论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】This study investigates the extent to which Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Hypothesis (NPAH) can be used to explain L2 learners’ acquisition of relative clauses (RC). Error analysis is applied to analyze the data collected from the production of relative clauses by a L2 learner. The results confirm the prediction of NPAH. Thus, Practitioners should be aware that learners will experience different stages of RC acquisition; instruction and corrective feedback should be given according to the developmental sequence of acquisition.
【Key words】Relative clauses; Error analysis; Interlanguage
【中图分类号】G623.31【文献标识码】B【文章编号】1001-4128（2011）04-0068-03
1Literature Review
Interlanguage is the term coined by Selinker to refer to learner’s developing second language knowledge that differs from both the target language and learner’s L1. Selinker states that interlanguage is systematic and dynamic, continually developing as learners receive more input and revise their assumptions about how the L2 works [1]. It has been found that L2 learners from different first language backgrounds pass through similar developmental sequences during the process of acquiring the target language. One aspect of interlanguage developmental sequences that has been investigated is grammatical morphemes, such as negation, questions, relative clauses, reference to past and future expression. Studies have showed that there is an accuracy order of morpheme acquisition, which is similar among L2 learners from different first language backgrounds [2] [3]. For example, Kranshen summarized the order as follows: -ing, plural, copula > auxiliary, article > irregular past > regular past, third person singular, possessive. This accuracy order can be interpreted that L2 learners can produce the morphemes at positions on the left hand side with higher accuracy than those at positions on the right hand side [2]. Thus, learners’ L2 competence can be reflected by investigating their different developmental stages of morpheme acquisition.
Learners’ developmental stages can be figured out by analyzing the errors of producing morphemes. Errors are deviations in usage as a result of lack of language knowledge, representing a lack of language competence, whereas mistakes are performance phenomena, which can be recognized and corrected by learners [4]. Corder asserts that L2 errors are systematic and can provide evidence of learners’ current understanding of L2 knowledge. Errors can be subdivided into transfer/interlingual errors, intralingual errors and unique errors [5]. Error analysis, as an approach to linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors made by second language learners, was proposed by Corder to complement the weakness of contrastive analysis which ascribes all the errors to L1 transfer [4]. Error analysis can be applied to investigate learners’ developmental stages of morpheme acquisition. One grammatical morpheme that receives considerable attention from researchers is the relative clause. According to Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarcy Hypothesis proposed by Keenan and Comrie , there is a hierarchy for learners to acquire relative clauses from most accessible for relativization to least accessible, which can be illustrated like this: subject (SU) > direct object (DO) > indirect object (IO) > object of preposition (OPREP) > genitive (GEN) > object of comparison (OCOMP) [3]. The hypothesis claims that those languages that can form the relative clause at the bottom of the hierarchy can also form relative clauses that precede it, but the converse is not true. Gass found that if a second language learner can produce relative clauses at lower positions in the hierarchy, he or she is probably able to produce relative clauses at higher positions in the hierarchy [6]. Studies also showed that subject relative clauses are easier to understand and produce than direct object relatives for learners of English as a second language [7] [8] [9]. That is to say, learners might have a preference of subject relatives over direct object relatives.
Based on the review of previous literature, the stages of learners’ developing L2 competence can be figured out by analyzing errors in producing some specific grammatical morphemes. The present study aims to investigate one aspect of L2 learners’ morpheme acquisition, that is, relative clauses. The specific research question addressed is: To what extent can Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Hypothesis be used to explain L2 learners’ acquisition of relative clauses?
2Method
This study employed three elicitation tasks to elicit the errors made by a L2 learner when he produced relative clauses. The participant was required to write three pieces of 250 word essays. In order to elicit more relative clauses, each essay should be composed of no more than 12 sentences, and complex sentences were highly recommended. The first task required the participant to describe a familiar person from the following aspects, including appearance, personality, hobbies, activities, and relationship to you. The second task was to give a recount of a special travelling experience. The participant could write about where he or she went, how he or she got there, what he or she did during the trip and how he or she felt about it. The third task was to write a review of a film. The participant was required to introduce the background knowledge, summarize the story, and comment on the film. The three writing tasks were designed to cover different topics and genres so as to elicit the common errors.
The participant involved in the study is a 26-year-old male learner of English as a second language. His first language is Chinese, and he has learned English for approximately 10 years. Working in a foreign trade company in China, he has lots of exposure to business English, such as business documents, e-mails and negotiations. In order to improve his oral and written English, he has been enrolled in an EBP programme conducted by a local education institute. As an intermediate English learner, the participant is suitable for the present study of relative clauses, because unlike other grammatical morphemes, such as negation and question, relative clauses are more difficult to acquire and only intermediate and advanced learners are able to produce them.
The three tasks were conducted respectively on three days, and the participant spent approximately 30 minutes on each task. Data have been categorized and analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Findings have been displayed in tables in what follows.
3Results
Table 1. presents the frequencies of different relative clause types occurring in the data. Shown in the upper row of the table are categories of relative clause that were employed by the participant in the writing tasks. The lower row of the table presents how many times a specific relative clause type occurred in the data. The rightmost column shows the total times that relative clauses were used in the data. Figure 1. displays the frequencies graphically.
Table 1. Frequencies of different RC types
Relative clause typeSUDOOPREPGENTotal
Frequency1726328
It can be seen from Table 1. that with regard to RC types, the highest frequency was obtained by SU, followed by OPREP, GEN, and then DO. It is obvious that the participant had a preference of SU over other RC types, and it is interesting to observe that the frequency of DO is lower than that of OPREP and GEN.
Table 2. shows the accuracy of different RC types that were employed in the data. The middle column indicates the times of using RC correctly and the relevant percentages; and the rightmost column presents the number of errors and the relevant percentages.
Table 2. Comparison of the accuracy of different RC types
Relative clause typeCorrectErrors
SU16 (94%)1 (6%)
DO2 (100%)0 (0.00%)
OPREP1 (17%)5 (83%)
GEN0 (0.00%)3 (100%)
It is evident in Table 2. that the highest accuracy was obtained by SU (94%) and DO (100%), followed by OPREP (17%) and GEN (0.00%), which is mainly in the order predicted by the NPAH. It is found that when producing OPREP relative clauses, the participant tended to omit the prepositions that should have been placed in front of the relative pronouns or after the verbs. The tendency to omit the prepositions can be figured out from the following examples extracted from the data:
Example 1.
The guides took us to the hotel which many foreigners live (in).
Example 2.
The first place that we went (to) when travelling to Beijing was the Tian'an Men Square…
Example 3.
…the topics that he is talking (about) are also Warcraft.
The words in brackets are the prepositions that were omitted in the original sentences. Among the 6 OPREP relative clauses, there are 5 relative clauses in which the prepositions are omitted.
Another interesting phenomena is that in the data all the GEN relative clauses started with the pronoun “that”, followed by possessive pronouns, like his, their. Examples are given as follows:
Example 4.
He admires the players that their game skills and game equipments are better than his…
Example 5.
…she was followed by a bad guy that his name was Muska.
Example 6.
…she met Pazu, a young brave boy that his dream was find Laputa by himself.
4Discussion
Based on the above results, the accuracy of different RC types that were employed in the data partially supported the prediction of the NPAH, in that SU and DO obtained higher accuracy, respectively 94% and 100%, than did OPREP (17%) and GEN (0.00%), but the prediction regarding the order of SU and DO was not supported, which was probably due to the low frequency of DO occurring in the data. Considering that SU occurred 17 times in contrast to 2 times of DO in the data, it is reasonable that the accuracy of DO is statistically slightly higher than that of SU. On the other hand, the NPAH also found some support from the comparison of the frequencies of different CR types, in that the highest frequency was obtained by SU, followed by OPREP, GEN, and then DO. It can be seen that the participant tended to produce more SU relative clauses with higher accuracy than OPREP and GEN with lower accuracy. However, one of interesting findings is that the frequency of DO is remarkably lower than that of SU, even lower than OPREP and GEN. It seems that the participant had a strong preference for SU relative clauses over DO relative clauses. This result confirmed the finding that SU relative clauses are easier to understand and produce than DO relatives for learners of English as a second language [7] [8] [9]. This finding is not contradictory to the NPAH; instead, it plays a complementary role which can be used to explain the participant’s avoidance of DO relative clauses in his writing.
The above results indicate that the participant encountered great difficulty in producing OPREP relative clauses. It can be seen from the data that the omission of the prepositions leaded to a number of errors in producing OPREP relative clauses (see example1, 2, 3). According to the error analysis, these errors should be classified as intralingual errors which can be attributed to the incomplete application of rules. The high accuracy of SU and DO shows that the participant has acquired part of the basic rules on how to construct relative clauses, such as the choice and the placement of relative pronouns, but he still failed to be aware of the role of the prepositions in OPREP relative clauses. One of the possible explanations might be that the participant has learnt that a preposition should be placed before a substantive to indicate the relation of that substantive and the preceding word, so he has no awareness of adding prepositions at the end of OPREP relative clauses. This type of errors can be seen as errors of transitional competence, which can be developed in the process of learning the target language.
The results also shows that the participant who could not produce OPREP relative clauses correctly was unable use GEN clauses as well, which is consistent with the prediction of the NPAH. It has been found that the participant started all the GEN relative clauses with the relative pronoun “that”, followed by the possessive pronouns, like his, their (see example 4, 5, 6). This kind of errors can be categorized as intralingual errors which are due to the overgeneralization of the target language structures. The participant might make a wrong assumption that the word “that” can be used as a relative pronoun in all kinds of relative clauses, and thus he created a deviant structure for the GEN relative clauses on the basis of the structures of SU, OB and OPREP clauses.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that a large number of the errors that the participant produced are intralingual, which can reflect the developmental sequences of the relative clause acquisition. Thus, to a great extent, the NPAH can be used to explain L2 learners’ acquisition of relative clauses. According to the NPAH, practitioners should be aware of the different stages of acquisition. Early instruction in late-acquired forms is worthless. In the participant’s case, it is clear that he has not passed through the stage of OPREP, so it is impossible to acquire GEN forms before he acquires OPREP forms. Explicit instruction and corrective feedback for OPREP relative clauses need to be given to help the participant overcome the obstacles. Since errors are indicative of learners’ interlanguage, practitioners can figure out which stage the learner is in by analyzing the errors, and give instruction which is suitable for the learner at that stage.
5Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the data obtained from different elicitation tasks, this study, to a great extent, confirmed the prediction of the NPAH. Practitioners should be aware that learners will experience different stages of RC acquisition, so instruction and corrective feedback should be given according to the developmental sequence of acquisition.
References
[1]Selinker, L. Interlanguage. [J] International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1972, 10: 209-231.
[2]Krashen, S. Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. [A] H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.). On TESOL ’77. [C] Washington, DC: TESOL, 1977:144-158.
[3] K eenan, E., & Comrie, B. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar.[J] Linguistic Inquiry, 1977, 8: 63-69.
[4]Corder, S. P. The significance of learners’ errors. [J] International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967, 5: 161-169.
[5]Ellis, R. The study of second language acquisition. [M] Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994: 21-62.
[6]Gass, S. From theory to practice. [A] M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.). On TESOL ’81. [C] Wanshington, DC: TESOL, 1982: 129-139.
[7]Choo, M., Lee, M., & O’Grady, W. A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. [J] Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003, 25: 433-448.
[8]Doughty, C. Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence form an empirical study of SL: relativization. [J] Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1991, 13: 431-469.
[9]Hamilton, R. Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. [J] Language Learning, 1994, 44: 123-157.
注：本文中所涉及到的图表、注解、公式等内容请以PDF格式阅读原文
【Key words】Relative clauses; Error analysis; Interlanguage
【中图分类号】G623.31【文献标识码】B【文章编号】1001-4128（2011）04-0068-03
1Literature Review
Interlanguage is the term coined by Selinker to refer to learner’s developing second language knowledge that differs from both the target language and learner’s L1. Selinker states that interlanguage is systematic and dynamic, continually developing as learners receive more input and revise their assumptions about how the L2 works [1]. It has been found that L2 learners from different first language backgrounds pass through similar developmental sequences during the process of acquiring the target language. One aspect of interlanguage developmental sequences that has been investigated is grammatical morphemes, such as negation, questions, relative clauses, reference to past and future expression. Studies have showed that there is an accuracy order of morpheme acquisition, which is similar among L2 learners from different first language backgrounds [2] [3]. For example, Kranshen summarized the order as follows: -ing, plural, copula > auxiliary, article > irregular past > regular past, third person singular, possessive. This accuracy order can be interpreted that L2 learners can produce the morphemes at positions on the left hand side with higher accuracy than those at positions on the right hand side [2]. Thus, learners’ L2 competence can be reflected by investigating their different developmental stages of morpheme acquisition.
Learners’ developmental stages can be figured out by analyzing the errors of producing morphemes. Errors are deviations in usage as a result of lack of language knowledge, representing a lack of language competence, whereas mistakes are performance phenomena, which can be recognized and corrected by learners [4]. Corder asserts that L2 errors are systematic and can provide evidence of learners’ current understanding of L2 knowledge. Errors can be subdivided into transfer/interlingual errors, intralingual errors and unique errors [5]. Error analysis, as an approach to linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors made by second language learners, was proposed by Corder to complement the weakness of contrastive analysis which ascribes all the errors to L1 transfer [4]. Error analysis can be applied to investigate learners’ developmental stages of morpheme acquisition. One grammatical morpheme that receives considerable attention from researchers is the relative clause. According to Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarcy Hypothesis proposed by Keenan and Comrie , there is a hierarchy for learners to acquire relative clauses from most accessible for relativization to least accessible, which can be illustrated like this: subject (SU) > direct object (DO) > indirect object (IO) > object of preposition (OPREP) > genitive (GEN) > object of comparison (OCOMP) [3]. The hypothesis claims that those languages that can form the relative clause at the bottom of the hierarchy can also form relative clauses that precede it, but the converse is not true. Gass found that if a second language learner can produce relative clauses at lower positions in the hierarchy, he or she is probably able to produce relative clauses at higher positions in the hierarchy [6]. Studies also showed that subject relative clauses are easier to understand and produce than direct object relatives for learners of English as a second language [7] [8] [9]. That is to say, learners might have a preference of subject relatives over direct object relatives.
Based on the review of previous literature, the stages of learners’ developing L2 competence can be figured out by analyzing errors in producing some specific grammatical morphemes. The present study aims to investigate one aspect of L2 learners’ morpheme acquisition, that is, relative clauses. The specific research question addressed is: To what extent can Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Hypothesis be used to explain L2 learners’ acquisition of relative clauses?
2Method
This study employed three elicitation tasks to elicit the errors made by a L2 learner when he produced relative clauses. The participant was required to write three pieces of 250 word essays. In order to elicit more relative clauses, each essay should be composed of no more than 12 sentences, and complex sentences were highly recommended. The first task required the participant to describe a familiar person from the following aspects, including appearance, personality, hobbies, activities, and relationship to you. The second task was to give a recount of a special travelling experience. The participant could write about where he or she went, how he or she got there, what he or she did during the trip and how he or she felt about it. The third task was to write a review of a film. The participant was required to introduce the background knowledge, summarize the story, and comment on the film. The three writing tasks were designed to cover different topics and genres so as to elicit the common errors.
The participant involved in the study is a 26-year-old male learner of English as a second language. His first language is Chinese, and he has learned English for approximately 10 years. Working in a foreign trade company in China, he has lots of exposure to business English, such as business documents, e-mails and negotiations. In order to improve his oral and written English, he has been enrolled in an EBP programme conducted by a local education institute. As an intermediate English learner, the participant is suitable for the present study of relative clauses, because unlike other grammatical morphemes, such as negation and question, relative clauses are more difficult to acquire and only intermediate and advanced learners are able to produce them.
The three tasks were conducted respectively on three days, and the participant spent approximately 30 minutes on each task. Data have been categorized and analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Findings have been displayed in tables in what follows.
3Results
Table 1. presents the frequencies of different relative clause types occurring in the data. Shown in the upper row of the table are categories of relative clause that were employed by the participant in the writing tasks. The lower row of the table presents how many times a specific relative clause type occurred in the data. The rightmost column shows the total times that relative clauses were used in the data. Figure 1. displays the frequencies graphically.
Table 1. Frequencies of different RC types
Relative clause typeSUDOOPREPGENTotal
Frequency1726328
It can be seen from Table 1. that with regard to RC types, the highest frequency was obtained by SU, followed by OPREP, GEN, and then DO. It is obvious that the participant had a preference of SU over other RC types, and it is interesting to observe that the frequency of DO is lower than that of OPREP and GEN.
Table 2. shows the accuracy of different RC types that were employed in the data. The middle column indicates the times of using RC correctly and the relevant percentages; and the rightmost column presents the number of errors and the relevant percentages.
Table 2. Comparison of the accuracy of different RC types
Relative clause typeCorrectErrors
SU16 (94%)1 (6%)
DO2 (100%)0 (0.00%)
OPREP1 (17%)5 (83%)
GEN0 (0.00%)3 (100%)
It is evident in Table 2. that the highest accuracy was obtained by SU (94%) and DO (100%), followed by OPREP (17%) and GEN (0.00%), which is mainly in the order predicted by the NPAH. It is found that when producing OPREP relative clauses, the participant tended to omit the prepositions that should have been placed in front of the relative pronouns or after the verbs. The tendency to omit the prepositions can be figured out from the following examples extracted from the data:
Example 1.
The guides took us to the hotel which many foreigners live (in).
Example 2.
The first place that we went (to) when travelling to Beijing was the Tian'an Men Square…
Example 3.
…the topics that he is talking (about) are also Warcraft.
The words in brackets are the prepositions that were omitted in the original sentences. Among the 6 OPREP relative clauses, there are 5 relative clauses in which the prepositions are omitted.
Another interesting phenomena is that in the data all the GEN relative clauses started with the pronoun “that”, followed by possessive pronouns, like his, their. Examples are given as follows:
Example 4.
He admires the players that their game skills and game equipments are better than his…
Example 5.
…she was followed by a bad guy that his name was Muska.
Example 6.
…she met Pazu, a young brave boy that his dream was find Laputa by himself.
4Discussion
Based on the above results, the accuracy of different RC types that were employed in the data partially supported the prediction of the NPAH, in that SU and DO obtained higher accuracy, respectively 94% and 100%, than did OPREP (17%) and GEN (0.00%), but the prediction regarding the order of SU and DO was not supported, which was probably due to the low frequency of DO occurring in the data. Considering that SU occurred 17 times in contrast to 2 times of DO in the data, it is reasonable that the accuracy of DO is statistically slightly higher than that of SU. On the other hand, the NPAH also found some support from the comparison of the frequencies of different CR types, in that the highest frequency was obtained by SU, followed by OPREP, GEN, and then DO. It can be seen that the participant tended to produce more SU relative clauses with higher accuracy than OPREP and GEN with lower accuracy. However, one of interesting findings is that the frequency of DO is remarkably lower than that of SU, even lower than OPREP and GEN. It seems that the participant had a strong preference for SU relative clauses over DO relative clauses. This result confirmed the finding that SU relative clauses are easier to understand and produce than DO relatives for learners of English as a second language [7] [8] [9]. This finding is not contradictory to the NPAH; instead, it plays a complementary role which can be used to explain the participant’s avoidance of DO relative clauses in his writing.
The above results indicate that the participant encountered great difficulty in producing OPREP relative clauses. It can be seen from the data that the omission of the prepositions leaded to a number of errors in producing OPREP relative clauses (see example1, 2, 3). According to the error analysis, these errors should be classified as intralingual errors which can be attributed to the incomplete application of rules. The high accuracy of SU and DO shows that the participant has acquired part of the basic rules on how to construct relative clauses, such as the choice and the placement of relative pronouns, but he still failed to be aware of the role of the prepositions in OPREP relative clauses. One of the possible explanations might be that the participant has learnt that a preposition should be placed before a substantive to indicate the relation of that substantive and the preceding word, so he has no awareness of adding prepositions at the end of OPREP relative clauses. This type of errors can be seen as errors of transitional competence, which can be developed in the process of learning the target language.
The results also shows that the participant who could not produce OPREP relative clauses correctly was unable use GEN clauses as well, which is consistent with the prediction of the NPAH. It has been found that the participant started all the GEN relative clauses with the relative pronoun “that”, followed by the possessive pronouns, like his, their (see example 4, 5, 6). This kind of errors can be categorized as intralingual errors which are due to the overgeneralization of the target language structures. The participant might make a wrong assumption that the word “that” can be used as a relative pronoun in all kinds of relative clauses, and thus he created a deviant structure for the GEN relative clauses on the basis of the structures of SU, OB and OPREP clauses.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that a large number of the errors that the participant produced are intralingual, which can reflect the developmental sequences of the relative clause acquisition. Thus, to a great extent, the NPAH can be used to explain L2 learners’ acquisition of relative clauses. According to the NPAH, practitioners should be aware of the different stages of acquisition. Early instruction in late-acquired forms is worthless. In the participant’s case, it is clear that he has not passed through the stage of OPREP, so it is impossible to acquire GEN forms before he acquires OPREP forms. Explicit instruction and corrective feedback for OPREP relative clauses need to be given to help the participant overcome the obstacles. Since errors are indicative of learners’ interlanguage, practitioners can figure out which stage the learner is in by analyzing the errors, and give instruction which is suitable for the learner at that stage.
5Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the data obtained from different elicitation tasks, this study, to a great extent, confirmed the prediction of the NPAH. Practitioners should be aware that learners will experience different stages of RC acquisition, so instruction and corrective feedback should be given according to the developmental sequence of acquisition.
References
[1]Selinker, L. Interlanguage. [J] International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1972, 10: 209-231.
[2]Krashen, S. Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. [A] H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.). On TESOL ’77. [C] Washington, DC: TESOL, 1977:144-158.
[3] K eenan, E., & Comrie, B. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar.[J] Linguistic Inquiry, 1977, 8: 63-69.
[4]Corder, S. P. The significance of learners’ errors. [J] International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967, 5: 161-169.
[5]Ellis, R. The study of second language acquisition. [M] Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994: 21-62.
[6]Gass, S. From theory to practice. [A] M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.). On TESOL ’81. [C] Wanshington, DC: TESOL, 1982: 129-139.
[7]Choo, M., Lee, M., & O’Grady, W. A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. [J] Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2003, 25: 433-448.
[8]Doughty, C. Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence form an empirical study of SL: relativization. [J] Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1991, 13: 431-469.
[9]Hamilton, R. Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. [J] Language Learning, 1994, 44: 123-157.
注：本文中所涉及到的图表、注解、公式等内容请以PDF格式阅读原文