The types of morphosyntactic errors are presented in Table 18.
Table 18: Types of morphosyntactic errors
Morphosyntactic Error Examples
1. Errors in pronouns ‘them lost it’, ‘Ø fell down’
2. Verb auxiliaries ‘they running from him’, ‘they was running’
3. Determiners ‘Ø dog run fast’
4. Noun Plurals ‘he found some frog’
5. Verb tense ‘he falled down’
6. Number marking ‘he have an angry face’
7. Prepositional errors ‘he is inside the lake’
Ø represents omission
117
Table 19 supports our hypothesis by showing that the EFL group do indeed demonstrate a significantly higher frequency of morphological errors than the NL Group (p = .015) and the monolingual data (p = .001). Although the NL group data show a slightly higher proportion of errors compared to the monolingual data, this result is not significant (p = .070).
Table 19: Mean frequency of morphosyntactic errors, age, and language provision Mean Frequency of Morphosyntactic Errors and Age
Age EFL Group
(N=12)
NL Group (N=14)
Monolingual Data (N=30)
4 0.49 0.17 0.09
5 7
- 0.17
- 0.09
0.07 -
8 0.29 0.07 -
9 0.20 0.05 0.03
10 - 0.05 -
11 - 0.03 -
12 0.22 0.03 -
Mean Frequency: 0.27 0.07 0.06
Figure 14 presents us with a clear pattern that the EFL group produced a higher frequency of morphosyntactic errors than both the NL group and the monolingual data, across all ages. We can also see that for the NL group and the monolingual data, the frequency of morphosyntactic errors gradually declines with age, unlike values for the EFL group, which, after a steep decline, appear to increase again at age 8.
118
Figure 14: Frequency of morphosyntactic errors, age, and language provision
Having proved the hypothesis that the EFL group demonstrate a higher frequency of morphosyntactic errors than the NL group, we will consider the types of morphosyntactic errors produced by both groups. Figure 15 presents a clear picture that the difference in morphosyntactic error frequency between the two language provision groups can be attributed to three significant error types: pronouns (p = .011), prepositions (p = .006), and verb tense (p = .002). Furthermore, when we compare the language provision groups to the monolingual data, we can see that pronoun and preposition errors were only produced by the bilingual groups, meaning that these errors may be due to influence from Spanish and Catalan as opposed to the other categories where errors are present in the monolingual data, and therefore may be representative of L1 development.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12
EFL Group NL Group Monolingual Data
119 Figure 15: Frequency of morphosyntactic error types
For analysis, I will focus on the categories of pronoun, preposition and verb tense since these categories present the greatest variance between the language provision groups.
With regard to pronoun errors, the data for the EFL Group and the NL Group both provided examples of the use of incorrect pronouns, for example:
(9) And then the boy, them takes a frog [EFLi-8]
(And then the boy, he takes a frog)
(10) And the boy and the dog them go into the forest [NLg-4]
(And the boy and the dog they go into the forest)
However, the EFL group provided a considerably higher quantity of pronoun omissions. The NL group produced no errors of this type. For example:
(11) Ø Is seeing the frog and is seeing the dog [EFLb-7]
(He is seeing the frog and is seeing the dog)
(12) Ø is in the bed and is sleeping [EFLg-4]
(He is in the bed and is sleeping)
As previously discussed in the literature review, a way in which the languages of the study differ typologically is in their production of pronouns. English, a non-pro-drop
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Pronoun Determiner Noun Plural Verb Tense Number Marking Preposition EFL Group NL Group Monolingual Data
120
language, requires the use of a subject. Pro-drop languages on the other hand, such as Catalan and Spanish, do not, and can have null subjects. Since all pronoun errors produced by the NL group were examples of incorrect pronouns and not omissions, this may indicate that this transfer is only relevant for the participants that learn an L1 as an L2. Crucially, since this type of error did not occur within the monolingual data, it would appear that this may be an example of transfer. Filipović and Hawkins (2013) confirm that Spanish pro-dropping is often transferred into early L2 English as the structure is simpler and increases processing efficiency while not significantly impeding communication because the message can still get through. However, what is interesting is that the data in this study show transfer from the L2 to the L1, and not from the L1 to the L2.
Prepositions was another morphosyntactic category where errors were only present amongst the bilingual groups, suggesting an effect of bilingual transfer and not L1 development. However, the EFL group were much more likely to make preposition errors than the NL group. Examples 13 and 14 represent some of the preposition errors that were present in the EFL group data.
(13) The reindeer throws the boy and the dog on the lake [EFLd-9]
(The reindeer throws the boy and the dog in the lake)
(14) They look for the window [EFLi-7]
(They look through the window)
Prepositions are a very common area of transfer that has been documented in Catalan and Spanish speakers acquiring English as a second language, since the same Catalan / Spanish preposition can be used for different meanings, whereas those different meanings would be represented by more than one preposition in English. For example, the English prepositions in and on are both represented in Spanish by en, and the Spanish preposition por can mean for, by and through. Thus, a Spanish speaker acquiring English might mix up the use of the corresponding English prepositions because they are not differentiated in Spanish. Interestingly, despite the fact that this type of transfer is usually observed in a speaker’s L2, examples 13 and 14 demonstrate transfer from the L2 to the L1.
121
We can see that the largest frequency of errors occurred in the category of verb tense.
As mentioned in the methodology, when the participants were introduced to the narration task, they were encouraged to narrate in the past tense, however Figure 16, which shows us the anchor tenses used by each group, suggests that the EFL group may not be as proficient in the use of the past tense as the NL group, with many of the participants starting the narration in the past tense, but switching to the present tense, and back, throughout the narrations.
Figure 16: Anchor tense percentages and language provision
When investigating what triggers the switch from past tense to present tense, it was evident that the EFL group participants often switched from the past tense to the present tense when faced with a verb that is irregular in the past tense, for example:
(15) They wanted to bite the dog, so the dog, err, runs away [EFLb-7]
(They wanted to bite the dog, so the dog, err, ran away)
(16) The boy shouted to the frog and the dog jumped, he falls [EFLk-7]
(The boy shouted to the frog and the dog jumped, he fell)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Past Present Mixed
EFL Group NL Group
122
On further analysis of the verb tense errors, we also discovered that the majority of these errors consisted of irregular past tense errors in the form of over-regularisation, for example:
(17) He throwed him in a lake [EFLi-7]
(He threw him in the lake)
(18) The deer catched the kid [EFLf-12]
(The deer caught the kid)
The above data suggest that the EFL group had specific difficulties forming correct irregular past tense verbs. Table 20 presents the data for over-regularisation errors.
Across all three groups of data, younger participants were much more likely to over-regularise, and over-regularisation appears to gradually decrease with age, a pattern previously observed in the literature (Marcus et al., 1992), and demonstrated in Figure 17. However, the EFL Group provided a consistently and significantly higher percentage of over-regularisation errors in comparison with the NL Group (p = .008) and the monolingual data (p = .001).
Table 20: Percentage of over-regularisation errors, age, and language provision EFL Group
123
Figure 17: Percentage of over-regularisation errors, age, and language provision
We have observed that both language provision and age affect the percentage of over-regularisation errors in the data, however we can also see a relationship between the percentage of over-regularisation errors and the age of immigration. Table 21 and Figure 18 show us that, for both groups, those participants who immigrated before the age of 5 were much more likely to over-regularise than those participants who immigrated from the age of 5. However, this finding was only significant for the EFL group (p = .050).
Table 21: Over-regularisation errors, age of immigration, and language provision EFL Group
124
Figure 18: Percentage of over-regularisation errors, age of immigration, and language provision
Another observation that can be made from the EFL group data is that all children who immigrated before the age of 5 demonstrated irregular past tense verbs that they were able to use correctly, and those which they were not able to use correctly. For example, participant EFLl-7 used “falled” throughout his entire narration, and never formed the verb correctly in the past tense. Participant EFLh-4 consistently produced the over-regularised “falled” and “runned”, but was able to consistently produce the correct form
“threw”. In contrast, the use of over-regularisation amongst the participants who immigrated from the age of 5 occurred for verbs that the participants also used correctly within the same narration, for example, participant EFLe-9 used both “breaked” and
“broke”, and participant EFLc-8 produced both “falled” and “fell”. This difference in over-regularisation errors could be attributed to a variety of factors. Firstly, we might consider the difference between incomplete acquisition and language attrition. With regard to the participants who immigrated before the age of 5, we might consider that some irregular verb forms have not yet been acquired and stored in the mental lexicon, resulting in some irregular verbs being formed incorrectly and some being over-regularised. With regard to the participants who immigrated from the age of 5, we might consider that learning an L1 as an L2 has resulted in the attrition of certain irregular forms, leading to momentary difficulties in retrieval. However, the use of both the correct form and the over-regularised form has been documented in the literature as part of L1 development presenting a ‘competition phase’ between the two terms before the stabilisation of one of them. This is supported by the fact that the participants from the NL group and the monolingual data who over-regularised also demonstrated an alternation between correct and incorrect forms for the same verb.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Under 5 5+
EFL Group NL Group
125 4.4.2 Summary
To investigate the effects of learning an L1 as an L2 on grammatical production, we examined the domain of morphosyntax, or more specifically, the Frequency of Morphosyntactic Errors, with a hypothesis that predicted the EFL group participants to demonstrate a higher frequency of morphosyntactic errors than the NL Group. The data seemed to support our hypothesis, given that the NL group participants provided narratives with a much lower frequency of morphological errors, across all age-groups (although, it is important to consider that some age-groups contain very few participants, which may affect the reliability of the data). For the NL group and the monolingual group, we can also observe a steady decline in the frequency of morphological errors with increased age. However, the EFL group shows an increase in errors at age 8. The data also revealed three morphological errors types which occurred at a significantly higher frequency amongst the EFL group. The EFL group demonstrated a higher frequency of pronoun errors (in particular, pronoun omissions), prepositions errors, and verb tense errors. The data suggest that the EFL group had difficulties using irregular past tense verbs, often over-regularising, and that these errors occurred most frequently amongst children who immigrated before the age of 5 (although this finding was only significant for the EFL group).
4.5 Lexicalisation Patterns
As previously discussed in chapter II, in the lexicalisation pattern typology identified by Talmy (1985, 1991, 2000) and used by Slobin (1991, 1996, 1997, 2004), languages are classified as satellite-framed or verb-framed. These classifications correlate with particular elements of rhetorical style, such as the tendency to express complex motion in single vs. multiple clausal segments and to present descriptions of dynamic vs. static scenes (Slobin, 1997; 2004). Unlike the previous sections relating to the lexicon and morphosyntax, lexicalisation patterns are not related to a speaker producing correct or incorrect language, but with the speaker preference with regard to the characteristics associated with the language being spoken. For example, the use of Manner verbs is characteristic of satellite-framed languages, and if a child is speaking a satellite-framed language and not expressing Manner, even if her speech is grammatically correct, this is an indication that the speaker is not using the discourse patterns associated with that language, which may result in unnatural sounding language.
126
In this section of the study we aim to investigate whether learning an L1 as an L2 may cause the typological patterns for motion event encoding of the L2 (a verb-framed language) to impact on typological patterns for motion event encoding in the L1 (a satellite-framed language). We had put forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: The NL group will follow event lexicalisation patterns identified for