Gussmann, 2002
• --syllables can be broken into smaller units of
  onsets, rhymes, and phonemes Treiman Chafetz,
  1987

18
Related Literature

• Influencing factors
• 1. Pattern of phonotactic distribution
• --constituent parts of a broken word should form
  individual syllables (mo-ther but not mot-her)
  Gussmann, 2002
• --syllables can be broken into smaller units of
  onsets, rhymes, and phonemes Treiman Chafetz,
  1987

19
Components of syllable
Syllable
20
Methods

• Subjects
• Two classes of 62 school children from a
  city area in southern Taiwan
• Instrument
• --The Syllable Doubling Task (SDT)
• --A modified adaptation of Fallows (1981)

21
Instrument

• --It contained bisyllabic stimuli (Part 1) and
  trisyllabic stimuli (Part 2), 20 items in each
• -It required first and final syllable doubling

22
Instrument

• Sequence of first syllable doubling
• S1S2?S1S1S2, e.g., a.long ? a.a.long
• S1S2S3?S1S1S2S3, e.g., e.le.ven ? e.e.le.ven
• Sequence of final syllable doubling
• S1S2?S1S2S2, e.g., so.fa ? sofa.fa
• S1S2S3?S1S2S3S3, e.g., um.bre.lla ?
  um.bre.lla.lla

23
Data Analysis

• Quantitative analyses
• --descriptive statistics and a pair-samples
  t-test
• Qualitative analyses
• --intended to pinpoint their strength and
  weakness in processing items with different
  featuristic displays

24
Results

• A. Findings of quantitative analyses
• Descriptive statistics of SDT performance
• _________________________________________________
  ________________________
  M SD
• --------------------------------------------------
  -------------------- -----------------------------
  ----------
• Part 1 (bisyllabic items) 13.81 3.24
• Part 2 (trisyllabic items) 13.48 3.26
• _________________________________________________
  _________________________
• t 0.91, pgt .05

25
Results

• B. Findings of qualitative analyses
• 1.Relative success in processing items
  with/without clear syllabic boundary
• --bisyllabic items (63.14 as compared to 53.76
  )
• --trisyllabic items (61.70 as compared to 34.31
  )

26
Results

• B. Findings of qualitative analyses
• 2.Relative success in processing items with
  different degrees of structural complexity
• --In Part 1 high correct percentage for finish
  (67.74), decide (75.81), July (83.87)
  overall of 72.26

27
Results

• B. Findings of qualitative analyses
• --In Part 2 high correct percentage for potato
  (70.97), believer (59.68), furniture (61.29),
  holiday and telephone (87.10) overall of
  71.78

28
Results

• B. Findings of qualitative analyses
• 4.Tendency to make sound omission, reduction, or
  substitution
• --deletion of syllable-final obstruents or
  nasals invite, repeat, unlike, decide, and
  include, diamond include, along, disgusting, etc.

29
Results

• B. Findings of qualitative analyses
• --widespread problem of replacement r for v
  in invite, ?? or t for ?? in courage, ?
  for ? in money, unlike, customer, etc.

30
Conclusion and Discussion

• The subjects syllabification behaviors varied
  due to the influence of of syllable-internal
  factors (syllable weight, ambisyllabicity,
  structural complexity)
• The study speaks against the widely believed
  easiness in processing English syllables by
  native speakers

31
Conclusion and Discussion

• A need to work with a greater variety of
  Chinese-speaking children to test the
  generalizability of the present findings
• A dire necessity to design different English
  syllable measures

32

• Questions? Comments