Teaching learnable grammar in Russian as a second language: a syllabus proposal for case

In E. F. Quero Gervilla, B. Barros García, T. R. Kopylova (eds), Trends in Slavic Studies, pp. 57-70. Editorial URSS, 2015

Marco Magnani, marco.magnani@univr.it Daniele Artoni, daniele.artoni@univr.it University of Verona Abstract In this paper we will show how, on the basis of the universal developmental sequences predicted by a scientific theory of grammatical development (i.e., Processability Theory), it is possible to infer an effective grammatical syllabus for teaching case in Russian as a second language. In particular, we will compare the case syllabus proposed in a variety of textbooks for learners of Russian with the universal sequences predicted by Processability Theory. Our aim is to highlight some of the incongruities between them, and suggest how these can be resolved. We will thus offer a scientifically sequenced syllabus for teaching case that parallels learners’ grammatical development. Keywords: teaching, case, Russian L2, Processability Theory, Teachability Hypothesis 1. Introduction Grammar is not the most crucial aspect to be learned in a second language (L2), because the gist of the propositional content can be conveyed even with uninflected words placed in the canonical word order of the target language. However, in a language such as Russian, which displays a highly complex morphological system and a variety of word orders (King, 1995), errors in morphology can lead to misunderstandings, and the rigidity of canonical word order fails to satisfy the speaker’s discourse and pragmatic needs. So, for example, if the inappropriate use of the accusative case creates no ambiguity in (1), lack of case marking can lead to a weird interpretation of the sentence in (2), and severely affect the propositional content in (3), where it is unclear whether Alëša is the killer or the victim. (1) v jule ja poedu k babušk-u in July I will go to grandmother-ACC (in July I will visit my grandmother) (2) vilk-a prinës balerin-a fork-NOM brought dancer-NOM (? the fork brought the dancer / a fork, the dancer brought) (3) kto ubil Alëš-a? who.NOM killed Alëša-NOM (? who killed Alëša? / who did Alëša kill?) Teaching Russian grammar is thus a key issue for both L2 learners and L2 teachers. In this paper we propose a grammatical syllabus for teaching case in Russian L2 based on the universal developmental sequences hypothesised by Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998). We will proceed as follows. First (§ 2), we will briefly look at Russian case and sketch out the main difficulties for the L2 learner. Secondly (§ 3), we will focus on the way in which case is dealt with in some prominent textbooks for learners of Russian L2. Thirdly (§ 4), we will illustrate the developmental sequence of case in Russian L2, and test it through a cross-sectional study of 17 learners. Then (§ 5), we will propose our syllabus on the basis of the developmental sequence presented in § 4. Finally (§ 6), we will sum up the advantages of constructing a scientifically based

syllabus, as well as compare (and contrast) them with those of the traditional sequences found in textbooks. 2. Case There are three fundamental factors which contribute in making the acquisition of Russian case a complex task for the L2 learner. First, as shown in (4), both cases and their respective inflectional endings are numerous – all of which are fusionally enmeshed with other relevant features, such as number (singular or plural), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), animacy and class; and some of which are affected by a set of phonological constraints, such as stress shift and vowel neutralisation. (4) Russian case-marking paradigm – Nouns (after Kempe & McWhinney, 1998)

Secondly, Russian case endings hardly ever match their functions unambiguously, as illustrated in (5). That is, one ending can perform different functions (e.g., the ending –e marks neuter singular nominative, as well as feminine singular dative and singular prepositional), and – conversely – one function can be performed by different forms (e.g., feminine singular instrumental can be marked by –ju, –oj or –ej). However, some of the form-function mappings in (5) are closer to the 1:1 relationship, so we would expect them to be acquired earlier. An example is the accusative ending –u/–ju for feminine nouns compared to the accusative ending –a for masculine nouns, which marks also the genitive. Furthermore, this latter form is affected by animacy constraints in the accusative, but not in the genitive.

(5) Form-function relations of Russian noun markers for case, number and gender

Thirdly, each case can be used in a variety of syntactic structures, as summarised in (6). (6) Russian cases and the structures in which they can appear

All these complexities among form, function and structural use of cases contribute in making the learning process challenging indeed. It is therefore not surprising that learners will need time and practice to acquire case. 3. Case in textbooks In this section we will look at the sequence in which the following textbooks for learners of Russian L2 introduce case in their syllabus. (7) a. ANTONOVA, V.E., NACHABINA, M.M., SAFRONOVA, M.V., TOLSTYCH, A.A. 2004. Doroga v Rossiju. Učebnik

russkogo jazyka, Sankt-Peterburg: Zlatoust. b. BAŠ, E.G., VLADIMIRSKIJ, E.JU., DOROFEEVA, T.M., LEBEDEVA, M.N., POLOVNIKOVA, V.I., ŠVEDOVA, L.N.

1976. Učebnik russkogo jazyka dlja studentov-inostrancev, obučajuščichsja na podgotovitel’nych fakul’tetach vuzov SSSR, Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.

c. BROWN, N.J. 1996. Russian Course. A complete course for beginners, London: The New Penguin. d. CHAVRONINA, S.A., ŠIROČENSKAJA, A.I. 1976. Russkij Jazyk v Upražnenijach, Moskva: Progress. e. KARAVANOVA, N.B., 2006. Govorite Pravil'no! Kurs russkoj razgovornoj reči, Moskva: Russkij jazyk Kursy. f. LE FLEMING, S., KAY, S.E. 1993. Colloquial Russian, the complete Course for Beginners, London: Routledge. g. OVSIENKO, JU.G., 2006. Russkij jazyk dlja načinajuščich. Kniga 1, Moskva: Russkij jazyk Kursy. h. SZCZEPANSKA, K. 2005. Russian. A Self-Teaching Guide, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. In terms of proficiency level, all these textbooks are for beginners. Those in (7a-b) and (7e) provide grammatical instructions in Russian, whereas the others do so mostly in the learner’s L1. In terms of general methodology, the majority of them are structured in courses and units, and introduce grammatical aspects within a broader communicative approach; one (7d) is a reference and exercise book dealing exclusively with grammar. All textbooks introduce the six Russian cases gradually, with at least one unit devoted to each case. The sequence in which they do it differs in three ways across the eight textbooks consulted, as shown in (8). (8) a. nominative > prepositional > accusative > dative > genitive > instrumental textbooks (7a) and (7d-e)

b. nominative > accusative > prepositional > dative > genitive > instrumental textbooks (7b) and (7h)

c. nominative > prepositional > accusative > genitive > dative > instrumental textbooks (7b) and (7f-g) As the reader will appreciate, all textbooks agree in presenting nominative at the very beginning (being the default, unmarked case), and instrumental at the very end (being structurally highly marked and less frequent in the input). The variation in-between is marginal, because a closer look at the sequences in (8) shows that accusative and prepositional are regularly presented before genitive and dative. However, this implicit syllabus in the textbooks in (7) seems less uniform when looking at the variety of forms and structures relating to each specific case. First, when these textbooks introduce a case, most of its inflectional endings – if not the whole range of them – are presented in a single table within the same unit, as exemplified in (9) for prepositional case.

(9) The prepositional case in the textbook Doroga v Rossiju (Antonova et al., 2004: 136), lesson 8

In this textbook the full range of singular endings is listed in the three rightmost columns (masculine, feminine and neuter respectively) parallel to their nominative counterparts, as summed up in the boxes, and formalised in (10). (10) –∅/–j/–' > –e; –a/–ja > –e; –ija > –ii; –' > –i; –o/–e > –e; –ie > –ii Secondly, the same case is often introduced in a variety of structures among those in which it can be used. For example in (11), as soon as the accusative appears, it is presented in four different syntactic contexts. (11) The uses of accusative case in the textbook Russian Course (Brown, 1996: 59-60), lesson 6

It goes without saying that, notwithstanding these textbooks’ extensive recourse to various communicative approaches for teaching grammar1, the wide range of forms and structures presented in (9) and (11) cannot be learned in one go – and hence should be taught gradually. 4. Acquiring case Which grammatical structures, then, should L2 learners be taught when? Processability Theory maintains that, when teaching, it is crucial to target only those structures for which, at a given point of their development, learners are ‘developmentally ready’ (Pienemann, 1998). This is so because grammatical structures are acquired in universal and implicational sequences. In this section we will illustrate the universal sequences of grammatical development, and apply them to the acquisition of case in Russian L2. In order to determine when the learner is developmentally ready, we need a theory of grammatical development that indicates what is learnable stage by stage. One of these, as mentioned, is Processability Theory (henceforth PT), originally formulated by Pienemann in 1998, then extended by Pienemann et al. (2005a), and currently updated in Bettoni & Di Biase (in press). This theory deals with online oral production, and offers a transitional paradigm of grammatical development on the basis of a universal and implicational hierarchy of processing procedures – that is, such procedures are applicable to any L2, and the development of the processing resources at a certain stage entails the development of those at the previous one. No stage can thus be skipped along the developmental path. The table in (12) shows the universal hierarchy of morphological development. Then, of course, the same procedure can trigger different language-specific structures. For example, whereas English marks only number on nouns, Russian marks also gender and case. In (13) we show the development of case in Russian L2 across the four sequential stages introduced for all languages in (12). (12) Universal hierarchy of morphological development (after Pienemann, 1998)

                                                                                                               1 Both examples in (9) and (11) are taken from highly communicatively-driven textbooks. Specifically, Brown (2004: XI) overtly claims to “emphasise functional and communicative aspects of language learning” in such a way that “the main concern is usefulness for the foreign learner”.

(13) Developmental hypothesis for case morphology in Russian L2 (after Artoni & Magnani, in press)

At the very first stage learners can only produce single words with no grammar, or non-analysed formulaic chunks. This means that their utterances will often display no case marking, as in (14); alternatively, case marking may appear in formulaic expressions, as in (15). (14) net urok ‘No lesson’ (15) menja zovut Lena ‘My name is Lena’ A first step towards grammaticalisation begins with the Category procedure stage. At this stage, with the activation of the cognitive Category procedure, learners will be able to distinguish at least between nouns from verbs, and begin to note that noun forms can vary. In terms of case development, the first case feature they will produce is an initial opposition between the nominative citation form and a general non-nominative form (Jakobson, 1971) which could bear any inflectional ending other than nominative, as exemplified in (16). This minimal (and obviously inaccurate) variation at this stage affects only the single word, in the sense that learners are still unable to relate the words of their utterances to a syntactic frame. (16) a. mam-a čitaet mum-NOM reads b. videla mam-e (she) saw mum-non-NOM At the next stage learners can activate the Phrasal procedure, and identify phrasal constituents (namely, the head and its dependent(s)). Thus they begin to exchange grammatical information between them. The activation of this procedure is necessary for a variety of structures involving Russian case: (a) at the NP level, the head noun must exchange information with its dependent adjective (i.e., they share the same case), as in (17); (b) at the PP level, a noun bears the case required by its own preposition, as in (18); and (c) at the VP level, postverbal object bears the case required by its own verb, as in (19). (17) ja vižu [choroš-uju devušk-u]NP I see nice-ACC girl-ACC (I can see a nice girl)

(18) ja [s druz’-jami]PP I (am) with friends-INST (I am with my friends) (19) teper’ [čitaju knig-u]VP now (I) read book-ACC (now I’m reading a book) Finally, at the Sentence procedure stage, learners are able to exchange information across phrases at the sentence level. This means, for example, that the activation of this procedure allows them to exchange information between the case-marked noun outside the VP and the VP when the object is placed in a noncanonical position, as shown in (20). (20) [knig-u]Topic NP [čitaet mama]VP

book-ACC reads mum (the book, mum reads it) In order to test this implicational hierarchy, we report on a cross-sectional study of 17 learners of Russian L2 at different proficiency levels and from a variety of L1 backgrounds. These include (a) languages with zero or minimal case marking (Chinese and Italian), (b) languages with a case system typologically different from the Russian one (Azeri and Georgian), and (c) languages with a case system typologically and morphologically similar to the Russian one (Serbian and Slovak). It is however important to note that the L1 background can influence the developmental path only in terms of speed and accuracy, but does not affect the developmental sequence (cf. the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis, Pienemann et al. 2005b). Our data have been elicited through a set of communicative tasks targeting the structures listed in (13), and comprise a total of 969 unambiguously case-marked structures (we thus excluded, for example, masculine inanimate nouns, which share the same marking strategy for nominative and accusative). The table in (21) summarises our results and is organised as follows. The structures are listed leftwards vertically within their stage, and the learners are listed rightwards horizontally from the least proficient to the most advanced one. (21) Distribution of case marked structures among the learners

Before commenting on the results, a crucial point must be clarified. There are two ways to look at learners’ development: one is in terms of emergence of structures, regardless of their formal accuracy; the other focuses on how accurately learners can master the forms of a structure. In this analysis we use the emergence criterion of PT (Pienemann 1998: 144) to determine if the learner is able to activate the procedure of a stage. Hence the thicker lines marking the learners’ development

across PT stages in (21) are based on this criterion. According to it, two instances of one unambiguously case-marked structure are sufficient evidence of progress to a stage, provided that the structure is produced online in a nonformulaic way. Among such instances, also the forms that are inaccurate for other traits (e.g., gender and class) can be considered as safe evidence, as long as the ending selected by the learner unequivocally marks the targeted case, as in (22).2 (22) s babušk-om with grandmother-INST Of course in our analysis we are also interested to see how accurately learners can master a case-marked structure. This is why the table in (21) shows also the numbers of correct and incorrect occurrences (the incorrect ones preceded by a minus). As indicated by the plus sign along the first two stages, all our learners are able to produce at least some non-nominative forms opposed to nominative ones, so they have all safely reached the Category procedure stage. Needless to say, such non-nominative forms are less accurate in the least proficient learners. For example, the learner AL consistently uses the ending –e to mark object, as shown in (23), as well as other non-subject functions. (23) AL: a. volk edila wolf.NOM ate (the wolf ate) b. videla volk-e (she) saw wolf-non-NOM (she saw the wolf) Fifteen learners have also reached the Phrasal procedure stage in terms of emergence, as they all produce a convincing number of structures belonging to this stage. However, a closer look reveals interesting variation in terms of accuracy. First, whereas all 15 produce case agreement within PP and VP, only 12 of them produce also adjective-noun case agreement within NP, as exemplified in (24). (24) LK: oni spasli Krasn-uju Šapočk-u they saved red-ACC (Riding) Hood-ACC (they saved Red Riding Hood) Secondly, the amount of correct occurrences increases as we move rightwards in the table, reaching a ceiling effect in the two most proficient learners (TA and BB), who always mark nouns with the correct case in all the three structures. Only 9 of them can mark object by the accusative case also when it is preverbal, as shown in (25), and thus reach the Sentence procedure stage. (25) TA: butylk-u prinesla muzikant

bottle-ACC brought musician-NOM (the bottle, the musician brought)

Not surprisingly, the more advanced learners produce this structure more often and more accurately. Summing up results in the table in (21), there being no learner who has reached a higher stage without producing at least some structure at the previous stage, our data fully support our developmental hypothesis in (13). In addition, they seem to reveal a step within the Phrasal

                                                                                                               2 All this may be clearer if we understand that what distinguishes the stages is not the number of structures or the degree of their correctness, but the ability to activate cognitive procedures which are increasingly more demanding – that is, requiring information exchange further afield syntactically: within the word, within the phrase, across phrases.

procedure stage, in so far as case agreement within NP would seems to emerge later than case agreement within VP and PP. 5. Teaching case Having illustrated (and empirically tested) the acquisitional sequence of case in Russian L2, it is logical to infer a grammatical syllabus that follows the same sequence. In fact, Pienemann’s (1998) Teachability Hypothesis clearly demonstrates that teaching fails dramatically when it insists on structures belonging to stages that are too advanced for the L2 learner – with consequences that would discourage the learner and frustrate the teacher. On the other hand, teachers can fruitfully act in two main directions:

• widening the range of structures belonging to the stage that the learner has reached, as well as insisting on the accuracy of the forms of such structures, and/or

• introducing the structures belonging to the stage that immediately follows. We exemplify the first option with the Phrasal procedure stage. First, the teacher should assess when the student has reached it. As we have seen in § 4, two instances of one structure are sufficient in terms of emergence. We have also seen that the first structure that tends to emerge at this stage is case within VP. So, secondly, teachers can act in two directions: (i) they can start teaching either of the two other structures of this stage, i.e. case agreement within PP or within NP; and (ii) they can insist on the formal accuracy of the case endings in these structures. With regard to this latter point, it would seem reasonable to start from the more transparent forms (see (5) in § 2). Thus, when teaching adjective-noun case agreement, we suggest that the teacher start from the feminine accusative markers (–uju + –u), and then add other forms, in which the adjective and the noun are marked with less similar – and hence less predictable – endings, as shown in (26). (26) T1. Accusative feminine choroš-uju knig-u good book

T2. Accusative masculine dobr-ogo mal’čik-a good boy

T3. Other cases krasn-ym karandaš-om red-INST pencil-INST The second option is exemplified in (27). When the learner can safely produce verb-object agreement within the canonical word order string at the Phrasal procedure stage, the teacher may introduce it within the noncanonical word order string at the Sentence procedure stage. (27) T1. Verb-Object case agreement čitaet knig-u (s/he) reads book

T2. Object-Verb case agreement knig-u čitaet book (s/he) reads Also the practice of error correction should follow the sequence in which structures are learned. Clearly learners are unable to internalise the correction of a structure if they are not developmentally ready for it. Based on these assumptions, in (28) by way of an example we suggest a sequence for teaching the accusative case in Russian L2.

(28) PT-based proposal for the teaching of the accusative case

When learners introduce minimal variation between nominative and other cases at the Category procedure stage, they will be far from accurate. We suggest that initially teachers refrain from correcting forms other than the ones matching the default nominative with object, and disregard the use of any other inaccurate ending. Then, at the Phrasal procedure stage, it would seem reasonable to correct the learner’s production in which the postverbal object is not marked by the accusative case. Or, if the teacher wishes to increase the range of structures at this stage, a good candidate is adjective-noun agreement, as previously shown in (26). Thirdly, at the Sentence procedure stage, attention can be given to the accusative marking the object in first position. In doing so, teachers may now insist not only on the formal marking of the topicalised object, but also on the discourse-pragmatic contexts in which this structure can be used. In sum, we believe that before addressing the issue of which case should be taught first, it is important to consider the structures in which a case can be used, and consequently sequence its teaching into different phases according to the procedure required by the case-marked structure. This in turn entails that also the correction should be gradual: as we have seen with the accusative case, first only when postverbal object bears the default nominative case, then when it bears any case other than accusative, and finally also focusing on preverbal object. 6. Conclusion In this paper we have proposed a syllabus for teaching case in Russian L2 on the basis of the developmental hierarchy hypothesised by Processability Theory. This scientific theory of grammatical development starts from the assumption that grammar develops from the lexicon along universal and implicational stages that depend on the increasingly greater syntactic distance between the elements requiring information exchange. Why do Russian L2 learners need to learn to exchange grammatical information about case? When errors in case marking occur within phrases – as for example in noun and object agreement –, the understanding of the propositional content is hardly at risks. But when information exchange occurs at the sentence level – as for example between preverbal object and the verb –, inaccurate case

marking can lead to a wrong interpretation of the sentence. In Russian, information about case can be exchanged in a variety of syntactic structures, which learners can acquire only step by step. That is, by first producing lexical form variation without information exchange, and then beginning to exchange information between different elements in the sentence: first within phrases, and then also within the sentence. The application of PT to teaching Russian thus suggests that a grammatical syllabus should select only structures for which learners are developmentally ready. Our PT-based syllabus for Russian case parallels learners’ grammatical development stage by stage. Furthermore, we have pointed out the importance of introducing only one case-marked structure at a time, starting from the more typical (default) markers, and gradually moving to less typical (non-default) ones. This practice, we suggest, is fully compatible with any communicative approach to teaching grammar. It differs significantly from that found in most textbooks, which typically introduce one case with its many forms and in many of the structures in which it is needed. On the other hand, we must admit that PT at this stage of its development has little to say about the specific sequence in which the six Russian cases are learned (and hence should be taught). This is a more empirical matter, and highly dependent on the structure in which the case occurs. In sum, we have shown how a scientific theory of grammatical development like PT can contribute substantially in formulating a scientifically sequenced syllabus. It would be interesting to test our specific proposal for Russian L2 empirically in the classroom. References ARTONI, D. & MAGNANI, M. in press. Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language. In Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory, C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (eds). EUROSLA Monograph n. 3. ANTONOVA, V.E., NACHABINA, M.M., SAFRONOVA, M.V., TOLSTYCH, A.A. 2004. Doroga v Rossiju, Učebnik russkogo jazyka, Sankt-Peterburg: Zlatoust. BAŠ, E.G., VLADIMIRSKIJ, E.JU., DOROFEEVA, T.M., LEBEDEVA, M.N., POLOVNIKOVA, V.I., ŠVEDOVA, L.N. 1976. Učebnik russkogo jazyka dlja studentov-inostrancev, obučajuščichsja na podgotovitel’nych fakul’tetach vuzov. SSSR, Moskva: Russkij Jazyk. BETTONI, C. & DI BIASE, B. (eds). in press. Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. EUROSLA Monograph n. 3. BROWN, N.J. 1996. Russian Course. A complete course for beginners. London: The New Penguin. CHAVRONINA, S.A., ŠIROČENSKAJA, A.I. 1976. Russkij Jazyk v Upražnenijach. Moskva: Progress. JAKOBSON, R. 1971. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. In R. JAKOBSON (ed.), Selected Writings II, 23-71. The Hague: Mouton. KARAVANOVA, N.B. 2006. Govorite Pravil'no! Kurs russkoj razgovornoj reči, Moskva: Russkij jazyk Kursy. KEMPE, V. & MACWHINNEY, B. 1998. The Acquisition of Case-Marking by Adult Learners of Russian and German. Department of Psychology. Paper 218. KING, T. H. 1995. Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

LE FLEMING, S., KAY, S.E. 1993. Colloquial Russian, the complete Course for Beginners. London: Routledge. OVSIENKO, JU.G. 2006. Russkij jazyk dlja načinajuščich. Kniga 1, Moskva: Russkij jazyk Kursy. PIENEMANN, M. 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. PIENEMANN, M., DI BIASE, B. & KAWAGUCHI, S. 2005a. Extending Processability Theory. In Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory, M. PIENEMANN (ed.), 199-251. Amsterdam: Benjamins. PIENEMANN, M., DI BIASE, B., KAWAGUCHI, S. & HÅKANSSON, G. 2005b. Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In Handbook of Bilingualism: Psychological Approaches, J.F. KROLL & A.M.B. DE GROOT (eds), 128-153. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. SZCZEPANSKA, K. 2005. Russian. A Self-Teaching Guide. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.