Relationship between Instructions and PT Profile

Formal instruction does sometimes help to produce the desired or immediate outcome in all the learners. From the results received from this current study, quite a few of grammatical structures or aspects emerged after teaching. It could be seen from certain perspectives that the instruction and teaching contents could influence the learners’ acquisition sequences.

In fact, a few research studies have already proved the statement that the instruction is to ‘stimulate’ the learning process and ensure good results and performance for students (Willis and Willis, 1996; Zhang, 2001). Would that be the reason that an L2 learner starts out with a structure that is typologically distant from his/her L1? If yes, how far could the instruction have an effect on acquisition?

The underlying questions in the context of the present study consist of the following aspects (1) whether formal instruction is effective, and in what way; and (2) whether the instruction overrides the psycholinguistic constraints in the form of PT-based processing procedures on the L2 learning process of the Chinese grammatical items.

In order to explore the relationship between the learners’ acquisition sequence and the order of the teaching input, extensive textbook analysis has been carried out as well as an investigation of the teaching plans before each data collection session. This analysis is significantly crucial since it allows me to conduct the research with a comprehension of the teaching points in each session. Thereafter I could explore the importance and demands of preparing appropriate elicitation tasks to induce the language production.

Table 6.13 summarizes the point of introduction of each grammatical structure through teaching plan and textbook analysis. The textbook analyzed in this table is the one used in Zhang’s (2001 and 2008) studies at Canberra University of Australia, entitled New Practical Chinese Reader 1 (Book 1). In the table, the first column presents the processing stages, while the second lists the hypothesized CSL developmental structures. In the first row, L1 stands for Lesson 1 in the textbook. The ‘+’ sign indicates the emergence point of a certain structure as a teaching objective,

158

whereas ‘(+)’ indicates that the grammatical points appeared in the specified lesson as exercises or additional information, not as a teaching focus. Moreover, the ‘/’ indicates the fact that the particular structures were not included in the textbook or have not been instructed by the teacher in the class during the lesson.

Structure L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 5 ba structure 4 de (RC) Topicalization 3 Classifier / + + + + / + + V-comp -de / / / / / / / / Adv-fronting + / + + + / + / subordinate clause / / / / / / / / 2 -de (ATT) / / + + / + + + / + + / + + -de (ADJ) / / / / / / / / + + / / + + -de (POSS) / + + + / / + + + + + + + + zhengzai-(PROG) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / -guo (EXP) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SVO + + + + + + + + + + + + + SVO(interrogatives) / / + + + + / + + + + + + + 1 Single constituent + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Table 6.13 CSL Textbook in Canberra University (New Practical Chinese Reader 1)

In Zhang’s studies (2001 and 2008), the three informants were all instructed by Zhang using the above textbook. From the tendency of the structures in the textbook (outlined in red in the above table), it is obvious that the sequence of structure introduction presented in the New Practical Chinese Reader 1 almost matches the PT-driven developmental order. Therefore, even though the investigation results showed that Zhang’s (2001 and 2008) informants followed the identical processing route aligned with PT procedural skills, to some extent, it could be assumed that these processing patterns that the three Chinese L2 learners produced follow the formal classroom instructions and the textbook content arrangement, rather than the universal procedural skills. In other words, it could be concluded that either the formal instruction path directs the learners’ language output or the universal hierarchy functions and constrains the language development.

159

Therefore, to test whether the processing hierarchy is affected by the instructions and/or in what way it affects the language acquisition, my research is carried out on another group of informants at Newcastle University, UK, who have been instructed by different Chinese teachers using a completely different textbook. At Newcastle University, a different textbook called Integrated Chinese was mainly used in class for Chinese L2 learners. The textbook analysis has been displayed in Table 6.14 as follows. Structure L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 5 ba structure (+) + bei structure / + / 4 de (RC) / / / Topicalization / (+) / 3 Classifier + / / (+) (+) / (+) (+) (+) (+) / V-comp -de / / / / / (+) (+) / + + / Adv-fronting / (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) / / + / subordinate clause / / + / + + (+) (+) (+) (+) / 2 -de (ATT) (+) / + / / + (+) (+) (+) (+) / -de (ADJ) (+) / / / / / + + / + / -de (POSS) + (+) / (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) / zhengzai-(PROG) / / (+) / / / / / / / / -guo (EXP) / / (+) / / / / / / / / SVO + + + + + + + + + + + + + SVO (interrogatives) + + + + + + + + + + + / / 1 Single constituent + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Table 6.14 CSL Textbook in Newcastle University (Integrated Chinese 1)

It is described in Table 6.14 that the introduction points of the grammatical structures in Integrated Chinese 1 are dramatically different from the ones in the textbook used at Canberra University.

First and foremost, it seems that the structures are covered across stages in one lesson in Integrated Chinese 1. For example, in lesson 2, grammatical items have been covered from stage 1 to stage 3 in the proposed processing sequence, which is prior to the first data collection. However, the classifier structure is not identified in the year 1 student - Marlene’s first observation session held in week 5, straight after the item was introduced in the lesson. Similarly, in Harry’s first data session in week 5,

160

only two types of classifiers were found, which were categorized as non-acquisition based on the emergence criterion.

Logically and theoretically, the learner’s delayed response to teaching, together with the unpredictable acquisition schedule, indicated that the imminent emergence of an L2 form could happen at any time after it was taught (Zhang, 2002a and 2005). In reality, this is simply not the case. The issue of delayed effect on instruction has been already reported in language acquisition studies which focused on the developmental process/sequences of English in informal settings during the last decade (Ellis, 1984; Felix, 1981; Pienemann, 1984, 1988, 1989, and 1998c). Various explanations have been proposed to account for the phenomenon, such as the features of classroom discourse (Ellis, 1984), the psycholinguistic constraints (Pienemann, 1984 and 1998) and the difference between input and intake (Krashen, 1981).

Following Pienemann’s (1984 and 1998) perception, learners could not proceed to stage 3 without the acquisition of the structures at stage 2. In this case, the delayed response could be considered on the basis of the absence of the prerequisites. According to PT, when a particular processing procedure is developed, the structural form requiring the procedure can, in principle, emerge. However, there is no guarantee that ‘the learner will indeed produce a linguistic rule as soon as one is able to do so’ (Pienemann, 1998c: 247). Developmental gaps or trailers are more than possible, as substantiated by the findings of many studies. Therefore, it is assumed that even though the structure has been formally taught in the class, unless the students are well-prepared to acquire this structure, it could not be observed in their language output.

At this point, formal instruction is required to help fill in the gap. Long (1993 and 2001) has already addressed that formal instruction following the acquisition nature has a positive effect on the rate of learning and the speed of acquisition. Hence, the ultimate level of L2 attainment could be moved forward and improved through a teaching curriculum within the processability constraints.

161

emergence were of a more accidental nature. For instance, the temporal gaps between each interview were 3 to 6 weeks in my study, in which case, the actual point of the emergence of certain grammatical items may have been missed. Unfortunately, it is not possible to collect more data at present to (dis) confirm this hypothesis.

In addition, a clear structure tendency could be identified from the New Practical Chinese Reader 1 (book 1) but no similar tendency could be seen from the Integrated Chinese 1. Compared with the proposed PT stages on the left hand side in Table 6.14, the distribution of the grammar points in Integrated Chinese 1 seems to be very rambling following the proposed sequence.

To display the teaching path used for my informants together with the description of a PT-staged morpheme and syntax, Table 6.14 has shown that the structures have been taught in a rather unpredictable sequence which is against the PT proposed route. In order to illustrate it simply and clearly, Table 6.15 has been generated as below:

Processing Procedure Information Exchange Morpheme Syntax 5 S-bar procedure

Sub-clause / ba structure Lesson 13

bei structure Lesson 11 4 S-procedure Inter-phrasal

information

Relative clause marker de Topicalization T(=O)SV(Comp) T(=O)(S)V(Comp) 3 Phrasal procedure Phrasal information Classifier Lesson 2

V-compl. marker –de

Lesson 10 Topicalization T(=ADJUNT)SV(O) Lesson 11 subordinate clause Lesson 4 2 Category procedure Lexical morphology

Possessive marker –de

Lesson 2

Adjective marker -de

Lesson 12

Attributive marker –de

Lesson 2

Progressive marker zhengzai- Experiential marker –guo

Canonical SV(O): declaratives interrogatives (y/n, wh-, intonation) Topicalization T(=S)VO Lesson 1 1 Word /Lemma

Words Invariant forms:

Single words/constituents

Lesson 1

Formulaic expressions

Lesson 1

162

Integrated Chinese 1 is actually a content-based textbook, so grammatical features within the hypothesized processing hierarchy are not the focus in this book. It can be seen that the two lexical markers at the same stage 2 were introduced in Lesson 12 –de (ADJ) and Lesson 2 –de (POSS) respectively – it is actually in reverse to the hypothesized acquisition profile. Fortunately, even though the learners’ language progression requires the preparation of the linguistic knowledge in the previous stages under PT, there is no implication for the requirement of acquiring all the structures in the early stages before moving to the next. Hence, the students taught by Integrated Chinese 1 could still move to stage 3, with the acquisition of –de (POSS) at stage 2.

To carry out a further comparison of the textbooks, Table 6.16 analyzes another textbook which is called Han Yu Jiao Cheng, translated as Chinese Teaching Textbook. It is used for Chinese L2 learners in most of the language universities in China. It is also the textbook used for the group of students who studied under a Chinese context in Gao (2005). The introduction of the grammatical items in this textbook does, to some extent, align with the PT-driven procedural skills when compared to the Integrated Chinese 1. Furthermore, there is no override of the structures against the processing hierarchy. Structure L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 5 ba structure 4 de (RC) Topicalization 3 Classifier V-comp -de Adv-fronting subordinate clause 2 -de (ATT) / / / + / + / / / / / + / / -de (ADJ) / / / / / / / / / / / / / + -de (POSS) / + / + / / / / / + / / + + zhengzai-(PROG) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / -guo (EXP) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SVO / / + + + + + + + + + + + + SVO (interrogatives) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 Single constituent + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

163

Table 6.16 CSL Textbook (Han Yu Jiao Cheng) [Chinese Teaching Textbook]

This textbook analysis, from another angle, has proved that the informants grouped under Chinese contexts in Gao (2005) have somehow been taught in a relevant similar way of PT-based sequence. In this case, even though the analyzed acquisition route of this group of students showed an identical path on the processing sequence, it is hard to conclude whether the students follow this universal hierarchy or the teaching sequence.

However, there is a limitation in allocating the input for the Chinese L2 learners based on these textbook analyses. Even though some structures have not been marked in the analysis at a certain time in the book, the students may still have had exposure to them from their frequent contact with their Chinese-native tandom partners, personal tutors or other instances. This could hardly be traced and avoided in the current study.

Regarding the facts of the textbook design, Li (2004) has mentioned that many CSL textbook designers in the last 20 years mainly considered the learners’ backgrounds, learning objectives, learning conditions and diversity, cultural concerns, and the grammatical features of Chinese. The important impersonal aspects in designing textbooks – the natural acquisitional sequence of language profiling – have been ignored. Among all the analyzed Chinese textbooks, the textbook used in Canberra University is seen as an ideal textbook, which follows the PT-driven sequence incrementally and therefore could possibly stimulate learners’ acquisition in a positive way.

An important issue that emerged from this study relates to the delayed emergence of certain structures which, nevertheless, did not amount to a violation of the implicational hierarchy articulated in PT. Overall, even if the three analyzed textbooks have shown various linguistic paths compared with the hypothesized processing hierarchy, nearly all the informants from different studies present a very similar route in their language output over the course of time. Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis has further confirmed that no developmental stage can be skipped by the learners and ‘instruction can only promote language acquisition if the IL is close to the point when

164

the structure to be taught is acquired in the natural setting’ (Pienemann, 1988: 60). Details are given below.