Descriptive statistics: quantifying the observations

The search for verb-particle constructions retrieved a total number of 226 verb-particle prime-target pairs in the L1-L1 conversations, and 187 in the L2-L2 conversations. Table 4.1 below shows the proportion of the two particle placement variants primes in L1-L1 and L2-L2 conversations.

Table 4.1: Distributional variation of particle placement across L1-L1 and L2-L2 users Targets

Corpus # Pairs # VP NP PRT (%) # VP PRT NP (%) L1-L1 226 178 (78.76%) 48 (21.24%) L2-L2 187 130 (69.52%) 57 (30.48%)

Note. L1-L1 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L1; L2-L2 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L2; # Pairs = the number of particle placement prime-target pairs; # VP NP PRT = the number of targets with a VP NP PRT sequence; # VP PRT NP = the number of targets with a VP PRT NP sequence

144

Table 4.1 shows that more VP NP PRT primes occurred in the L1-L1 conversations than in the L2-L2 conversations. The number of VP PRT NP primes, however, was higher in the L2-L2 conversations than in the L1-L1 conversations. A two-sided Fisher’s exact tested for significant differences between both sample groups in terms of the particle placement prime variants that were used in their interactions. The outcome showed significant differences in the frequency of use of either particle placement variant primes across L1-L1 and L2-L2 sample groups (pFisher exact = 0.04).

Turning now to particle placement prime-target pairs, it appears that the L1-L1 group used a matching verb-particle prime-target pair in almost 70% of the cases, and unmatched verb-particle prime-target pairs in just less than 30% of the cases. The L2- L2 group, however, showed a higher tendency of using unmatched verb-particle prime target pairs, almost 10% more than the L1-L1 group.

Table 4.2 shows below the proportion of matched and unmatched particle placement prime-target pairs. The apparent differences between L1-L1 and L2-L2 in terms of the number of matched and unmatched pairs did not translate into significance when a two-sided Fisher’s exact test was performed (pFisher exact = 0.08). Table 4.2: Proportion of matched and unmatched prime-target pairs in the L1-L1 and L2-L2 conversations

Prime-target pairs

Corpus # Pairs # Matched pairs # Unmatched pairs L1-L1 226 159 (70.35%) 67 (29.65%) L2-L2 187 116 (62.03%) 71 (37.96%)

Note. L1-L1 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L1; L2-L2 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L2; # Pairs = number of particle placement prime-target pairs; # Matched pairs = the number of primes that are immediately followed by targets that are of the same verb- particle construction variant; # Unmatched pairs = the number of primes that are immediately followed by targets that are the opposite verb-particle construction variant to the primes.

145

If we now consider particle placement targets and their primes, it seems that more VP PRT NP primes were followed by VP NP PRT targets that are the opposite sequence to the prime. Table 4.3 below shows proportions of the particle placement targets when the prime was VP PRT NP and VP NP PRT in both language groups. Again, the differences between L1-L1 and L2-L2 particle placement targets following a VP PRT NP prime did not came out significant in a two-sided Fisher’s exact test (pFisher exact = 0.41).

Table 4.3: Particle placement target proportions following exposure to a VP PRT NP prime in L1-L1 and L2-L2 conversations

Targets following VP PRT NP primes Targets following VP NP PRT primes Corpus # VP NP PRT (%) # VP PRT NP (%) # VP NP PRT (%) # VP PRT NP (%) L1-L1 33 (70.22%) 14(29.78%) 145 (81.00%) 34(19.00%) L2-L2 36 (62.05%) 22 (37.95%) 94 (72.87%) 35 (27.13%)

Note. L1-L1 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L1; L2-L2 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L2 # VP NP PRT = number of particle placement targets with the VP NP PRT sequence; # VP PRT NP = number of particle placement targets with the VP PRT NP sequence.

When the particle placement primes had the VP NP PRT sequence, the L1 and L2 participants exhibited a tendency of repeating the VP NP PRT primes rather than switching to a VP PRT NP sequence in their particle placement targets. Four out of five times the L1 participants matched the VP NP PRT prime with a VP NP PRT targets. Moreover, seven out of each ten VP NP PRT primes in the L1-L1 conversations were matched with a VP NP PRT target.

Table 4.3 also shows that the L1-L1 and L2-L2 participants are seen to favou r a VP NP PRT sequence following exposure to a VP NP PRT prime. In the L1-L1 co nversations, only one fifth of the VP NP PRT primes were followed by targets with th e VP PRT NP sequence. In the L2-L2 conversations, only one fourth of the VP NP PR T primes were followed by a VP PRT NP targets. The differences in the number and d

146

istribution of particle placement targets following a VP NP PRT prime did not reach si gnificance in a two-sided Fisher’s exact test (pFisher exact = 0.10). The particle placement prime-target pairs in the L1-L1 and L2-L2 conversations are illustrated in Figure 4.1 b elow.

Figure 4.1: Particle placement prime-target pairs in L1-L1 and L2-L2 conversations

What we can see in Figure 4.1 is a summary of the particle placement prime- target pairs in L1-L1 and L2-L2 conversations. The two alternates of the particle placement primes, i.e. VP NP PRT and VP PRT NP, are presented in the X-axis. In the Y-axis, we can see the two particle placement alternates as targets. For VP NP PRT primes, the area occupied by VP NP PRT targets along the Y-axis is larger than the one with VP PRT NP targets. For VP PRT NP primes, the area occupied along the Y-axis for VP NP PRT targets is larger than VP PRT NP targets in both L1-L1 and L2-L2 conversations. Both L1 and L2 participants, therefore, seem to have the tendency of favouring VP NP PRT targets following VP NP PRT primes, and VP NP PRT targets following VP PRT NP primes. L1-L1 participants seem to have used the VP NP PRT targets following the VP PRT NP primes slightly more than the L2-L2 participants did.

147

The conditional probability for each particle placement combination was computed to further understand the alternation between VP NP PRT and VP PRT NP (see section 3.3.1.1). These probability calculations are presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Conditional probabilities of particle placement prime-target pairs in the L1- L1 and L2-L2 conversations

Constructional choices Targets Row totals

VP NP PRT VP PRT NP

L1-L1 prime VP NP PRT .815 (145) .185 (33) 1 (178)

VP PRT NP .708 (34) .292 (14) 1 (48)

L1-L1 overall construction probability .792 .208 1 L2-L2 prime VP NP PRT .723 (94) .277 (36) 1 (130)

VP PRT NP .613 (35) .387 (22) 1 (57)

L2-L2 overall construction probability .690 .310 1

Note. L1-L1 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L1; L2-L2 = dyadic interaction between participants with English as their L2; Overall construction probability = the relative frequency of particle placement targets; VP NP PRT = the particle placement variant with a VP NP PRT sequence; VP PRT NP = the particle placement variant with a VP PRT NP sequence.

Table 4.4 shows that the conditional probability of VP NP PRT targets is almost 2.5 % higher than the baseline following VP NP PRT than following VP PRT NP primes. Moreover, the conditional probability of VP PRT NP is 8.5 % higher than the baseline following VP PRT NP than following VP NP PRT primes. For the L2-L2 conversations, the conditional probability of VP NP PRT targets is almost 3.3 % higher than the baseline after VP NP PRT than following VP PRT NP primes. Finally, the conditional probability of the VP PRT NP targets is 7.7 % higher than the baseline following VP PRT NP than following VP NP PRT primes.

148