THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

L A N G U A G E FUNCTION A N D LANGUAGE FORM

N i g e l T. D e a c o n

B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f D u b l i n , 1971

P .C .E . , U n i v e r s i t y o f Z a m b i a , 1 9 7 2

'- *

A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS (EDUCATION)

i n t h e F a c u l t y

E d u c a t i o n

N i g e l T. Deacon 1 9 8 1

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

J u l y 1 9 8 1

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . T h i s t h e s i s may n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , b y p h o t o c o p y

. o r o t h e r m e a n s , w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e a u t h o r .

APPROVAL

Name : Nigel T. Deacon

Degree : Master of A r t s ducatio ion)

T i t l e of Thesis: The elations ship Between Language Function and Language Form

Examining Committee

Chairman :

T. 0' Shea Senior Supervisor

M. dassey I n s t r u c t o r Direc tor French Language Training Centxe

C. Bouton Professor Department of Languages, L i t e ra tu res and L ingu i s t i c s

B. A. Mohan Associate Professor English Department Faculty of Education Universi ty of B r i t i s h Columbia External Examiner

Date approved Ju ly 10, 1981

PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby g ran t t o Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y t h e r i g h t t o lend

my thes i s , p r o j e c t o r extended essay ( t h e t i t l e o f which i s shown below)

t o users o f t he Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y L ib rary , and t o make p a r t i a l o r

s i n g l e copies o n l y f o r such users o r i n response t o a request from t h e

l i b r a r y o f any o the r un i ve rs i t y , o r o the r educat ional i n s t i t u t i o n , on

i t s own behalf o r f o r one o f i t s users. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission

f o r m u l t i p l e copying o f t h i s work f o r scho la r l y purposes may be granted

by me o r the Dean o f Graduate Studies. I t i s understood t h a t copying

o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s work f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in sha l l no t be al lowed

w i thout my w r i t t e n permission.

T i t l e o f Thes i s/Project/Extended Essay

THE RELATIONSHIP F e m R N T,A-CR F m T C l N AND T-X F-

Author

s ignature)

N i g e l T . Deacon

( name

Ju ly 10, 1981

(da te)

iii

ABSTRACT

In this study, the relationship between language form and

language function was investigated. An operational definition

of language function, that is, the various ways in w3ich

language is used, was arrived at through a review of literature

in the area. Form was represented by ten morphemes which lin-

guists %ad cited extensively in morpheme acquisition research.

It was hypothesized that morpheme use and acquisition were

related to the functions of language. Second language learners

were expected to demonstrate a significantly different com-

petence in correct morpheme use on two different tasks, each

eliciting speech in a different function.

Several hypotheses exist in the relevant literature as to

how second language learners acquire a second language. Only

one of those hypotheses accommodates the notion that a second

language learner moves gradually from incompetence to comp-

etence as a result of systematically applying newly acquired

rules. In addition, the non-static model of variable rules,

which researcfi suggested were applied in different contexts,

was examined. Thesz two concepts were combined by suggesting

that the functions of language might act as differentiating

\ contexts for the use of norp3emes.

A sample of thirty-two children was constructed from a

~indergarten and ~ r a d e ' l population of learners of English as a

iv

Second! Language ( E S L ) . P7one of the subjects ?ad been expose(?

to formal ESL teaching. Two groups of sixteen children,

one Cantonese speaking and the other Tunjabi speaking, were

chosen so as to contain a balance of male/female and first/not

first in the family.

The subjects were asked to perform two tasks, each

representing a different function. One required them to use

language to label, inform, and draw rational conclusions. The

other required them to use language to imagine and predict. m e

proportion of correct use of eat?? of the ten morphemes, in

contexts where native speakers of English would use those

morphemes, was scored for the two tasks.

T-tests to compare the means of percentage correct in the

two tasks revealed significantly different scores (p < 0.1) for

three morphemes. For these morphemes, subjects performed

better on the informing task than on the predicting task.

The findings suggested that a reappraisal was required of

the morpheme acquisition orders proposed in second language

research. Also, better performances on one task were inter-

preted as having serious implications for second language

learning classroom activities.

It was suggested that future studies should continue to

cla'rify further the relationship between function and form in

language, in order that language teachers he able to develop

more appropriate and effective curricula.

TABLE OF CONTEXTS v

Approval. ................................................ ii Abstrac t ................................................ iii

......................................... Table of Contents v L i s t of Tables ........................................... v ii

Chapter I . In t roduc t ion . . ............................... 1

A c q u i s i t i o n of Language Forms ................l ........ Coriununica-bive Competence and Funct ion 3 .................................. D e f i n i t i o n s 6 ................................. F o m 6 P m c t i o n ............................. 7

........................ . Chapter I1 L i t e r a t u r e Review.. 1 2

H i s t o r i c a l Overview. ........................ 1 2 Current Hypotheses .......................... 1 3 .. In ter l s tu lpage Hypothesis .........A 3

Creative Cons t ruc t ion Hypothesis .... 15 .... Approximative Systems Hypothesis 19 .............................. Var iab le Ru les 21 ................ Variable Rules and Functions 23 ................................... F w c t i o n s 25 ..................................... Slrl~nmw 27

Chapter 111 . .............................. P i l o t Study 30 The L a p p a g e Tasks .......................... 31 ........ Task A -- Giving I n f o r n a t i o n 32 ................ Task B -- P r e d i c t i n g 32 ................. Task C -- D i r e c t i n g 33 ............. Environment f o r t h e Experiment *33 .......................... P i l o t Study S m p l e 34 Res-ts ..................................... 35

S a t i s f a c t o r y E l i c i t a t i o n of Language.35 ............ D a t a C o l l e c t i o n Formats ,. 36 .............. El imina t ion of One Task 36 ....... Environment f o r t h e Experiment 36 .............. Sample f o r F i n a l Study 2 6 ............................ ~1 36 ........................... Age 37 ............ Size of Sample -37 .... Chapter IV . B I e t h o d o 1 0 ~ . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00=39 ........... Environment f o r t h e Experiment 39 .............................. The Sample 40 ...................... Recording of Data e 4 0 .................... S t a t i s t i c a l Ana lys i s 4 1

.......... Chapter V. Resu l t s . I l i scuss ion and Conclusions -44

R e s u l t s ..................................... *.44 Discuss ion .................................. ..46 Conclusions ...e............................... 51

............ Chapter VI . h o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r Fu tu re Research 55

....... A.PPEWI)IX A . Hal l iday ' s Func t ions of Chi ld Language 59 ................ APPENDIX B . Tough's Func t ions of L a m a g e 60

APPENDIX C . Morphemes from Other S t u d i e s and i n th is Thes i s ....................................... 64

..................... UPENilIXD. B i l i n g u a l S y n t a x K e a s u r e 65 .................... APPENDIX E . R a w D a t a from P i l o t Study 80 .................... . BPPZNDIXF R a w D a t a f r o m F i n a l Study 82

........................................ L i s t of References .84

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1 . Sample for Pilot Study ................................. 35 2 . Sample for Final Study ................................. 3S

3 . Results ................................................ 45 ............. 4 . Morpheme Acquisition Order for L1 Speakers 47

............. 5 . Morpheme Acquisition Order for L2 Speakers 47

Introduction

In this introduction, findings and directions pertinent to

an enquiry into the relationship between language forms and

language function in second language learners of English will

be extracted from first and second language acquisition re-

search.

Acquisition of Language Forms

Through the ages, one of the major preoccupations of

language acquisition researchers has been the search for a

theory of language acquisition. Yore recently, this research

was pursued with the understanding that a systematic approach

would emerge. The process of language acquisition, like

language itself, would emerge as a describable system.

Since a language learner's competence could only be

inferred from performance, a close examination of performance

was carried out. Errors made by the learner were naturally

considered to be failures to apply the systematic rules. The

emergence of this notion can be seen in the work of Frei

(1929). ??ore recently, it was believed that the nature of the

acquisition system would be revealed by the assiduous scrutiny

of errors (Corder, 1967). Bouton (1959) identified three

processes which second language learners used -- abstraction,

generalisation, and systematisation. These processes led to

further learning, but also to further errors. Errors were

classified in an increasingly rigorous way. The Contrastive

Rnalysis Hypothesis (CAH) attempted to predict errors t3at

would be caused by the interference of the first language (Ll)

in the learning of and performance in the second language

(L2). Wardhaugh (1970) and Gradman (1371) questioned the

predictive power of the CAH, relegating it to a descriptive

role in error analysis.

Richards (1971) catesorised errors as interference,

intralingual and developmental, thus leading researchers to an

examination of the developmental nature of language

acquisition. Brown (1973) revealed an invariant morpheme

acquisition order in L1 by scoring the occurrence of morphemes

in obligatory contexts (90% criterion, borrowed from Cazden,

(1959)). En obligatory context refers to a context where a

competent speaker is obliged to use a morpheme. o r example

"There are two apple - in the bag" provides an obligatory

context for the plural s morpheme in English. Subsequent work

by devilliers and deVilliers (1973) substantiate3 Erown' s

claims.

m e advance in L1 studies quickly gave rise to similar

research in L2 acquisition. An order of acquisition not

identical to Brown's was established for L2 (Dulay and Burt,

1972, 1973, 1974; Bailey, Pladden and Krashen, 1974.)

Communicative Com~etence and Function

While the research into morpheme acquisition was being

conducted, there was in evidence a growing interest in com-

municative competence in teaching. In theoretical pedagogy, if

not in practice, a more meaningful interaction between teacher

and student was sought. That interest in communicative

competence was, perhaps, a natural development. It may have

grown from a disenchantment with the stimulus-response format

of audio-lingual teaching, with its emphasis on mimicry and

memorisation. It was claimed by Diller (1971) that language

was being learned in a void and that application of acquired

skills to real speech contexts was difficult. Students of this

method often used memorised chunks of language in totally

inappropriate circumstances, leading to, at least, embarrass-

ment and, at worst, a complete lack of understanding. For

example, the learner may have memorised the response "Dlease

come in." on hearing the stimulus "Good morning." m a t is

appropriate in a situation where Person A arrives at the door

of Person B, but not during a telephone conversation, or

when a teacher greets a class, or when an unwanted salesperson

appears at the door. Language is more t5an a response to a

linguistic stimulus. m e context of situation, speakers, time,

and intent all constitute a real stimulus. Language learned

in restricted circumstances will be applied with the greatest

difficulty to real situations.

Secondly, the language learning process itself was slow

and tedious. The extent of vocabulary that could be reasonably

presented in a one year university course was estimated at

approximately 1500 words. Vocabulary domains were determined

by the restricted dialogue situations. Language structures to

be presented were often determined by an arbitrary criterion of

simplicity, not need. Thus, the learner was expected to learn

a syntax and lexis artificially abstracted from a language on a

very restricted basis. Learning could hardly be speedy. As a

result, a new emphasis was given to using language in context,

to teaching and learning the language of communication.

An alternative view of language emerged. Language was not

considered a system without reference to the real world.

Indeed, language and the world were inextricably intertwined.

Anthropology and sociology were seen as fertile ground for

linguists' investigations.

This change in emphasis was well articulated by IIalliday

(1973). He attempted to relate meaning to both the internal

structure of language and the context in which language

operates. Re maintained that language development was the

mastery of language functions. He traced the notion of

language function from Malinowski (1923) through Firth (1957)

to show that the psycholinguistic surge of the 1960s had temp-

orarily occluded the notion of language function. Halliday's

focus was child first language, with application to first

language in general. He portioned language into instrumental,

interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative, and repres-

entational functions (see ~ppendix A). The child was seen as

using only one function at a time whereas the adult's language

was an intricate web of several functions.

Several formulations of the functions of language exist

(see A-~,renc?ices A and B). Some confusion exists as to whether

these formulations of language function fulfil sociological or

psychological needs or whether they serve cognitive or intel-

lectual ends. Such confusion does not help to improve the

formulations or advance functional theory. Functions could

serve various needs and ends. They could alternately, or

indeed concurrently, serve various purposes. A careful

examination of the underpinnings of language functions with

reference to the social sciences is already underway. Halliday

(1973) and Bates (1976) investigated. the applications of

language function to schools of thought then outside the reach

Of theoretical linguistics and this served to build a broader

and sounder base for such theory. In no way did it threaten

the validity of formulations of language function. It com-

plemented and enhanced them.

Definitions

Form

The particular aspect of language form investigated in

this study consisted of the morphemes studied by Brown (1973),

deVilliers and devilliers (1973), Dul.ay and Surt (1974), and

Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974). These morphemes are listed

in Appendix C. Certain changes were made in the light of

previous findings and added reflection.

Past Irregular and Past Regular were collapsec? since it

was the acquisition of ability to mark action in the past which

was of interest. The child in the initial stages of language

acquisition can hardly envisage the above as two separate

systems. Indeed, we'can see that the child sees them as one

when we consider forms such as "goed" and "wented". The

child's struggle is to mark verbs systematically for past

tense. Thus, any verb which was marked for past tense (by

irregular, regular or blended form) in an obligatory context

was considered correct.

Secondly, the articles, A ( N ) and THE, were not inves-

tigated at all since to collapse them into one morpheme, as

past investigators had done, was to presume that the child

learner was learning to grasp the use of both in their com-

plementary and exclusive uses. Evidence from first language

learners suggests that the English article system in its

entirety is not brought under control by the native speaker

until the sixth or seventh year.

Function

Function, here, means the ways in wllich we use language to

do things, to get things done, and to talk about things.

The Problem

This thesis was an exploration of the relationship between

language function and form. The general hypothesis of the

present study was that morpheme use and acquisition were

related to the functions of language. This hypothesis was

investigated by testing the following specific hypothesis:

Correct usage of a morpheme is related to the

function of the language in which the obligatory

contexts occur.

This hypothesis led to an investigation of morpheme use

within functions, a dimension which was not considere2 hy

previous researchers. E~OVM (1373) estaSlished a mastery

criterion of 90% correct in three obligatory contexts in three

consecutive samples. To establish a 90% criterion for the

achievement of mastery was to ignore what Brown (1973) himself

called "a considerable period, varying in length with the

particular morpheme, in which production-where-required is

probabilistic" (p. 257). The increase in correct usage is as

fertile an area of investigation as is the setting of a mastery

level.

Summary

In summary, during the 1970s two powerful scl?ools of re-

research grew in the field of language acquisition. One,

within structural linguistics, dealt with the establishment of

a morpheme acquisition order which purported to be the fore-

runner of other universals in language acquisition. The other,

a socio-linguistic endeavour, investigated the functions of

language and the uses to which speakers put that language. The

aim of this thesis was to. establish a relationship between

these two schools of thought.

Limitations of the Study

The sample of subjects was selected from a preschool

population of second language learners of English. It was not

claimed that the sample was representative of all second

language learners or all child second language learners.

However, since the sample contained suS-groups of subjects

divided according to sex, L1, and position in the family (first

child/not first child), the trends w?~ich emerged were examined

in the light of previous findings from similar populations and

were discussed in the context of current hypotheses about

second language learning. This was consistent with previous

studies in that the results of linguistic investigations, w3ile

often using small numbers of subjects (often one), are

generally applied to current language learning models and are

used to assist in the development and modification of language

learning theories.

Significance of the Study

Tbny methods have been and still are used to teach second

languages. It should be possible to gauge their effectiveness

by the learning which takes place. It is important to distin-

guish between the teaching of English as a Second Language and

the teaching of Cnglisb as a Foreign Language (flarcltwardt,

1965). The latter is an attempt to equip students with a

language w3ick is not widely used in the immediate linguistic

environment. Most elementary and secondary school language

teaching programs fall into this category. The former, however,

is an attempt to teach the learners the language which is used

in the immediate environment. Thus, non-English speaking

immigrant children in the Vancouver area must learn English as

a Second Language in the scl?ools. Use of local resources and

development of locally appropriate curricula help to distin-

guish one discipline from the other.

Since the English as a Second Language (ESL) population in

Vancouver schools is fast approaching the 50% mark, it is

crucial that we develop efficient instructional techniques and

materials. It is important for two reasons. In the first

place, ESL students should be able to benefit from instruction

in .our schools on an equal footing with those stu5ents who

speak English as a first language. Secondly, parents of chil-

dren with English as a first language have voiced a concern

about the declining standards of education in the schools. They

have, on occasion, attributed this decline to the presence in

the schools of a large ESL population. If their concerns are

to be addressed adequately, it is incumbent on scl~ools to

demonstrate unequivocally that ESL students enhance, rather

than detract from, the educational experiences offered to all

students. This can only be done if ZSL students learn English

quickly and well enough to perform at grade level as soon as

possible after entry into the school system. ESL programs, by

definition, must have a strong language teaching component. We

already have, in the field, several methods and a variety of

content. Powever, at some stage, we must consider more

conscientiously the real needs of the learner. How does the

ESL student acquire English? ilkat systems are discernible in

the language learning process? Can we facilitate the

acquisition of English by offering language input in a certain

way or in certain contexts?

In order to answer some of these questions, it is

necessary to investigate the early language acquisition of

children learning English as a Second Language as evidenced in

their language output. Such an investigation formed the

subject matter of this thesis.

Should the study reveal a relationship between language

unction and form, it would be necessary to in lvestigate its

immediate implications for ESL curricula. Are the functions of

, language represented adequately in present curricula? Could

further studies elucidate the role which function might play in

the learning of morphemes, or , by implication, other language

forms?

Chapter I1

Literature Review

~istorical Overview

Prior to the 1950s, 1-angu age developm

to take the form either of diary stuc?ies

ent research tended

or cross-sectional

studies (Stern and Stern, 1907; Ronjat, 1813; Bloch, 1921;

Guillaume, 1927; Leopold, 1933-43). The thrust of the latter

type was to establish developmental norms through the exami-

nation of structural form in speech.

During the 195C)s, there was a growing interest in the

relation between knowledge of the language system and pro-

duction of that language. Berko (1958) represented this new

interest and her Eerko test, which involved the grammatical

manipulation of nonsense words, stirred great interest when

five and six year olds were seen to manipulate the forms

easily. It was clear that children had a metalinguistic

awareness which allowed them to be creative language users. +

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, which grew out of the

structural linguistic studies of the 1940s and 195@s, claimed

that language error could be predicted by comparing the surface

forms of L1 and L2. Because L2 had to be learned through the

screen of L1, differing forms would cause the greatest

difficulty. The demonstrably inadequate predictive powers of

this hypothesis led to its demise in the 1960s. The weak form

of the CAH, which explains language errors on a post hoc basis

survives in the language acquisition literature (Chu, 1978;

~ollock, 1978).

Vhile literature from L1 and L2 research has been used in

this overview, it is not suggested that the two processes are

the same or similar. Bouton (1974) outlined differences

between the two processes on four levels; neurophysiological,

psychological, intellectual, and linguistic. It is wise to

maintain a clear distinction between the two processes until

research indicates otherwise.

Current Hypotheses

There are three discernible current hypotheses about L2

acquisition -- Interlanguage, Creative Construction, anc?

Approximative Systems.

Interlanguage ITypothesis

~elinker(1972) described what he termed "interlanguage".

It was an intermediate language, between L1 and L2. m e

language learner was portrayed as possessing a Lenneberg (1957)

"latent language structure" -- a genetically transmitted basis for language capacity, independent of intelligence, which was

,he biologic a1 counterpart of the universals identified in all

language grammars. It was then transformed by the learner into

the forms of a particular language grammar in accordance with

certain maturational stages. Evidence for this was inferred

from the successful language learning of approximately five per

cent of all adult L2 learners. They had successfu~ly reactiv-

ated their "latent language structure".

In addition, Selinker postulated that L2 learners had a

"latent psychological structure" which was activated every time

the speaker produced an L2 utterance. This "latent psychol-

ogical structure" again was already formulated in the brain.

Within this structure co-existed interlingual identifications

(language transfer, transfer-in-training, strategies of L2

communication, and overgeneralisation of L2 linguistic mater-

ial). Fossilisations, fixed features of interlanguage derived

from unfinished learning, were the overt indicators of inter-

language.

Further additions to Interlanguage theory by Selinker,

Swain and Dumas (1975) and Tarone, Frauenfelder and Selinker

(1976) have failed to define the concurrently systematic and

transitional nature of interlanguages. As Adjemian (1976)

pointed out, it is necessary to separate linguistic rules and

learning strategies if further testable hypotheses are to be

generated. If the interlanguage of the learner is not a system

governed by rules, then, in the linguistic-sense, it can not be

a natural language. . Creative Construction Hypothesis

The Creative Construction Efypothesis, on the other hand,

as can be seen from the following quotati~n~posited a:

process in which children gradually reconstruct rules for speech they k a r , guided by universal innate mechanisms which cause them to formulate certain types of hypotheses about the language system being acquired, until the misnatch between what they are exposed to and what they produce is resolved. (Culay and Rurt, 1974, p. 38).

The data from which this theory emerged were the result of

morpheme acquisition studies by nulay and Burt (1972, 1973,

1974) and Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974). Oulay and Burt

elicited speech from Spanish and Chinese children learning

English. The elicitation technique used was the 3ilingual

Syntax Yeasure ( R S M ) (nurt, Dulay and Efernandez-Chavez, 1973) . Bailey, :ladden and Krashen used the same instrument with adults

of several language backgrounds learning English. Both studies

used devilliers and devilliers' (1973) Sroup Score Vethod,

Group Yean Yethod and Standard Acquisition Index for scoring.

The resulting rank ordering for morphemes (eleven in the Dulay

and Yurt studies, eight in the Dailey, Madden and Krashen

study) was similar for both adults and children. This similar

rank ordering however, did not correlate significantly with

devilliers and devilliers' rank ordering of morphemes for L1

children. I

1

E Dulay an2 Burt claimed from their evidence that there was I

Krashen claimed a universal difficu

sition.

lty order in morpheme acqui-

It is necessary to take two approaches in evaluating this

research. In the first place, much criticism has been directed

toward the methodology involved. The method of elicitation,

the BSM, has been criticised as lacking both reliability and

I validity (Rosansky, l?76a). She suggested that the different

versions of the 'OSM (it was revised in 1975) might yield

different results. Porter (1977) used the BSPI with L1 children

and his rank ord-ering correlated highly with the Dulay and 8urt

ranks but, significantly, not with devilliers and dcVilliersl

ranks. This suggested that the 3SFI results correlated highly

for child L1 learners and adult and child L2 learners. It

might be concluded that the rank ordering obtained was somehow

determined by the elicitation instrument and not by the

subjects' language development. Rosansky's appeal for the

publication of raw data (1976b) was very pertinent given her

examination of comparative group means, standard deviations and

variance (1376a) for the Bailey, Madden and Krashen study

(1974) and the devilliers and devilliers study (1973). In the

case of some of the morphemes (e.g., the possessive and the

3rd person) the standard deviation was almost equal to the mean

(Rosanslcy, 1976a, p. 41e). Such variance indicated, to her,

prob-lems in terms of sample size (72 and 21, respectively) and

~hether the sample means gave a respectable estimate of the , .

means in the population and only much larger samples would

help

In the second place, even if we accept the data as lending

some support to the hypothesis that there is an invariant mor-

pheme acquisition order for L2 learners, what are we to make of

it? Dulay and Burt (1972) suggested that we did not need to

teach syntax to children as they acquired it merely through

exposure to L2. To jump from a consideration of a limited

number of morphemes to implications about the entire syntactic

system of language is premature even eight years later. But if

there were an invariant order of morpheme acquisition and also

an invariant order of syntax acquisition, teachers would not be

the only interested parties. Linguists would certainly be

spurred to ask the question "Why?" What phenomenon, linguistic

or otherwise, could be at the base of a universally similar

acquisition process? The Creative Construction Hypothesis did

not fully address this question and therein lay its major

weakness as a possible model of acquisition.

A second weakness of the model lay in its failure to

define the role t3at L1 might play in the acquisition of L2.

The Interlanguage Rypothesis accorded a significant role to L-1

as a starting point in the acquisition process. The Creative

Construction Hypothesis, with its emphasis on L2 guiding the

acquisition and determining the nature of the interim grammar,

did not pay significant heed to the role t3at L1 might play,

except as a previous learning experience (Tarone, 1974).

Larsen-Freeman (1978), in an attempt to explain the

morpheme accuracy order of L2 learners, considered several of

the factors which traditionally had been seen as having a

bearing on the order. Frequency of occurrence was dismissed as

instrumental by Brown (1973) but was reconsidered by Larsen-

Freeman. She asserted that the frequency of occurrence in

output of L2 learners on several of her tasks correlated highly

with Brown's frequency of occurrence in parent L1 speech. Her

assumption was not startling since obligatory contexts for

morpl-~emes are generally fixed and they do occur very frequently

in speech. However, to suggest that frequency might be respon-

sible for the order of acquisition was courageous, given the

nature of the tasks her subjects performed and given the lack

of alternative morpheme frequency counts in adult speech.

Perceptual saliency was quickly dismissed as not being central

to the acquisition order since many morphemes ( e . g . , possess- ive, s plural) do not have +syllable or +stress or +semantic

weight.

Hakuta (1976), in a rigorous report on a longitudinal

study of a Japanese chi16 learning Ynglish, recapitulated on

the same variables. Fe invoked a paradigm of internal and

exte&al consistency. Internal consistency derived from the

child's rule generation and application and was in evidence in

the gradual increase in systematic morpheme use. External

consistency derived from the learner's attempt to match the

internal consistency with the external input. Hakuta's claim

for the superiority of longitudinal studies in accounting for

gradual growth in use and correctness of morphemes, and other

language features, was a sobering one. If we are to understand

how a sequence evolves, surely we must watch it evolving. Only

then can other factors affecting the process be properly

evaluated.

Approximative Systems Fypothesis

Another differentiating factor among the three hypotheses

considered here is the role assigned to:

1) what is often called the "facult: de langage"

or an innate mechanism for learning language

and

2) the interaction between cognitive and

perceptual development on the one >and and

non-linguistic events on the other.

me Interlanguage Hypothesis had at its base a "latent

psychological structure." This was triggered every time the

learner produced L2 speech. The Creative Construction IIypoth-

esis, thoug3 less obviously so, has been linked to "innate an3

universal structural properties of the mind" (Dulay and Surt,

1977). Vygotsky (1936) differentiated between biologically-

Sased development and socio-historical development. Bloom

(1976) saw language research evolving more in the socio-

historical area, particularly w3en it came to accounting for

the va 7 i ety of language output. P --

The Approximative Systems Zypothesis relied heavily on

precisely that aspect of language. The variation in output

could hardly be accounted for by innate and universal mech-

anisms. Rather, the use of language in varied circumstances

was seen as the reason for such individual and group variation.

The learner proceeded throug3 a series of language systems

between L1 and L2. The systems were internally ordered, at

least momentarily, but shifted from one to the next because of

"the massive intrusion of new elements as learning proceeds"

(Nemser, 1971). Various language researchers have alluded to

this evolving systematicity -- Corder (1971) (idiosyncratic

dialects), Richards and Sampson (1974) (learner language

systems). Corder (1967) suggested that a learner's errors

provided evidence of the system of language acquired and that a

grammar including these errors would indicate the learner's

transitional competence. Cevelopmental errors cited by

Richards (1g71) illustrated the attempt of the learner to build

new hypotheses about L2 from a limited experience of it.

The Approximative Systems Hypothesis requires substant-

iation through carefully acquired and analysed data. It is

especially important that the data include the growth in comp-

etence, over a period of time, of the use of language features, I I I

be they phonological, syntactic or semantic. The areas of

and syntax will be the most useful because of the

ease of acquiring data on them.

Variable Rules

The concept of variable rules was designed to account in a

way for apparent variability in L1 performance. It

will be seen that the construct was quickly applied to L2

learners. Its usefulness in this study lay in its ability, as

a non-static model, to account for morpheme variability within

functions.

Labov (1950) introduced the sociological construct of

variable rules to the study of Negro non-standard English. His

research emphasis was the use of the copula and the auxiliary

BE. IIe extended the notion of a rule of grammar (stemming from

generative grammar) to variable rules. He prepared the ground

for incorporating into its structural description relative fre-

quencies of the rule's operation. The variant forms would

therefore occur under particular linguistic constraints and in

particular environments. hongst other questions which 3e

posed were the following, pertinent to our discussion:

. . . How are the rule systems acquired? How does the individual's system of rules change and develop as he acquires the norms of the speech community? (p. 760)

His paper did not deal directly with these questions but they

did instigate some subsequent relevant research.

Cedergren and Sankoff (1974) developed both theoretical

and practical aspects of LaSov's work. They made a distinction

between rule probabilities (in competence) and rule frequencies

(in performance). They reviewed Labov's synergism/antagonism

model for interaction between environmental features in deter-

mining rule probabilities and t3ey introduced the notion of

features in rule structural descriptions acting indepen-

dently. They devoted a great deal of energy to developing the

methodological and statistical considerations of variable

rules. Finally, they saw their framework being quite easily

applied to include sociolinguistic features in application

frequencies.

Dickerson (1975) applied the system of variable rules to

L2 acquisition. Working still in the area of phonology, she

applied the variaSility model to Japanese speakers of Ynglish.

H e r three part test (free speech, reading of dialogues, and

reading of word lists) revealed a spread of results governed by

the level of proficiency and the rate of progress. Progress

toward the target sound was systematic.

Dickerson (197G) uncovered a systematic variability moving

from non-target to target production. His study concerned

Japanese students, advanced in English, studying at an American

university. Dickerson was careful not to label his findings as.

an indication of "interlanguage." Interlanguage 3ad been

defined as static and therefore did not include a grammatical

model whic3 would take into account the language learning

process as he defined it. His model fitted more neatly into

the Approximative Systems model.

Gatbonton (1975) constructed a model for phonetic acq-

uisition based on environments which s3e predicted would be

more or less favourable to the production of correct variants.

The sub jec'ts studied displayed a tendency to proceed systemat-

ically from incorrect variants in all environments through a

developmental stage of supplying correct and incorrect variants

in inverse proportion in defined environments. Subjects moved

toward supplying correct variants in all environments. Gatbon-

ton suggestez that a thorough grammatical description of a

second language system was within reach.

Variable Rules and Functions

It sfiould be clear from the foregoing discussion that

increasing attention has Seen given to the intermediate

language systems of the language learner. Pn~at is not so clear

is the nature of those systems. Wherein lies their systemat-

icity? We have seen that the morpheme acquisition studies paid

particular attention to the establishment of acquisition orders

and difficulty orders. Wode, Ba>ns, Redey and Frank (137C),

Odlin (1978), and Euebner (1973) all pointed to the fact t3at

much developmental information was lost if we were concerned

Only with mastery. The morphemes were systematically use2 --

included, omitted, modified -- Sefore the learner approached

mastery level. They saw the knowledge gained from studying

these early systems as more valuable in understanding the acq-

uisition process.

Given that the learner established an early systematic use

of syntactic or phonological features, what caused the learner

to move toward new hypotheses? What kinds of new hypotheses

were formed? Where did the learner gain the information to

change, add or abandon hypotheses?

Sampson (1979) suggested t3at it was function switching

that accounted for the change in systems. The learner per-

ceived that a given structure was no longer adequate, and

perhaps attended to the language of others in that function.

The learner then formed new fiypotheses and acquired new syn-

tactic or p?~onological forms.

This theoretical standpoint accounted for reduced

interference as language learning proceeded. The earliest

"approximative systems" might be based on hypotheses that

equated L1 and L2. Experience, the development of new func-

tions within the language, and attention to new forms which

fulfilled a communicative need all reduced the dependence on

L1. Backsliding (Selinker, Swain and Pumas, 1975) could then

be accounted for 5y the use of old forms in new functions. The.

learner had not yet learned to plug in new and required forms.

Sampson, using Tough's (1377) functions (See Appendix B )

investigated the use of English by Cree ~indergarteners in

Alberta. She obtained enough evidence to infer a relation

between syntax and function. Her data were analysed before the

refined version of Tough's functions was available and, as a

result, her instruments may have lacked enough sensitivity to

unfold further links between the two. It may be that there is

a scale of relationship between function and form (here we are

interested primarily in syntactic form).

In the present study, the variable rules, as outlined in

this chapter, were applied to fhat relationship. The functions

were considered the environments for specific syntactic

features. The study, it was hoped, would reveal whether

certain functions created obligatory contexts, and whether

changes in function necessitated varying frequencies of

occurrence. Yore importantly, it would investigate whether

learners supply a morpheme correctly more frequently in one

function than in another. A significant difference in morpheme

use in different functions might suggest that function had a

determining effect on language learning.

Functions

In Chapter I, function was defined as " the ways in which

we use language to do things, to get things done, and to

talk about things." In a sense, this broad definition is

necessary because there is very little literature which

attempts to describe or define the functions of language.

We know intuitively that language is an instrument which

we use to do any number of things. Even the child in the early

stages of acquiring a first language learns that language, used

in a certain way, can make adults affectionate, effusive, or

3appy. Thus we could say that the child has already discovered

certain functions of language which achieve largely predictable

ends. The extent to which a functional framework creates a

matrix for the acquisition of language forms is at the base of

this thesis.

tlowever, such early discernment of language function on

the part of the child will lack completeness if only because

the child lacks cognitive and intellectual maturity. Adults

obviously use language in infinitely more complex and varied

ways. Indeed, we could predict an exponential growth in the

uses of language within functions. Such qualities as sarcasm,

irony, scepticism, and cynicism, as expressed in language, are

obviously not available to the child, but become progressively

more available to the emerging adult. For this reason then,

the discernment of function in adult language is complex, and

this very quality might create some of the blocks to adult

second language learning which we see all too often.

Halliday (1974) pointed out that his seven developmental

functions of language (See Appendix A ) were plainly available

to a child learning a first language. He stated, too, that

children used them one at a time for the simple reason that

children have a singleminded approach to events and things.

Halliday's functional framework was used in this study

with children who were acquiring English as a second language.

It was assumed that the matrix of functions was applicable to

this different population of language learners.

Tough (1977), in her investigation of child language, used

a similar mapping of language functions (See Appendix B). Her

interests were in the extent to which children of contrasting

social backgrounds used the functions of language with

differing frequency.

Summary

The Approximative Systems Hypothesis could accommodate

many of the oSserved features of second language acquisition,

for example, learner variation, decreasing use of L1, inter-

ference, backsliding and fossilization, but it lacks a strong

data base at this stage. Researchers need to investigate the

nature of the approximative systems.

It is possible that an L2 learner's approximative system

governing the use of a language item (e.g., the copula) would

dictate that the learner use a correct version in one function

and an incorrect version (fossilization) in another. Such a.

finding would link fugctions and approximative systems in a

concrete way. It would also establish a variable rule within

the learner's competence for the use of that particular

language item.

The problems associated with elicitation techniques and

instruments have not been overcome, leading the researcher to

the conclusion that spontaneous speech in multiple situations

is still the most appropriate research site, problems of time

and tedium notwithstanding.

Research into the Interlanguage Hypothesis area has been

stymied because of basic theoretical restrictions, for example,

latent psychologica 1 structure and the nature of

systematicity. Much recent research uses "interlanguage" in

the sense of "approximative system".

Research into the Creative Construction I!ypothesis has

been slowed by:

1) the methodological weaknesses of earlier research

and

2) the overriding and premature concern with univer-

sal strategies.

The future holds great promise for second language

research, Sut it is more likely that breakthroughs will occur

in carefully designed studies of isolated language phenomena

where the situations and purposes of the subjects are taken

into consideration. We already have several competing models

of second language acquisition, some more satisfactory than

others, but their diversity probably results from a myopic view

of the field. This study is an investigation into a small area

of second language study, but its results may indicate why some

of the tenets of current models are unsatisfactory. It may

also provide direction for other researchers towards a broader

based second language acquisition theory.

Such a theory might have far-reaching implications for the

teaching of languages. If language research indicated clearly

that morphemes, phonemes, words or structures were acquired by

L2 learners in certain contexts and under certain conditions,

language teachers and curriculum writers would be greatly

assisted in their tasks. The use in language teaching of

mimicry, memorization, translation and direct methods, would

have to be re-examined in the light of new findings.

Investigation of the natural language learning process of

children could lead linguists to establish learning principles

anc? describe learning processes which could, in turn, he incor-

porated in language teaching methods.

This thesis is an investigation of the L2 learning process

of young children who have not been exposed to existing L2

teaching methods and procedures. The mixed status of the

subjects in the study is worth establishing. They were second

language learners, but they were acquiring that secon4 language

at a stage when their first language was not fully acquired.

TIUS, their learning strategies and capacities might well be

different from older second language learners. However,

their efforts could lead to the refinement of L2 curricula and

thus help other L2 learners.

Chapter I11

P i l o t Study

A p i l o t s tudy was c a r r i e d ou t i n order t o a s c e r t a i n

w%ether t h e language t a s k s , a s designed, would e l i c i t

s u f f i c i e n t language from a sample of t h e t a r g e t popula t ion .

There were two major a r e a s of concern. F i r s t l y , f o r t h i s

s tudy, it had been decided. t h a t morphemes m u s t occur a t l e a s t

f i v e times before they could be included i n t 3 e data. I f t h e

t a s k s did not e l i c i t t h e morphemes under study often enough,

t h e t a s k s would need r e v i s i o n . Secondly, t h e p i l o t s tudy would

i n d i c a t e how many of t h e morphemes used i n previous s t u d i e s

would occur i n t h e speech samples. A l i s t of t h e morphemes

s tudied by 3rown ( l 9 7 3 ) , d e V i l l i e r s and AeVil l ie rs ( l 3 7 3 ) ,

Dulay and Sur t (1972, 1973, 1974) , an4 Bailey, !?adden an2

Krashen (1971) appears i n Appendix C . While it was considered

un l ike ly t h a t a l l of t h e morphemes would occur s u f f i c i e n t l y

f r equen t ly , it was hoped t h a t from f i v e t o eig'ht of them

would.

The p i l o t study was t o have o t h e r b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s on

t h e study proper. The d a t a c o l l e c t o r had an oppor tuni ty t o

practice the data collection formats and this led to smoother,

more relaxed sessions with the subjects in the final study. It

also led to a clearer grasp of the required nature of the data

collector's linguistic input. This input had to be as free as

possible of the morphemes being studied so that the possibility

of mere repetition by the subject could be reduced to a

minimum. Gbviously, in language studies, such problems will

always exist since language is an interactional process.

However, a serious attempt was made to ensure t3at no overt

contamination took place. The procedure is clarified in

the description of the language tasks.

Finally, suSjects in the pilot study were asked to perform

three language tasks, each designed to elicit speech in a

different function. These were reduced to two in the final

study. The reason for designing three tasks was to permit the

elimination of the least satisfactory task. The task which

caused subjects most difficulty (elicited minimal language) was

to he dropped and the two more satisfactory tasks would then be

performed 5y suSjects in the final study.

It was recognise2 that the elicitation of language by the

performance of tasks was an artificial situation and the data,

therefore, were not derive? from spontaneous speech.

The Language Tasks

Subjects in the pilot stu3y were asked to perform three

language tasks which were designed using the theoretical

frameworks developed by Halliday (See Appendix A) and Tough

(See Appendix R ) . These language tasks are described below.

Task A -- Giving Information

In this task, subjects were shown a collection of pictures

and were asked questions about them. The questions involved

identifying, describing, comparing, and elaborating on details

These pictures and questions constitute the Bilingual Syntax

!ileasure -- Znglish (Burt, Dulay an2 Eernanclez-Chavez, 1975)

(See Appendix D). It was selected because the pictures and

questions elicited speech in the interpretative function as

defined by Tough. The speech also falls within the repre-

sentational function as 3escribed by Halliday.

Task T3 -- Predicting

Subjects were asked to predict what objects would be

removed by the experimenter from a covered box containing a

large variety of toys and objects. Language concerning the

nature, identity, size and use of the hidden object was

elicited. The experimenter elicited language by delaying

revelation of the object or by indicating through gestures that

the subject's prediction was not accurate. Since the subject

had no stirnulus to produce language except for the desire to

fin? out what the objects were, the experimenter used prompts

which, as far as possible, did not set patterns in morpheme

usage for the subject. Such prompts were interjections and

comments such as -- ' Oh ! 'Tell me more'; 'Mot rea

big?' ; 'What colour?' . The expc rimenter initially

11': 'How

explained

that the box contained many things and removed a few of them to

set the procedure in motion. Identification of those objects

set the subject at ease. .9ny language produced at that stage

was not recorded or analysed. This task was designed to fall

within the imaginative function as described Sy Nalliday, and

the projective function as described by Tough.

Task C -- Directing

This task required the use of a dollhouse with the roof

removed.. From an elevated position, the subject had a clear

view of the doors and rooms of the house. A mot3er figure was

busy inside the house. Her baby, who had been sleeping in a

crib outside, called for her. The subject was asked then to

instruct the experimenter on how to manipulate the mother

figure on her journey to the baby's crib. The interviewer

could manipulate the mother figure from beneath the table with

a magnet. Eesitations and misdirections of the mother figure

encouraged the subject to produce more frequent and more

detailed instructions. T?~is task was designed to elicit

language in the regulatory function as described by 17alliday,

and the directive function as Zescribed by Tough.

Environment for the rxperiment

Performance of a task was estimated not to require more

t'han ten minutes, giving a maximum total performance time of

thirty minutes for each subject. Brevity is important in

keeping the attention of young children, and the play-like

nature of the tasks ensured that fatigue and stress were to be

avoided. In the pilot study, the tasks were performed in the

daycare centres and preschools which the subjects attended.

This was to ensure that the subjects felt as comfortable as

t3ey normally did, away from their homes and families.

Insofar as facilities permitted, recording of language

performance took place in a quiet area where noise and

distractions could be kept to a minimum. The quality of the

recordings was of paramount importance when scoring the

selected norphemes.

Pilot Study Sample

Subjects were c3osen from two language backgrounds,

namely, Cantonese and Punjabi. The final decision as to which

language groups were to be represented in the final study was

to be made when a survey of preschools indicated which language

groups were numerically capable of providing a sufficiently

large sample. It was considered important, however, to ensure

that the language groups were from different language families,

as in the above example (Indo-~uropean, Chinese). This was to

ensure that there would be no gross similarities in syntax

between t%e two languages. Each subgroup was to be divided

evenly into males/females ( ~ I / F ) , an2 first ~orn/others ( ~ 1 / ~ 2 ) .

This balance was desirable since research has indicated a

time difference in verbal aptitude between males and females,

and also a difference Setween the language production of first-

borns and others (~ajonc, 1976; Zajonc and Marcus, 1975). The

latter is proSably due to the reduced access of later born

children to adult language. The age of subjects was also

recorded and a range of ages was obtained within the

defined by the sample.

Table 1

Results

Satisfactory Zlicitation of Language

The tasks were generally satisfactory in eliciting

occurrences of morphemes to reach criterion (five

limits

enoug3

occult-

rences). The range of morphemes elicited was also satisfactory

and the only morphemes which did not regularly reach criterion

were 3rd person regular an? 3rd person irregular.

Data Collection Formats

Data collection formats proved to be adequate and no

serious problems were anticipated in the final study. In the

performance of "ask A, subjects were willing to provide a large

amount of language rather t\at restrict themselves to simply

answering the questions. This was an excellent outcome, since /

the language was still in the required function. In the

performance of Task B, subjects were willing to produce a

satisfactory amount of language in response to the kind of

stimulus outlined in the task fiescription.

Elimination of One Task

Task C (Directing) consistently elicited least language

and was t3erefore omitted in the final study. Tasks A and '3

were performed by subjects in the final study.

Environment for the Experiment

The preschools were found to be very inadequate recording

environments. Background noise came across very clearly an6

there was no possibility of recording in an isolated area. Xe-

cording for the final study took place in the subjects' homes.

Sample for Final Study

9 telephone survey of preschools and kindergartens re-

vealed t5at Cantonese-speaking and Punjabi-speaking children

were present in sufficiently large numbers to allow selection

of an ac?equate sample.

Data from t h e p i l o t s tudy indica ted t h a t t h e younger

ch i ld ren d i d not provide enoug? d a t a t o reach c r i t e r i o n on

severa l of t h e morphemes. This f inding was s o marked t h a t t h e

sample f o r t 3 e f i n a l study was s e l e c t e d from a Kindergarten and

Grade 1 popula t ion . Care was taken t o exclude any s t u d e n t s who

had been exposed t o formal FSL teaching. The c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e

Setween o l d e r and younger ch i ld ren may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o

s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n L1. Also, t h e t a s k s which they were asked

t o perform may have been t o o d i f f i c u l t conceptua l ly f o r t h e

younger c h i l d r e n .

Size of Sample

Because of t h e explora tory na tu re of t h e s tudy, t h e s t a -

t i s t i c a l l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e t a t 0.10. Furthermore,

it was considered d e s i r a b l e t h a t t h e design be such t h a t

d i f f e r e n c e s of 20%should be d e t e c t a b l e i n percentage c o r r e c t

on t h e two t a s k s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r morpheme. The t h i r d f a c t o r

a f f e c t i n g sample s i z e was t h e power of t h e experiment, s e t a t a

minimum l e v e l of 0.80. Base? on t h e var iance of t h e r e s u l t s i n

the p i l o t s tudy, a sample of s i z e 2 4 was considere? adequate.

T o allow f o r p o s s i b l e l o s s of s u b j e c t s throu3h inadequate

responses t o t a s k s o r morphemes, t h e sample s i z e was increased

t o 3 2 , s t r u c t u r e s a s follows:

Table 2

Sample for Final Study

Language 1 Pun j aSi 1 Cantonese

Gender

Position in

family

Plethodology

Pnviron~ent for the Experiment

Performance of the tasks took approximately twenty minutes

per subject. Recording took place in the subjects8 homes and

this resulted in a relaxed atmosphere. In accordance with

procedures set out by the University Research Ethics Review

Committee, parents and guardians were informed of the nature

and purpose of the research, and their consent was obtained

before subjects were interviewed. In addition, the

experimenter was accompanied by a bilingual assistant so t3at

any queries could be dealt with in the parents8 first

language. Subjects were also advised of the nature of the

tasks they would be asked to perform, and were told that they

could stop at any time. These precautions paid off well since

all suSjects participated willingly. The subjects8 homes

provcde? an ideal recording environment for the experiment, and

none of t3e problems of the pilot study recording recurred.

-The Sample

A list of potential subjects was constructed through the

experimenter's contact with immigrant families in the Surrey

area. Subjects' parents or guardians were initially contacted

in order to ascertain whether they would be willing to %ave

their children participate in the study. I?aving obtained

preliminary permission, the experimenter then provided parents

and guardians with necessary information about the study, and

obtained their formal consent. This process continued over a

period of three weeks until the required number of subjects in

each language group and sub-group >ad been interviewed.

recording of Data

Subjects performed the tasks in varying order. Their

utterances were audio-recorded. The experinenter suSsequently

scored each of the selected morphemes (See Appendix C) for

correct usage in obligatory contexts. Thus, a subject who used

a past tense correctly in five of the ten occasions where it

was required by the context, was given a score of five out of

ten for that morpheme.

In cases where there was some doubt as to whether a

morpheme was used correctly or not, the evidence was suhmittefi

to a second party who ma?e an independent judgement and then

conferred with the experimenter. ;.Then the two decisions were

identical, the data in question were included. Otherwise the

data were excluded. In all of the data, there were fourteen

instances of unclear data, and the second party reached the

same decision as the experimenter in nine of the cases.

For the Copula contractible and the Auxiliary

contractible, the problem of back to back S (She's - singing,

he's - sick) was avoided by eliminating those data from the final

count. There were seven instances of this.

Each subject's age, identity, L1, gender, and position in

the family were recorded, and then scores on each morpheme in

both functions were noted. When t?lis task was completed, the

information was punched onto computer cards, one for each

suSject. Yorphernes had to occur in at least five obligatory

contexts in order to be included in the data for statistical

analysis. This criterion was adopted from the morpheme

acquisition studies of the seventies.

Statistical Analysis

The data were run through the computer using the flMDP3D

prosram (9rown and Dixon, 19?9). This program permitted the

comparison of two groups with t-tests. T-tests are robust

(insensitive to violation of assumptions) when samples are of

equal size an2 sufficiently large. Since the sarnple was the

same for both functions, and since the pilot study indicated

what a satisfactory sample should be, the t-test could be used

with confidence. The program initially. tested simultaneously

the equality of the means of several variables using

Hotelling's T'. The use of this statistic guarded against

incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis on individual

tests. It is hazardous to test the individual mean differences

by a univariate t statistic because the possibility of finding

significant differences by chance increases with the number of

variables considered. The two groups in the program were the

two tasks based on different functions. The multiple variables

were the morpheme scores. Scores were entered in the form x/y,

indicating that, on y obligatory occasions, the morpheme was

supplied correctly x times. The t-tests were two-tailed since

there was no evidence to suggest a direction for the

hypothesis. For this study, the probability level to claim

significance was set at p < n.1. This probability level was

chosen because of the exploratory nature of the study.

A further problem arose from the fact that the program

permitted the use of all data or the data for selected

variables. After analysing the data from the final study, two

decisions were made. In the first place, the two morphemes,

3rd person regular and 3rd person irregular, were excluded from

the analysis Secause there were too many missing scores, or

scores which did not reach criterion. Thus, there were eigtlt

morphemes left for the final analysis. In the second place,

six subjects were excluded from the final analysis because they

had not reached criterion on several of the morphemes (five

obligatory contexts). Since those six did not share the same

attributes, the balance of the sample was not disturbed unduly.

They were Subjects 9, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 32.

In addition, sample size varied from morpheme to morpheme

because of the decision to exclude scores for those subjects

who used a particular morpheme on fewer than five occasions.

All the data from the final study are provided in Appendix

Chapter V

Results, Discussion and Conclusions

Results

t The p value of the Hotelling's 1C statistic was 0.00,

indicating t\at there were one or more significant t-statistics

in the collection of variables.

T-tests on individual. varia5les then revealed that there

were three morphemes with a p value less than or equal to 0.10.

Table 3 contains the complete results of the statistical

analysis.

auxiliary contractible

auxiliary uncontractible

copula contractible

copula wlcontractible

past

plur aS

possessive

present , .. .:

progressive

Table 3 Results -

sample size

23

2 1

2 1

20

25

25

19

24

mean difference

standard deviation

probability

T?lus it merged that performance on three of the eight

morphemes analysed by the computer was significantly different

for Task A than for Task 5.

Furthermore, for those three morphemes, performance for

the group was significantly better on Task A than on Task B.

Discussion

It was decided at the outset that, for this study, the

probability level to claim significance would be p < 0.1. At

that level of probability, we have determined significant

differences in the correct usage of three morphemes by subjects

in two tasks. The tasks were designed to represent two

functions (Task A -- representational/interpretative, Task 3 --

i r na3 ina t ive /p ro j ec t i ve ) outlined by Halliday (See Appendix A)

and Tough (See Appendix R ) .

Tables 4 and 5 contain the morpheme acquisition orders

established by Brown (l973), devilliers and devilliers (l373),

nulay and Burt (1971), and Sailey, Madden and Krashen (1974).

Table 4

Morpheme Acquisition Order for L1 Speakers

Brown 1973 devilliers and devilliers 1973

Present progressive on in Plural Past irregular ?ossessive Copula uncontracted Articles Past regular 3rd person sinqular 3rd person irreg. Auxiliary uncont. Copula contractible Auxiliary uncont.

Present progressive Plural on in Past irregular Articles Possessive 3rZ person irregular Copula contractible Past regular 3rd person regular Copula uncontractible Auxiliary contractible 9uxiliary uncontractible

TaSle 5

Morpheme Acquisition Order for L2 Speakers

Dulay and 9urt 1974 Bailey, Madden, and Krashen 1974

Article 1 Copula 2 Progressive 3 Plural short 4 Auxiliary 5 Past regular G Past irregular 7 Plural long 3 Possessive 3rd person singular

Progressive Copula contractible Plural Article Auxiliary contractible Fast irregular 3rd person singular Possessive

While it is difficult to relate the findings to the

morpheme acquisition orders in Tables 4 and 5, it is possible

to argue that better performance in one function than in

another would suggest that mastery of -specific language forms

might appear earlier in one function than in another. -

Previous studies on morpheme acquisition (Rrown, 1373;

devilliers and devilliers, 1973; Dulay and Rurt, 1374; Bailey,

Madden and Krashen, 19?4) have attempted to establish a

morp?~eine acquisition order in both L1 and L2 learners. While

results have been generally mixed, there is some indication

that L2 learners follow an approximate order of acquisition

{hen learning Znglis3.

The data from this study were not analysed in such a way

as to establish a rank order of acquisition of the morphemes

studied. lkile the data would allow this to be done, the major

aim of the study was to eskablish a relationship between

language function and morpheme use for child ESL learners.

One explanation for the obtained results is t\at the

nature of the population chosen in this study, combined with

the language elicitation tasks in two functions, has revealed

heretofore %idden trends in morpheme acquisition. The results

of this study support the notion that child L2 learners apply

their cormand of certain morphemes differentially among

different functions. It is possible, as an extension of this

finding, to speculate that the findings in TaSle 5 above are an

artefact of the elicitation task used, since we know that the

RSM was used in both studies quoted. Both Brown (1973) and

devilliers and devilliers (1973) used language produced .

spontaneously Sy their subjects and so it is difficult to make

a similar criticism of the acquisition order in Table 4.

r-lowever, we do not know w?lat functions the analysed language

could be attributed to, and it is conceivable that much of the

language could fall into one function. These suggested -

explanations for the difficulty of relating the three

significantly different performances on morphemes revealed in

this study point the way to future investigations in the area.

The positive means for the pcrformance on the three 'morphemes

(Table 3) indicate t3at the subjects were performing

consistently better on Task A than on Task R . To understand

the implications of this finding better it is necessary to

reconsider the nature of the tasks.

Task A, that is, the RSP?, required the subjects to respond

to visual stimuli and answer questions. Those questions did

not require that the subjects leave the stimuli to find

answers. It was sufficient for the suSject to make rational

deductions or simply to pass on information.

Task E, on the other hand, demanded imagination. The

subject had to create in his or her mind possible outcomes of

the'situation. The stimulus consisted only of a >idden object.

The only visual aspects of the task were the presence of a box

of objects, and removal by hand of those objects.

Now, it could be reasoned that children perform many tasks

in the nature of Task A , when they respond to questions,

discuss pictures, or label the elements in pictures. Yuch

preschool and elementary school language development work

consists of just such tasks. Children are considered to be

engaged in learning activities while performing such tasks.

Indeed, this is often considered to be a creative and

constructive activity. Wuch less time is spent on activities

similar in nature to Task B. The child is not often required

to create or imagine without a visual stimulus. Such

activities could be considered difficult or even frustrating by

both children and the adults responsible for their learning.

The different performances on the two tasks suggest that

we should think seriously not only about the nature of tasks

that we ask language learners to perform, but also about the

possibilities for future research into language performance in

different contexts. No educator would deny the value of having

children exercise all their mental faculties in the course of

learning. No language educator would deny the usefulness of

having learners engage in activities which require different

mental and cognitive strategies.

Conclusions

Brown (1973) stated with some confidence:

With grammatical morphemes we are in a somewhat better

position. This is because the grammatical morphemes

are obligatory in certain contexts, and so one can set

an acquisition criterion not simply in terms of output,

but in terms of output-wherz-required. Each obligatory

context can be regarded as a kind of test item which

the child passes by supplying the required morp3eme or

fails by supplying none or one that is not correct.

This performance measure, the percentage of morphemes

supplied in obligatory contexts, should not be

dependent on the topic of conversation or the c\aract-

er of the interaction (p. 255).

The results of this study would suggest that the topic of

conversation and character of the interaction may be important

in the measurement of performance. The sample of children

learning Englis3 as a Yecond Language performed better with one

topic of conversation tllan with another. The percentage of

morphemes supplied correctly was greater on one task than on +'

another for three of the eight morphemes analysed. The task

did therefore make a difference. Furthermore, since the tasks

were designed to fit within different functions, it can be

claimed that the subjects had more trouble supplying morph-

emes in one function than in the other. This exploratory

study, therefore, suggests that further exploration of the

effect of function on language learning is very important.

Secondly, the morpheme acquisition studies of the

1970s, because of the kind of confidence demonstrated by Brown

(l973), depended excessively on a cross-functional view of

morpheme acquisition. It was assumed t%at performance in

supplying morphemes would be evenly spreal! across functions.

This study has shown that this is not the case. Child second

language learners have been shown to perform at a significantly

different level on two different tasks.

Thus, language testing devices which rely on language

elicitation in one function alone can not be trusted to give a

clear or accurate picture of a child's language acquisition. A

child who ?as performed at a certain level of proficiency on

the 3SV (See Appendix D), cannot be assumed to be equally pro-

ficient in other tasks, especially if those tasks fall within

other functions.

Furthermore, morpheme acquisition orders, difficulty

orders, or accuracy orders (all three names have been used for

essentially the same t3ing) established by testing within only

one language function should not Se presented as an overall

picture of a language learner's performance. It would be

necessary to elicit speech in several functions by language

learners before a trustworthy picture of language performance

emerged.

Thirdly, since the three morp?~emes which the suSjects in

this study produced with significantly different correctness

were produced more accurately in the ESY than in the pre-

dicting task, it is necessary to consider carefully the nature

of language and language teaching programs in our schools. If

we test language in only one function, we must not claim that

the established level of proficiency will hold true for all

functions. We must rather devise language testing instruments

which attempt to determine overall language performance.

It is even more pertinent to realise that we test children

most often in the language function which is probably the most

widely used in schools, namely, the representational (Halliday)

or interpretative (Tough). IJl~ile it is clearly essential to

test children in a function which will be of great use to them

within the school system, the dangers of restricting testing to

that function are twofold. In the first place, a child may

very well perform adequately in that function and not in

others, or vice versa. Are we then to claim t\at the child is

doing well or poorly in language learning? In the second place,

it is conceivable that children from varied cultural or

linguistic backgrounds could use language more in one function

t\an another at home, and might thus encounter particular

Sifficulty with language in certain functions. Tests based on

one function could not then reflect accurately the child's

total linguistic achievement.

Finally, in our efforts to teach language, especially to

the large non-English speaking population in the Greater

Vancouver area, it is of paramount importance that the language

of the classroom embrace a range of functions. While the

urgency of teaching children to count an3 label is recognized,

we should remember t3at children must be enabled and encouraged

to use language in concert with the varied and innumerable

skills of the brain.

T h i s s t u d y l e n d s s u p p o r t t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s t?lat s e c o n d

l a n g u a g e morpheme a c q u i s i t i o n and u s e a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e func-

C h a p t e r V I

P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r F u t u r e F e s e a r c h

t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e , and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s r e q u i r e d t o i n v e s t -

i g a t e i n d e p t h t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s .

S i n c e the s t u d y i n d i c a t e s t t l a t s o m e s u b j e c t s who a r e i n

t h e p r o c e s s o f a c q u i r i n g a morpheme s u p p l y it c o r r e c t l y i n one

t a s k and i n c o r r e c t l y i n a n o t h e r , f u r t h e r s t u d i e s s h o u l d e l i c i t

s p o n t a n e o u s s p e e c h i n o t h e r f u n c t i o n s , u s i n g t h e f rameworks

c r e a t e d b y H a l l i d a y (1974) a n d Tough ( 1 9 7 7 ) . I n v e s t i g a t i o n s

s 5 o u l d a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e :

a ) w h e t h e r morphemes t e n d t o be introc3uced f i r s t i n a

p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n b y s u b j e c t s , and

b) w h e t h e r t3ere i s a s y s t e m a t i c i n c r e a s e i n t h e

correct u s e o f a morpheme w i t h i n v a r i o u s func t ions :

S t u d i e s i n t o a ) above c o u l d S e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l i n i t i a l l y

u n t i l it became c l e a r w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e was a p a t t e r n .

Should it be d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a l l o r many s t u d e n t s i n t r o d u c p d

c e r t a i n morphemes f i r s t i n c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s , f u r t h e r

i n v e s t i g a t i o n s s h o u l d a t t e m p t t o document those p a t t e r n s , s i n c e

it m i g h t be the case t h a t c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s l e n d t h e m s e l v e s t o

t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f c e r t a i n morphemes. L o n g i t u d i n a l s e c o n d

l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s c o u l d t h e n i n v e s t i g a t e t h ~ u s e ,

a n d i n c r e a s e i n u s e , o f morphemes i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s .

F o r example , when d o e s the morpheme f i r s t a p p e a r , a n d i n w h i c h

f u n c t i o n ? Is it c o r r e c t l y or i n c o r r e c t l y u s e d ?

The i m p o r t a n c e of s u c h s t u d i e s f o r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e

t e a c h i n g would be s i g n i f i c a n t . I f e i t h e r a ) or b) w e r e docu-

men ted , t 5 e n t e a c h e r s would d o w e l l t o i n t r o d u c e a m o r p h e m e i n

a n e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e s t u d i e s s3owed it t o S e f i r s t a c q u i r e d .

E x i s t i n g Zata c o u l d be examine2 s i n c e there a re i n e x i s t e n c e

s t u d i e s o f l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n i n c 3 i l d r e n and a < S a l t s v ~ i t h

enormous amoun t s o f r e c o r d e d s p o n t a n e o u s speech. A w a r n i n g i s

a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e , howeve r . I n l a n g u a g e d a t a c o l . l e c t e 2 b y a n

i n s t r u m e n t s u c h a s the BSl? ( S e e 3 p p e n 3 i x D), it i s p o s s i b l e

t h a t t h e s u 5 j e c t s may be u s i n g o n l y o n e f u n c t i o n , f o r e x a m p l e ,

the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e f u n c t i o n (Tough, 1 9 7 7 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , the

s u b j e c t s may o n l y be u s i n g o n e s t r a t e g y w i t h i n t h a t f u n c t i o n ,

f o r example , l a b e l l i n g . The researcher would d o w e l l , when

u s i n g e x i s t i n g d a t a , t o r e f l e c t on t h e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d t a s k s

u sed t o c o l l e c t l a n g u a g e .

S t u d i e s s h o u l d n o t be r e s t r i c t e d t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

morphemes. P3ono logy and l a n g u a g e s t r u c t u r e s would be i t e m s o f

great interest. Gatbonton (1970) has already outlined possible

applications in the field of pl~onology. Language structures

such as comparatives, negatives, imperatives, superlatives,

passives, subordinate clauses, and conjunctions could be inves-

tigated.

Caution makes it wise to consider child and adult second

language acquisition separately. It may be, however, that a

second language acquisition model based on the mastery of

language functions would account for many of the observed

differences.

It is necessary to discuss the fact that, in this study,

significant differences were found only for three morphemes out

of the eig3t documented. Apart from a new look at morpheme

acquisition orders, it is also possible to envisage a

different sample for future studies. For example, if the

subgroups of L1, gender, position in the family, and age were

large enough to permit adequate subgroup analysis, it might

become apparent that different subgroups yielded more complete

results. It will be remembered that the subgroups in this

study were designed to control for some of the 'mown var-

iables in language acquisition. Vkile this made for a bal-

anced sample, it did not permit adequate subgroup analysis.

npart from a review of the sample, an increase in the

number of tasks might reveal some pertinent information. The

functional frameworks outlined by Halliday and Tough are

largely untested and may require further development and

amendment. Some utterances, for example, might not fit into

any of the functions as outlined. It might be necessary to

collapse two functions, or to add new functions. If children

used a lot of speech in a practice function w3ere they appeared

to be developing metalinguistic awareness or rehearsing and

reviewing speech, then it might be necessary to include a meta-

linguistic function which could include rehearsing, repeating,

and reviewing strategies.

Finally, the value of research into spontaneous speech in

multiple situations was pointed out. t would be best to

resort to longitudinal studies of single subjects using only

spontaneous speech in an effort to find new directions for

investigation. The continuous recording of a second language

learner's production during the active syntax acquisition phase

would be the ideal research site for further study of the

problem. S u c ? ~ a study would require several years of assiduous

work. Encouraging results from exploratory studies such as

this one might tempt second language researchers to do just

t\at.

Ealliday's Functions of Child Language

Excerpt from Halliday, M. (19741, pp. 9-21

INSTRUMENTAL

Language used to fulfil material needs

I REGULATORY

Language used to regulate the behaviour of others

IMTERACTIOXAL

Language used to mediate the interaction between the

self and others

Language which creates and develops a sense of

individuality

HEURISTIC

Language used as a means of investigating reality

1:mGINATIVE

Language used to create an environment separate

from the world of direct experience

REPRESENTATIONAL

Language used to convey messages by way of specific

reference

APPEND

Tough's Functions, of Language

Excerpt from Tough, J. (1977), pp. 68-69

FUNCTION USES O F LAXGUAGE STRATEGIES

Directive 1.

Interpretative 1.

Self-directing i monitoring actions

ii focusing control

iii forward planning

Other-directing i demonstrating

ii instructing

iii forward planning

iv anticipating

collaborative action

(self or other)

Reporting on i labelling

present and past ii elaboration of detail

experiences iii association and

coinpar ison

iv recognizing incongruity

v awareness of sequence

vi recognition of

associated actions

and events .

vii aSsence of conditions

Projective

2. Reasoning

1. Predicting

viii recognition of a

central meaning

ix reflecting on the

meaning of

experiences

i recognizing dependent

and causal relationships

ii recognition of a

principle or

determining conditions

i forecasting events

ii anticipating

consequences

iii surveying possible

alternatives

iv forecasting related

possibilities

v recognition of problems

and predicting solutions

Relational

2. Empathetic i projecting into the

experiences of others

ii projecting into other

people's feelings

iii anticipating reactions

of others

3. Imaginating i renaming

ii commentary on imagined

context

iii building scene through

language

iv language of role

(strategies of the

directive and

interpretative functions

will be used within

imagined contexts)

1. Self-maintaining i referring to needs

ii protection of self-

interest

iii justification

iv criticism

v threats

ii other-recognizing

strategies

A P P E N D I X C!

Morphemes from Other Studies and in this Thesis

1 de~illiers and

Articles

Auxiliary -

I contractible

uncontractible

contractible

I uncontractible

regular

irregular

Plural

Possessive

Present pro3 -ing

3rd person -

- - -

Dulay and ~urt(1974)

Eailey, Madden and

Krashen(1374)

Articles

Auxiliary - singular

Copula - singular

Past - regular

irregular

Plural - short

long

Possessive

Present prog. -ing

3rd person -

singular

in this thesis

Auxiliary - contractible

uncontractible

Copula - contractible

uncontractible

Past

Plural

Possessive

Present prog.-ing

3rd person -

regular

irregular

Mar

ina

K. B

urt

Hei

di C.

Dul

ay

Ecu

ardo

bfe

radn

dez Ch.

TH

iS BOOKLET CONTAINS ALL

ME SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR ADIIIIINISTERING

Tii

E 6

SX

-E.

1 P

ime

fill

In t

h~

s info

rmat

io-

bef

ore

ad

min

iste

rin

g t

he

BS

M-E

. I

, !

CA

TE

E

X4

KIN

ER

I

I

GIR

L

' T

ES

T R

ES

UL

TS

: Ch

eck

app

rop

riat

e Lc

vel b

e lo

:^:

I :,

AG

E:

yc

ws

- mon

ths - BOY

I I

I I

I I

I I

LE

VE

L:

12

34

5-

I

I

I T

EA

CH

ER

G

RA

DE

I S

OT

ES

AV

D O

~S

ER

VA

TIO

NS

: Irrt

rr:.

:p

ccill

di

sc-o

sir,

crc

.1

I f I

HA

RC

OU

RT

BRACE J

OV

AN

OV

ICI-

I. IX

C.

DIR

EC

TIO

NS

4

TR

s ad

rnin

istw

tfoc

r of

the B

SM

Ir

li;e

ch.tth

g w

ith a

ch

ild

sbeu

t so

me

men

:: cr

que

stio

ns a

bw

t the

cove

r su

ch 8

s "l

m't

th.t 8

f8

t h-l"

Or

plc

rum

pic

ture

s. T

o w

o th

e c

hll

d

hat M

"cM" ir

to

be i

n E

ng

lish

, "Do y

ou s

ee a

flo

wr?

" u

sual

ly p

ut tRe

child

at m

tr.

sp

uk

on

ly E

ng

lhh

wit

h t

ho c

hild

be

fw m

d d

win

g O

H a

bn

lnlr

wrt

ion

of

Inst

ruct

ion

s to

th

e ex

amlr

er

are

alw

ays

in g

reen

. O

uw

lw to

ark th.

th.

BS

M-E

. A p

ood

my

to s

-rt h to

say:

"Hl..[chlld'r

nam

e).

Let

's l

o&

chil

d a

re a

lway

s in

bla

ck. W

hen the

ex

an

in:

mu

st p

oin

t to

ron~

part

01

a m

t #

n~

p

ktu

rsa.

'' LB

t th

e ch

ild w

:ha

ec

w o

f th.

Pic

lure

Bao

klat

. T

o

pim

ure,

in

stru

ctio

ns

are

O~

VM

ab

ove

th

at

we

sti

on

. R-

d r- 2

furt

her

ma

blm

h r

aw

. it

nw

y b

e m

.ua

ry

to

chrt

a li

ttle

bef

ore

sta

rt-

wh

ere

l~ncs ar

e p

rovi

ded

. in

g. U

w th. covr d dn P

Wo

BoO

dot to "

km

k th. k

.." Si

mp

le c

orn-

O

pen

th

e P

ictu

re B

ookl

et t

o th

e li

nt

pic

ture

an

d b

egin

th

e 0%

-E.

,

PR

EU

MIN

AR

V Q

UE

ST

ION

S (Do 9 re

cord

.)

@.

DO

YO

U .S

EE A

FA

T M

AN

?. . .

SHO

W H

IM T

O M

E.

b.

AN

0 S

HO

W ME T

HE

SU

INP

IY M

AN

. A

ND

RIB

BA

BY

BIR

DS

UP

IN T

HE

TREE?

d.

Po

int t

o F

LO

WE

RS

A

N0

WH

AT

AR

E T

HO

SE

?

e.

Po

int t

o S

AN

DW

ICH

ES

A

ND

TH

OS

E?

TE

ST

QU

ES

TIO

NS

(R

cc

ord

res

po

nse

s o

n li

nes

pro

vid

ed.)

1.

Poi

nt to

BA

BY

BIR

DS

WH

AT

AR

E T

HO

SE

?

I

2.

Po

int t

o M

AM

A B

IRD

an

d W

OR

M (

Do

re

cord

res

po

nse

.)

MIH

AT

'S T

HE

MA

MA

BlR

O

GO

ING

TO

00

WIT

H T

HE

W

OR

M?

#

3.

Po

int to

BA

BV

BIRDS

WH

Y D

O T

HE

Y W

AN

T F

OO

D?

h 3

4.

Po

int t

o F

AT

MA

N

'

WH

Y IS

HE

SO F

AT

7

5.

Po

int

to S

KIN

NY

MA

N

WH

V IS

HE

a SK

INN

Y?

ST

OP

HE

RE

1F

CH

ILD

HA

S N

OT

RE

SP

ON

DE

D T

O A

T L

EA

S? 3 T

ES

T Q

Um

TlO

MS

. CH

ECK

80

;: AND F

ItL

W B

LAN

K B

EL

OW

. (S

ee M

mu

rl)

0 O

SM

-E d

isco

nti

nu

ed

bec

ause

Oth

erw

ise.

co

ntl

nu

e t

he

BS

M-E

sa

d s

ay

: LE

T'S

LO

OK

AT

AN

OT

UE

R P

ICrU

RE

.

Shaw t

he

ch

ild

PlC

TU

RE

S 1

and

2 T

OG

ET

HE

R.

m.

SH

OW

ME

TME F

AT

HO

US

E.

b.

AN

D T

HE

SK

tMlY

Y H

OU

SiP?

c.

W

HE

RE

AR

E THE W

lNO

OW

S?

d

. A

ND

TH

E D

OO

RS

?

TE

ST

QU

EST

ION

S (R

eco

rd m

sp

ms

os

on

tlne

r p

mv

idtd

.)

5.

Po

int to B

OT

H H

OU

SE

S u

sin

g w

ho

le h

an

d to

po

int

WH

AT

AR

E T

HE

SE

?

6. n

7

. P

oin

t to

NO

SE

S O

N BOTH

HO

US

ES

AT

ON

CE

8

AN

D W

HA

T A

RE

TH

ES

E

TW

O T

HIN

GS

?

7- n

8.

Po

lnt

to OOORS O

F B

OT

H

HO

US

ES

AT

ON

CE

,

AN

D T

HE

SE

?

9.

Po

int to F

AT

MA

N a

nd

FA

T

HO

US

E

WH

Y D

OE

S H

E L

IVE

HE

RE

?

Now

turn

to

the

nex

t p

lctu

re a

nd s

ay: HERE'S A

NO

TH

ER

PIC

TU

RE

1

Show th

o child PICTURE 3

OtJ

LY

- -

PR

EL

!MIN

AR

Y Q

UE

ST

ION

(D

o ~

2 re

cwd

.)

a.

WH

ER

E ARE T

HE

FIS

H7

b.

AN

D T

HE

MOP?

c. AND W

HE

RE

AR

E M

E MA

N'S

SH

OE

S?

TE

ST

QU

EST

IONS (

Acc

ord

res

po

nse

s cn l

ines

pro

vid

ed

.)

10.

Poi

nt

to M

AN

(D

o re

cord

resp

on

se.)

W

HA

T'S

HE

DO

ING

TO

TH

E

FL

OO

R?

11

. W

HY

IS H

E D

OIN

G T

HA

T?

11.0

12

. P

oin

t to

MA

N'S

SH

OE

S (D

o no

t rec

ord

resp

on

se.)

W

HA

T D

ID H

E D

O W

ITH

HIS

'

SH

OE

S?

13

. W

HA

T W

OU

LD

HA

VE

H

AP

PE

NE

D T

O H

IS S

HO

ES

.. .

paum

?. . .

tF HE

HA

DN

'T

TA

KE

N T

HE

M O

FF

?

13

.0

i4.

Pom

t to

EY

ES

Of

BO

TH

GR

EE

N F

ISH

*

WH

Y D

O Y

OU

TH

INK

TH

EIR

EYES A

RE

CL

OSE

D?

18

. P

oin

t 10

EY

ES

OF

BO

TH

RE0 F

ISH

G

\

AN

D W

HY

DO

Y'O

U W

INK

Q

THEIR EYES ARE O

PE

N?

a.

Po

int

10 P

lCT

UR

E 5

b

. P

oin

t to

PIC

TU

RE

6

0.

Po

int t

o P

ICT

UR

E 7

W

HE

RE

IS

TH

E X

G

tN W

S PtC

fUIq

E?

W

HE

RE

'S T

HE

DO

G IN

XS

P

ICT

UR

E7

. A

ND

WH

ER

E'S

TH

E K

ING

IN

THfS

PICTURE?

TE

ST

QU

ES

TIO

NS

[R

ecor

d r

espo

nse

s o

n l

ine

s p

rovid

ed

.)

21

. P

oin

tro

DO

G(P

ICT

WZ

5)

I Do

wo

rd

resp

onse

.)

WH

Y IS

TH

E 0

00

LO

OK

ING

A

T W

E K

ING

7

22

. P

ain

t to

RA

TE

(P

ICT

UR

E 7

)

WH

AT

HA

PP

EN

ED

TO

TH

E

KIN

G'S

FO

OD

?

23.

WH

AT

WO

UL

D H

AV

E

HA

PP

EN

ED

IF T

HE

DO

G

HA

DN

'T E

AT

EN

THE F

OO

D?

23.0

>

24

. P

oin

t re

AP

PL

E O

N F

LO

OR

'I P

IC~

UR

E

7)

W

HA

T H

AP

PE

NE

D T

O T

HA

T

AP

PL

E?

25

. W

HY

DID

IT F

ALL

DO

WN

?

(Do

= reco

rd r

esp

on

se.)

Now uy ta

rh. &

ild

: T

HA

TS

ALL

TH

ER

E IS

. 01

0 Y

OU

LIK

E T

HA

T?

. . . I

DID

TO

O . .

. THA

NK

YO

U.

(eh

lld's

nume)

PRO

CE

DU

ZE

FO

R D

ET

ER

S3i

XIN

I B

SM-E

PR

OF'

CIE

NC

Y LEV

ELS

Co

nsu

l: se

ctio

n c

n s

cw

lng

In

the

Ma

nu

al

lnr

wo

re c

om

ple

te i

nst

rue

tic

ns.

Le

vel

7

I If !b

e c

hil

d a

nsw

cwd

fe

we

r th

an

3 w

es

?io

ns

ow

? o

f fi

-st 5.

In a

ny I

rrg

ua

pe

. ch

eck

Le

vel 1 b

elo

w.

If 3

w m

ore

qu

est

ion

s w

ero

an

swe

red

, g

o t

o B

-Le

vel

2.

i C

hec

k th

e ap

pro

pri

ate

lev

el

at

tho

bo

tto

m o

f th

is p

qe

.

6

Le*m

! 2

If t

he

ch

ild

an

swe

red

at

leas

t 3

qu

est

ion

s in

any

la

ngua

ge.

bu

t f

mr

tha

n 1

3 q

ue

stio

ns

in E

ngl

~sh

. chec

k L

eve

l 2

be

low

. If 1

3 w

es

tio

ns

br

mo

re m

e a

ns

~c

d

in

En

glis

h.

go

to

C

-Lsv

el 5

.

C

Lw

ei

6

Sco

re o

ue

stio

ns

6. 7

. 13

. 1

8. 20.

22,

23,

an

d 2

4 3s g

ram

- m

ati

cally

co

rre

ct

or

inco

rre

ct a

fte

r re

ad

ing

th

e

qu

ost

icn

s.

The

se q

ue

stio

ns

are

follo

we

d b

y a

in t

he

bo

okl

et.

E

nter

th

e n

um

be

r co

rre

ct i

n th

e s

qu

are

be

low

.

^ho

ck

Ls

wi

5. i

f 6

or

mo

re o

f th

ese,

ques

tionr

a

re c

orr

ect

ly

an

swe

red

.

If 5

or

few

er

of

the

se q

ue

stio

ns

haw

be

en a

nsw

ere

d c

or-

re

ctly

. p

roce

ed

to

0-L

eve

ls

3 a

nd

4.

D

Lw

els

3 a

nd 4

Sco

re q

ue

stio

ns

1. 2.

8, 9

, 1

1.

14

, 1

5.

16

. 17

. a

nd

19

as

gra

mm

ati

cally

co

rre

ct o

r in

corr

ect

. a!

:er

rcid

ing

th

e

qu

es-

tio

ns.

The

se q

ue

stio

ns

are

follo

we

d b

y a 0 in

th

e b

ock

let.

E

nter

th

e n

um

be

r co

rre

ct i

n t

he

cir

cle

be

low

.

Ch

eck

L

eve

l 4,

if

7 o

r m

om

of

thcs

e

10

qu

est

ion

s ar

e co

rre

ctly

an

swe

red

.

Ch

eck

Le

vel 3

. if

6 o

r fe

we

r o

f th

ese

qu

est

ion

s ar

e co

rre

ctly

a

nsw

ere

d.

' L

eve

l 1 0

L

eve

l 2 0

L

wc

l3 0

L

eve

l 4 0

Lw

ei

5 CJ

Ch

eck

tho

ap

pro

pri

ate

lev

el on

the

fro

nt

cw

ar

of

this

bo

okl

et.

Mar

ina

K. B

urt

He

idi C

. Du

iay

Edu

ardo

Her

nan

dez

Ch.

ILL

US

1 RA

TIO

NS

BY

GA

RY

KLA

VE

R

M

HA

RC

OU

RT

BR

AC

E J

OV

AN

OV

ICH

, IN

C.

- A

PP

EN

DIX

E

Raw

D

ata

fro

m

Pil

ot

Stu

dy

su

bje

ct

nu

mb

er

1 ge

nd

er

- i Ifir

st

lan

gu

ag

e

Ta

sk

A P

red

icti

ng

1

I !p

os

itio

n i

n

fam

ily

T

ask

B

Giv

ing

In

form

ati

on

I

I I

j a

ge

in

mo

nth

s

Ta

sk

C D

ire

cti

ng

.

..

F 1-1-

1-1-

1

orp

he

me

a

ux

ilia

ry

1

11

1

I

11

11

I

co

ntr

ac

t.

lt4I

C1

11

48

1

II

II

I

If

II

I

IFIC

12

15

4f

IFIP

Il j6

01

I

II

I

1 I

II

I

I

jMj

C)2

15

4 j

!I

!!

I

I

ll

1

I

IFJP)2j44)

II

tt

t

II

II

I

co

rr

ec

t p

os

sib

le

co

rre

ct

po

ss

ible

c

or

re

ct

po

ss

ible

c

or

re

ct

po

ss

ible

c

or

re

ct

po

ss

ible

c

or

re

ct

po

ss

ible

c

or

re

ct

po

ss

ible

c

orr

ec

t p

os

sib

le

au

xil

iar

y

un

co

ntr

ac

t .

pa

st

co

pu

la

co

ntr

ac

t.

II

II

I

I

ll

1

I

I

cop

ul

a u

nc

on

tra

ct .

APPENDIX

E

Raw

D

ata

fr

om

P

ilo

t S

tud

y

su

bje

ct

nu

mb

er

l ge

nd

er

I f

fi

rs

t l

an

gu

ag

e

Ta

sk

A P

red

icti

ng

I

I :p

os

itio

n

in

fam

ily

T

ask

B

Giv

ing

In

form

ati

on

I

I

I ,

;y1

a

ge

in

m

on

ths

II

II

I

1-

1-

'-

11

II

II

I

I

ll

1

I I

ll

1

II

II

tas

k

llF

IC

ll 1

52

I

I I

I

I I

I I

21

MIP

11

16

4

I I

II

I

I I

I I

31

MIP

12

16

0

II

II

I

ll

\

4lM

1C1

11

48

co

rr

ec

t p

os

sib

le

co

rr

ec

t p

os

sib

le

co

rr

ec

t p

os

sib

le

co

rr

ec

t p

os

sib

le

co

rr

ec

t p

os

sib

le

co

rr

ec

t I

po

ss

ible

po

ss

ible

Ta

sk

C D

ire

cti

ng

po

ss

es

siv

e

pr

es

en

t p

rog

. 3

rd

pe

rso

n

re

gu

lar

A B 0 2

0 4

2 1

2

0 3 1 1 1

1 1

1

3rd

p

ers

on

ir

re

gu

lar

ma

%' ON F-

am

cut-

OLn

(rLn

Lnoo

Ln a- - a-

cum

O=r

aw -c -7

mcn

ba3

MP-

cryn C-C

t-m - 0-

vr-

rfaJ -- -- -m -- C-Cn

mm

z2 22 mn

m

Lno3

8"-

0-

x * Lc, m 0

.Pi co z.5 X C 30

C S U

m

ww

mm

vkn

cum

crrD

00

7- - 0 cu-

rmn

ON

cur- - a u 3

cocO

Ju3

t-t-

am 00 -7

ocu

rmn C

CO-

P+-

rrrg

cv CO-

cucu 7-

cu m-

0 yv)

cum

cum

m

L, h0 L m m L

.rl c, d c .A 0 X O 3 s 43

cum

m

aa

ma

m

J C O

oa 0

VF-

0 (vy

0 -- J L n

m

cut- 0 7-

om

MP-

Nu3

Mt-

r m CV a-

C U a

cu CO-

0 t--

Em

-a

cu cry

rvrc

P-cO

LncO

crlCT

0 a-

t-t-

@ In m a

0 F-

OCV -7

crrX,

at- cu m- 0- -7

r-t-

mm -3 7-

Lnm 7-

r-m M

aj-

=rm

Jm

=rm 00 7-

t-t-

P-t-

&a2

mm -7

am am -- u3 m- 0

m- OJ -- mt- 7-

C U M .--.-- ba3 .--- ma -- - 03-

m- -cu OM C-C

d (0 L 3 d a

wt-

rfa

at-

CUm

CUP-

=fa

jt-

OM

Ja

CVLn

L n m

(vm

-a

MCn

m

cum

-t-

CUa

Jr-

am

cum

m

0

aa

m

CULn

cum 0

Ln-

C r y n

CUJ

0 t---

mu'

cu > .r(

rn 11) cu In rn 0 a

aa

mw

t-0

mm

ma3

Lnm

mm

r-P-

0 b- - m-

r-m

a u 3

cu a-

Lnw

C U m r-

N L n -

LncO

t-t--

0 m- 00 -,--

r-a) Ncu 7-

(\I Ln-

mt-

CUz

22

cum 0 Cr) -7

mu3 7-

03 ,--- 7

aJ- 00 -7

bo c .d

c, l c cu - rn bo cu 0 L L a a

L n m

P-cO

0 =r-

us0

m

=fa

OM

-.-- J u 3

Ocu

m

OJ

am

m

CUcu

C U m

MP-

0 03-

om

cuCO

cucu

InaJ

rtn

-m

CrP-

wco

ON

MM

CVCU

m u 3

am

LncO

C 0 v) L L c u m G - I

3

2%' M L

=rlC

MLT

U>CC:

cuc

ow

-3

ON

00

0-

MCr

oa

cuv

cuG

JC-

00

cum

CUJ

=flC

WP-

cum

cum

v3.P

OP-

CUN

CVP-

00

Cucu

LlShD

mu'

wyn

cuv

c O L rnm

i: cu

? k V h - 4

A P

P E

N D

I X

F (continued)

Raw

Dat

a from

F

inal

S

tudy

S

ub

ject

no,

17

18

19

2

0

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Tas

k A

BA

BA

BA

BA

BA

BA

BA

BA

BA

EA

BA

BA

BA

BA

B

Au

xil

iary

6

8

65

74

28

6

4 1

21

4

6 1

21

14

4

2 0

6 1

0 5

10

12

C

on

trac

t.

8 2

14

8

5 1

08

6

12

8

2 6

12

12

8

10

13

11

9

7 6

4 8

12

2

9 1

38

8

5 7

2 -

-

- -

Au

xil

iary

2

51

4

22

22

?4

74

8

9 1

18

3

€? 9

01

1

13

13

11

7

8 1

03

2

6 7

4

12

47

10

U

ncon

trac

t.

5 7

2$

?7

46

75

50

Cop

ula

5 8

4 1

04

5

6

14

6

8 7

2

85

00

51

04

C

on

trac

t.

3 7

9 6

12

8

11

9

15

11

P

9

7 1

05

1

3 5

1@

7 3

g8

! 2 $

i

Cop

ul a

9

78

12

33

26

57

06

4@

21

42

15

0

32

91

09

81

51

05

57

87

2 1

55

06

57

26

7

un

con

trac

t.

2 2

5 6

9 3

3 P

ast

Plu

ral'

Po

sses

siv

e 6

4

24

24

76

62

5

22

6

2

05

24

64

67

01

2

65

75

88

94

11

52

68

05

45

75

60

43

3?

Pre

sen

t 1

06

1

19

1

06

9

3 9

8

10

14

10

7

11

5 5

4 0

7

82

82

23

52

7

prog

. -i

ng

10

6

14

9 1Q

6

3 5

10

11

13

16

12 9

13

2

7 1

2 4

2

9'1

1 4

15

15 2

7 5

3 7

8 3r

d er

son

P

4 6

5

06

2

42

05

68

22

5

2

42

1

regu

ar

?1

85

67

62

75

%9

25

76

11

61

5?

52

65

6

3rd

pers

on

'4

4

2 0

1

20

12

0~

12

04

22

1

0 1

2 403

irre

gula

r ?

65

20

:4

54

33

65

64

32

55

24

&2

52

u"

L i s t o f F e f e r e n c e s

A d j e m i a n , C . On t h e n a t u r e o f i n t e r l a n g u a g e s y s t e m s . Language L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 6 , - 26 , 297-320 .

B a i l e y , N . , Madden, C . , & K r a s h e n , S . T s t h e r e a n a t u r a l s e q u e n c e i n a d u l t s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g ? L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 4 , - 2 4 , 235-243.

B a t e s , E. L a n g u a g e and c o n t e x t : t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f p r a g m a t i c s . N e w York: Academic P r e s s , 1976 .

B e r k o , J . The c h i l d ' s l e a r n i n g o f E n g l i s h m o r p h o l o g y . Word, 1 9 5 8 , -9 1 4 150-177.

B l o c h , O. P r e m i e r s s t a d e s du l a n g a g e d e l ' e n f a n t . J o u r n a l d e P s y c h o l o g i e , 1 9 2 1 , - 1 8 , 693-71 2 .

Bloom, L. L a n g u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t . I n F. Wardhaugh a n d H . Brown '

( F d s . ) , A S u r v e y o f A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . Ann A r b o r : The U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n P r e s s , 1 9 7 6 .

B o u t o n , C . L e s mgcan i smes d l a c q u i s i t i o n du f r a n ~ a i s : l a n g u e 6 t r a n a Z r e c h e z l l a d u l t e . P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e

\ B o u t o n , C . L ' a c q u i s i t i o n d ' u n e l a n g u e $ t r a n g e r e . P a r i s :

E d i t i o n s K l i n c k s i e c k , l 9 7 4 .

Brown, M . a n d D i x o n , W . , ( E d s . ) B i o m e d i c a l c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s : D-se r i e s , B e r k e l e y , L A : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1 9 7 9 .

Brown, !?. A f i r s t l a n g u a g e / T h e e a r l y s t a g e s . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973.

B u r t , M . D u l a y , H . , & H e r n a n d e z - C h a v e z , E. B i l i n g u a l S y n t a x M e a s u r e . N e w York: H a r c o u r t B r a c e J o v a n o v i c h , 1973 .

C a z d e n , C . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f noun and v e r b i n f l e c t i o n s . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 6 8 , - 3 9 , 433-448.

C e d e r g r e n , H . & S a n k o f f , D. V a r i a b l e r u l e s : P e r f o r m a n c e a s a s t a t i s t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n o f c o m p e t e n c e . L a n g u a g e , 7 9 7 4 , 9, 333-355.

C h u , C . A S e m a n t i c o - s y n t a c t i c a p p r o a c h t o c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s -- some " B E u and llHAVP" s e n t e n c e s i n E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e , IPAL, 1 9 7 8 , 16, 273-296.

C o r d e r , S S D . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f l e a r n e r ' s e r r o r s . ToAL -7

1 9 6 7 , 2, 161-170

C o r d e r , S.? . I d i o s y n c r a t i c d i a l e c t s and e r r o r a n a l y s i s . -9 IvAL 1 9 7 1 , 9, 147-160.

d e v i l l i e r s , J . & d e v i l l i e r s , ?. A C r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s t u d y o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l morphemes i n c h i l d s p e e c h . J o u r n a l o f D s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c ? e s e a r c h , 1 9 7 3 , 2, 267-278.

D i c k e r s o n , L. The l e a r n e r ' s i n t e r l a n g u a g e a s a s y s t e m o f v a r i a b l e r u l e s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 5 , - 9 , 401-408 .

D i c k e r s o n , W . The p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c u n i t y o f l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g and l a n g u a g e c h a n g e . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 6 , 2, 215-231. -

D i l l e r , K. G e n e r a t i v e g rammar , s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s , a n d l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g . P o w l e y , Mass . : Newbury H o u s e , 1971

D u l a y , H . & B u r t , M . G o o f i n g : a n i n d i c a t o r o f c h i l d r e n ' s s e c o n d i a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 2 , - 2 2 , 235-252.

D u l a y , H . & B u r t , M . S h o u l d we t e a c h c h i l d r e n s y n t a x ? L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 3 , - 2 3 , 245-258.

D u l a y , H . & B u r t , M . N a t u r a l s e q u e n c e s i n c h i l d s e c o n d - ,

l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n - t a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 4 , 24, 37-54.

D u l a y , H. and B u r t , M . !?emarks on c r e a t i v i t y i n l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n M . B u r t , H . D u l a y , and M . F i n o c c h i a r o ( ~ d s . ) , V i e w p o i n t s on E n g l i s h a s a Second L a n g u a g e . N e w York: P e g e n t s , 1977.

F i r t h , J . The t e c h n i q u e o f s e m a n t i c s . F e p r i n t e d i n D a p e r s i n L i n g u i s t i c s 1934-1951. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1 9 5 7 , 7-33.

F r e i , H . Ld g r a m m a i r e d e s f a u t e s . P a r i s : G e u t h n e r , 1929 .

G a t b o n t o n , E. P a t t e r n e d p h o n e t i c v a r i a b i l i t y . C a n a d i a n Modern Language P e v i e w , 1 9 7 8 , 34, 335-3117.

Gradman, H . The L i m i t a t i o n s o f C o n t r a s t i v e A n a l y s i s . ? r e d i c t i o n s . p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e P a c i f i c C o n f e r e n c e on C o n t r a s t i v e L i n g u i s t i c s and L a n g u a g e - - - U n i v e r s a l s , H o n o l u l u , 1971.

G u i l l a u r n e , P. L e s d g b u t s d e l a p h r a s e d a n s l e l a n g a g e d e l ' e n f a n t . J o u r n a l d e P s y c h o l o g i e , 1 9 2 7 , -9 24 1-25.

H a k u t a , K . A c a s e s t u d y o f a J a p a n e s e c h i l d l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h a s a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , l 9 7 6 , - 2 6 , 321 -351.

H a l l i d a y , M . E x p l o r a t i o n s i q t h e f u n c t i o n o f l a n g u a g e . London: Edward A r n o l d , 1973 .

H a l l i d a y , M . L e a r n i n g how t o mean: F x p l o r a t i o n s i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of l a n g u a g e . London: Pdward A r n o l d , 1 9 7 4 .

H u e b n e r , T. O r d e r o f a c q u i s i t i o n v s . d y n a m i c p a r a d i g m : A c o m p a r i s o n o f me thod i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e r e s e a r c h . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 9 , - 7 1 3 21-28.

L a b o v , W. C o n t r a c t i o n , d e l e t i o n and v a r i a b i l i t y o f t h e E n g l i s h c o p u l a . L a n g u a g e , 1 9 6 9 , - 4 5 , 715-762.

L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D . An ESL i n d e x o f d e v e l o p m e n t . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 8 , - 1 2 , 439-448.

L e n n e b e r g , E . B i o l o g i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e . New York: W i l e y , 1967 .

L e o p o l d , W. S p e e c h d e v e l o p m e n t o f a b i l i n g u a l c h i l d ( 4 v o l s . ) . P v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s : N o r t h W e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1939-1949.

M a l i n o w s k i , B. The p r o b l e m o f m e a n i n g i n p r i m i t i v e l a n g u a g e s . I n C . Ogden and 1. P i c h a r d s (Ecis. 1, The Meaning o f Mean ing . London : F o u t l e d g e and Kegan D a u l , 1 9 2 3 , 293-336.

M a r c k w a r d t , A . E n g l i s h a s a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e and E n g l i s h a s a - f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e . I n H . A l l e n ( ~ d ; ) , T e a c h i n g F n g l i s h a s a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . N e w York: MacGraw H i l l , 1 9 6 5 .

Nemser, W . A p p r o x i m a t i v e s y s t e m s o f f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s . IPAL 1 9 7 1 , 2, 115-124.

7

O d l i n , T . V a r i a b l e r u l e s i n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f E n g l i s h c o n t r a c t i o n s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 8 , - 1 2 , 451-458. .

? o l l o c k , S. E n g l i s h p r o s o d i c s : A c o n t r a s t i v e a p p r o a c h . Modern L a n g u a g e J o u r n a l , 1 9 7 8 , - 6 2 , 410-413.

P o r t e r , J . A c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s t u d y o f morpheme a c q u i s i t i o n i n f i r s t l a n g G a g e l e a r n e r s . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1977 , 2 7 , 47-62. -

F i c h a r d s , J. E r r o r a n a l y s i s and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s . L a n g u a g e S c i e n c e s , 1 9 7 1 , c, 12-22.

P i c h a r d s , J . & Sampson, G . The s t u d y o f l e a r n e r E n g l i s h . I n J . F i c h a r d s ( E d . ) , E r r o r A n a l y s i s : D e r s p e c t i v e s i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . London: Longman, 1974.

P o n j a t , J . Le d g v e l o p p e m e n t du l a n g a g e o b s e r v g c h e z un e n f a n t b i l i n g u e . P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e A n c i e n n e H . Champion , 1 9 1 3 .

P o s a n s k y , E. M e t h o d s and morphemes i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 6 a , 26, 409-425.

F o s a n s k y , E. Morpheme s t u d i e s a n d s e c o n d l a n g u a g s a c q u i s i t i o n : A q u e s t i o n o f m e t h o d s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t 1 9 t h TESOL C o n f e r e n c e , N e w Y o r k , 1976b .

Sampson , G . A mode l f o r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . - The C a n a d i a n Modern L a n g u a g e F e v i e w , 1 9 7 8 , 34, 335-347.

S e l i n k e r , L. I n t e r l a n g u a g e . -9 19AL 1 9 7 2 , - 1 0 , 209-231.

S e l i n k e r , L . , S w a i n , M., & Dumas, G . The i n t e r l a n g u a g e h y p o t h e s i s e x t e n d e d t o c h i l d r e n . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 5 , -' 2 5 139-152.

S t e r n , C . & S t e r n , W . Die K i n d e r s p r a c h e . L e i p z i g : B a r t h , 1907 .

T a r o n e , E. A D i s c u s s i o n on t h e D u l a y and B u r t s t u d i e s . I n Work ing P a p e r s i n B i l i n g u a l i s m , 1 9 7 4 , - 4 , 57-70.

T a r o n e , E . ; F r a u e n f e l d e r , J . ; and S e l i n k e r , L. S y s t e m a t i c i t y / v a r i a b i l i t y and s t a b i l i t y / i n s t a b i l i t y i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e s y s t e m s . I n H . Brown ( E d . ) , D a p e r s i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . Ann A r b o r : U n i v e r s i t y - o f M i c h i g a n , 1 9 7 6 , 93-134.

T o u g h , J . The Deve lopment o f m e a n i n g (A s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n ' s u s e o f l a n g u a g e ) . London : A l l e n and Unwin, 1977.

V y g o t s k y , L. T h o u g h t and l a n g u a g e . C a m b r i d g e , Mass . : M.I.T. D r e s s , 1936.

Wardhaugh , P. The c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s h y p o t h e s i s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 7 0 , -1 4 123-130.

Wode, J . , B a h n s , J . , B e d e y , H . , & F r a n k , W. D e v e l o p m e n t a l s e q u e n c e : An a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o morpheme o r d e r . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 1 9 7 8 , - 2 8 , 175-185.

Z a j o n c , v. F a m i l y c o n f i g u r a t i o n and i n t e l l i g e n c e . S c i e n c e , 1976. 1 9 2 . 175-185.

Z a j o n c , F., & M a r c u s , G. B i r t h o r d e r and i n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t . * s y c h o l o g i c a l F e v i e w , 1 9 7 5 , - 8 2 , 74-88.