OCCASIONAL PAPER #12 SYNTACTICIZATION of TOPIC N JAPANESE and MANDARIN STUDENTS' LISH: a TEST of RUTHERFORD's MODEL Patricia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OCCASIONAL PAPER #12 1985 SYNTACTICIZATION OF TOPIC N JAPANESE AND MANDARIN STUDENTS' LISH: A TEST OF RUTHERFORD'S MODEL Patricia Ann Duff DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AS A SECOND WGUAGE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT WOA occAsIoNAL PAPER SERIES In recent years, a number of graduate students in the Department of English as a Second Language have selected the thesis option as part of their Master of Arts degree progran. Their research has covered a wide range of areas in second language learning and teaching. Many of these studies have attracted interest from others in the fieldr and in order to make these theses more widely availabler selected titles are now published in the Occasional Paper Series. This series, a supplement to the departmental publication Workinq Papersr may also include reports of research by members of the ESL faculty. Publication of the Occasional Paper Series is underwritten by a grant from the Ruth Crymes Scholarship Fund. A list of available titles and prices may be obtained from the department and is also included in each issue of Workinq Papers. The reports published in the Occasional Paper Series have the status of n*progressreports nn, and may be published elsewhere in revised form. Occasional Faper #12 is an HA thesis by Patricia Ann Duff. Her thesis comm~ttee-members were Craig Chaudron (chair), Jean Gibsonr and Richard Schmidt. This work should be cited as follows: DUFFr Patricia Ann. 1985. Syntacticization of Topic in Japanese and Mandarin Students1 English: A Test of RutherfordnsModel. Occasional Paper #12. Honolulu: Department of English as a Second Languager mversity of Hawaii at Manoa* Rutherford (1983) drafted a two-part model to account for the syntacticization of Topic in the English of Japanese and Mandarin learners. For Japanese, he charted the acquisition of English existential constructions with out of earlier topicalized locative expressions. He characterized Mandarin learners1 development in terms of the evolution of Subjects from earlier existentials and Topic-Comment constructions. Implicit in Rutherfordls model are assumptions concerning (1) the role of transfer in second language acquisition; (2) typological distinctions between Englishr Japanese, and Mandarin based on the roles of Topic and Subject; and (3) the naturalness of the developmental shift from Topic Prominence to Subject Prominence. This theoretical background was reviewed to provide rationale for Ruther£ordl claims and motivation for the hypotheses tested in the present study. Written compositions of 105 Japanese (J) and 105 Mandarin (MI learnersI whose proficiency ranged from TOEFL 450-59gr were examined. Analysis of variance was used to determine the effect of the independent variables of first language and proficiency on the dependent, variable of syntacticization of Topic. In generalr Rutherford's model was not supported by statistically significant resultsr although the data revealed trends in the predicted direction for most measures. The study didI howeverr provide statistical support for differences between language groups in the production of passives (J > MII Subject-verb agreement (J > M) PRO-drop (14 > J) and serial verbs (M > J); proficiency did not have a significant main effect in all of these cases though. The results could be explainedI in partr by typolo- gical differences between Japanese and Mandarin. Howeverr it was noted that the research questions might be addressed more satisfactorily by conducting further studies with learners at lower levels of proficiencyI and by examining oral production dataI in addition to written data. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLE NTS .................. ii ABSTRACT ...................... iii LISTOFTABLES ................... vii LIST OF ILLUSTmTIONS ................viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............. 1 1.1 Overview .................. 1.2 Rutherford's Model ............. 1.3 The Task of Syntacticizing Topics in SLA . 1.4 Purpose of the Thesis: Statement of the Problem ........... 1.5 Significance of this Research ........ 1.6 Organization of the Thesis ......a.S 1.7 Limitations of this Work .......... CHAPTER 11- REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........ 2.1 Transfer................... hat is ~radsfer? ............ ransfer: Direct and Indirect Effects . ransfer, Natural Acquisitional Processes, nd Perceptual Operating Principles ... ransfer and Markedness ......... ransfer and Typological Parameters ... ansfer and Universal Grammar ...... mmary of Part1 ............ 2.2 Topic Prominence and Subject Prominence ... 2.2.1 A Typological Description of Tp and Sp . opic-Comment Constructions ....... nglish ................. apanese ................. andarin................. ummary of Part I1 ............ 2.3 Syntacticization of Topic .......... 2.3.1 An Integrated Perspective of Syntacticizatioi ........... 2.3.2 Syntacticization in Diachronic Studies . Syntacticization from Pidgins to Creoles . Syntacticization in Ll Acquisition .... From Syntactic to Pragmatic Mode in Different Registers ......... 2.3.6 Syntacticization in Child SLA ...... 48 2.3.7 Syntacticization in Adult SLA ...... 49 2.3.7.1 Pidginized Varieties of ESL ..... 50 2.3.7.2 Huebner's Dynamic Paradigm ..... 54 2.3.7.3 Schachter and Rutherford (1979) : A Look at J and M IL ........ 54 2.3.7.4 Rutherford's Pilot Study ....... 56 2.3.7.5 Rutherford's 14odel .......... 58 2.3.7.6 Curran (1984) ............ 63 2.3.7.7 Rutherford and Altman (1985) ..... 64 2.3.7.8 Duff (1984) ............. 65 2.3.7.9 Summary of SLA Studies ........ 70 2.3.8 Summary of chapter I1 .......... 71 CHAPTER111. THE STUDY ............... 72 3.1 Purpose ................... 72 3.2 Research Questions ............. 72 3.3 Hypotheses .................. 72 3.4 Methodology ................. 74 3.4.1 A Critique of Methods in Previous Studies 7 4 3.4.2 Sampling of Subjects ........... 77 3.4.3 Task .................. 78 3.4.4 Design .................. 79 3.4.5 Measures ................. 80 3.4.6 Coding ................. 83 3.4.7 Analysis ................. 85 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ................ 87 4.1 Hypothesis (1) ............... 87 4.2 Hypothesis (2) ............... 87 4.3 ~ypothesis(3) ............... 89 4.4 Hypothesis (4) ............... 89 4.5 Hypothesis (5) ............... 89 4.6 Hypothesis (6) ............... 89 4.7 Hypothesis (7) ............... 90 4.8 Hypothesis (8) ................ 91 4.9 Hypothesis (9) ............... 91 4.10 Hypothesis (10) ............... 91 4.10.1 Locatives ............... 91 4.10.2 I£/Whe Clauses ............. 94 4.10.3 Dumy Subjects ............. 95 4.10.4 Passives ................ 96 4.10.5 TCs and Existentials .......... 99 4.10.6 Subject-Verb Agreement ......... 104 4.10.7 .PR0 -Drop and Serial Verbs ........ 111 4.11 Summary of Results ............. 114 ISCUSSION a.............. 118 5.1 Introduction ................. 118 5.2 Production of TCs .............. 119 5.3 Production of TCs with PP-NP-VP ....... 121 5.4 Production of Preposed Clauses ...... 123 5*5 Production of Dummy Subjects ........ 125 5.6 Production of Passives ........... 128 5.7 Production of Locatives ........... 130 5.8 Production Reflecting Syntacticization ofTopic .................. 131 5.9 Production of PRO-Drop ............ 132 5.10 Summary of Chapter V ............ 135 CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSION ............... 136 6.1 Introduction ................ 136 6.2 Answers to Research Questions ........ 136 6.3 Limitations of the Study ........... 138 6.4 Directions for Future Research ........ 139 6.5 Pedagogical Implications ............ 141 ....................... 143 Inter-Rater Reliability Testing .... 146 ~abliA: Summary of Frequencies for All Dependent Measures ......... 159 APPENDIX C Excerpts from Compositions ....... 175 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................... 186 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Rutherford's Model of Mandarin Development . 59 2.2 Rutherford's Model of Japanese Development . 61 3.1 Subjects .... .......... 77 3.2 Means of TOEFL sc s by Group ........ 77 3.3 Mean Length of Residence (in Months) by Group . 78 3.4 Inter-Rater Reliability ........... 84 4.1 ANOVA of Passives .............. 90 4.2 Tukey's Test of Passive Production . Japanese Group ...... .......... 98 4.3 Tukey's Test of Passive Production Mandarin Group ................. 99 4.4 ANOVA of Total Scores 7a to 7f ........ 103 4.5 Results of ANOVAs for Measures 7a to 7' .... 103 4.6 ANOVA of Lack of Agreement (AGR 3) ...... 105 4.7 ANOVA of Rate of Subject-Verb Agreement (AGR 1) 109 4.8 ANOVA of Rate of Lack of Subject-Verb Agreement (AGR3) .................... Ill 4.9 ANOVA of PRO-Drop .............. 113 4.10 ANOVA of Total Serial Verbs ......... 114 4.11 Summary of Results .............. 116 A. Summary of Frequency Statistics for all Dependent Measures .............. 159 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 2.1 Topic/Subject Prominence: Li and Thompson's (1976) Typology ...... 2 5 4.1 Summary of Ll Group Comparisons in Hypotheses (1) to (9) ............. 4.2 Means of Locative Scores ........... 4.3 Means of wm Scores ............ 4.4 Means of Extraposition and Dummy Subject Scores ............. 4.5 Means of Passive Scores ........... 4.6 Mean Scores of Existentials with and Related Structures (TC 7s) ........ 4.7 Predicted Developmental Pattern for Syntacticization of Topic Based on Rutherford's Model ......... 4.8 Means of Subject. -Verb Agreement Scores .... 4.9 Means of (AGR 3) Subject-Verb Agreement Scores 4.10 Means of Percentage Subject-Verb Agreement (by Proficiency Level) ............ 4.11 Means of Percentage Subject-Verb Agreement (by Ll) ..............-.... 4.12