Results of the sentence formation task

Participants’ 15 wh-question constructions were graded by hand according to whether the wh-word was fronted or in-situ. Only the position of the wh-word was taken into account when grading the participants’ responses. Apart from na (“which”) that had to introduce the noun to be deemed correct, any sentence-final placement62

of a wh- word was regarded as indicative of the participant’s realisation that the wh-word should be in-situ and that they had therefore selected the unmarked weak [uwh] feature (said to the be “default” feature with which language acquisition commences; cf. Chapter 3) and had subsequently began to apply the [-movement] parameter. Thus, these constructions were marked “correct” and awarded a mark of “1”. Any other placement was awarded a mark of nil. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 provide the participants’ individual results. Table 5.5 provides a breakdown of the overall performance of the two language groups, and finally Table 5.6 presents the overall group scores for the three respective wh-words.63

Participant % wh-fronted constructions % wh-in-situ constructions % other constructions X01 40 20 40 X02 13.3 60 26.6 X03 0 100 0 X04 73.3 6.6 20 X05 60 26.6 13.3 X06 6.6 60 33.3 X07 66.6 13.3 20 X08 46.6 20 33.3 X09 53.3 13.3 33.3 X10 0 80 20

Table 5.3: Analysis of L1 isiXhosa-speaking participants’ SF task results

62

Apart from the wh-word na and one construction with the wh-word nar, which was in a second-to- final position in the SF and GJ tasks respectively (and was marked according to what was grammatical), the sentence-final placement of the wh-word was the in-situ placement for all the other constructions.

63  _{Although the scores in Table 5.5 have already been reported on in Table 5.1 above, they are} included here (and in the other sections) for convenience. The small number of wh-items for each task, in conjunction with the small test group makes it difficult to draw conclusions from participant’s individual results. As such, only group results are provided in tables that present the individual wh- word results.

Participant % wh-fronted constructions % wh-in-situ constructions % other constructions E01 73.3 0 26.6 E02 13.3 73.3 13.3 E03 13.3 53.3 33.3 E04 66.6 20 13.3 E05 6.6 46.6 46.6 E06 53.3 33.3 13.3 E07 40 40 20 E08 0 73.3 26.6 E09 20 66.6 13.3 E10 6.6 60 33.3

Table 5.4: Analysis of L1 English-speaking participants’ SF task results

Group % wh-fronted constructions % wh-in-situ constructions % other constructions L1 isiXhosa-speaking 36 40 24 L1 English-speaking 29 47 24

Table 5.5: Analysis of the two language groups’ SF task results

Group % correct: shenme (“what”) % correct: nar (“where”) % correct: na (“which”) L1 isiXhosa-speaking 44 34 42 L1 English-speaking 48 40 52

Table 5.6: Analysis of the two language groups’ performance on the SF task - individual wh-words

As one can see in Table 5.5, the majority of the participants’ constructions were in- situ constructions at 40% and 47% for the L1 isiXhosa group and L1 English group respectively. The second most common type of construction formed were those fronted by a wh-word at 36% and 29% respectively. The fact that this was the main type of error indicates that transfer from English (or Afrikaans) has most likely occurred. The fact that between 40% and 47% of the constructions are in-situ makes it difficult to establish if such constructions are formed because of a “best guess” or if because the participants are in fact beginning to learn that the [uwh] feature is weak in Mandarin. In attempting to establish which is more likely the case, an analysis of the “other errors” (referred to as such hereafter) that the participants made in the SF task

103   is necessary. The placement of the wh-word nar is discussed first, as this was the wh- word that saw two main error patterns occurring, each pattern favoured more or less by one particular group.

In the case of the L1 English-speaking participants, the placement of nar in second position in the sentence occurred in 16% of all the nar constructions and was a strategy used by 60% of the L1 English-speaking participants. Even though in these instances the placement was not grammatical, recall that (as explained in Chapter 2, section 2.5), in Mandarin, an adverbial wh-phrase, unlike English adverbials, precedes the main verb and that the second position can therefore be the correct one in some

wh-questions. However, as the participants in the current study are still very much

“beginners”, and have not yet been exposed to many wh-questions pertaining to “where a specific action is performed”, all but one of the wh-question constructions they were presented with enquired about nouns as apposed to verbs.Numbers 15 and 45 of the SF (cf. Appendix 8) and GJ tasks (cf. Appendix 10) respectively required that nar precede the main verb (and was in a second-to-final position), as it enquired about a verb (gongzuo, i.e “work”). This was a question that (according to the Mandarin teacher) the participants where familiar with, and consequently it was included. The wh-2nd _{placement is therefore not correct in any of the wh-questions}

with nar and cannot be regarded as an indication that the participants have begun to grasp the fact that the [uwh] feature is weak.

In the case of the remaining “other errors” nar constructions produced by the L1 isiXhosa group, 6% consisted of sentences in which nar was in second position, and it was a strategy that was employed by only 20% of the participants. However, 12% of all the nar constructions had nar placed close to the back of the sentence, something that was done by 40% of the L1 isiXhosa group. This was something that was also done by the L1 English group in 8% of all the constructions with nar, by 30% of the L1 English-speaking participants. Although these placements are ungrammatical, the fact that the adverbial wh-word is in a “close-to-final” position is perhaps indicative that the participants are aware that the wh-word should not be fronted, but that they do not yet know exactly where it should be. The same could be said for the constructions in which nar is in second position, as in these constructions the participants seem to

avoid fronting nar. This “close-to-front” placement, however, seems to more strongly resemble the influence of English or Afrikaans and is most likely a result of the participants transferring the [+movement] parameter into the Mandarin interlanguage grammar by selecting the marked strong [uwh*] feature instead of the unmarked weak [uwh] feature.

The same is likely true for the wh-word shenme, as it was placed in second position or in the middle of the wh-question 12% of the time, for all the shenme constructions, by the L1 English group and was a strategy that was used by 40% of this language group. This placement of shenme was also chosen by 60% of the L1 isiXhosa-speaking participants, but in their case, as much as 24% of all the shenme constructions were formed in this way. Gao (2009: 72), who had similar findings, explains that one possible reason is that there are two parameter settings at play, i.e. the [-movement] parameter and the [+movement] parameter that are both trying to “take control in the participants’ interlanguage” (Gao, 2009: 72). If Gao (2009) is correct, then such placements of nar and shenme might indicate that participants are aware that it is ungrammatical for the wh-word to be fronted in simple wh-questions and resultantly they avoid producing such constructions and place the wh-word elsewhere. Their prior linguistic knowledge, however, in the form English as either their L1 or L2 does not simply cease to be influential; hence, they place the wh-word towards the front of the sentence.

Finally, the wh-word na saw a similar strategy employed across both language groups, with it being used in an apparent “in-situ sense”, but done so incorrectly because it was placed in a sentence-final position (in such a position that it did not introduce the necessary noun) and, as such, was not an in-situ placement. Sixteen percent of the sentences that required the wh-word na were formed in this way, and this was done by 60% of the L1 English-speaking participants. Seventy percent of the L1 isiXhosa-speaking participants employed this strategy as well, with 24% of all the

na constructions for this group being formed in such a way. This kind of error might

(once again) indicate that the participants are aware that the wh-word should not be fronted, but that both groups are still in the process of tweaking their TL knowledge to achieve grammatical constructions.

105   In sum, as discussed above, the fact that both groups seemed to be alternating between positioning both nar and shenme either towards the front, in the middle, or towards the back of the sentence, indicates that there is certainly an awareness that the

wh-word should not be fronted but that participants do not yet know where it should

be positioned. Transfer from English and Afrikaans is still the most likely explanation for why the majority of the errors were errors of full wh-fronting. The “other errors” do, however, seem to indicate that the participants are in the process of recognising that the strong [uwh*] feature is not instantiated in Mandarin, but also that their prior linguistic knowledge (of either their L1 or L2) is interfering at this elementary stage of language learning and that they are yet to figure out exactly what is and is not grammatical in the formation of wh-question constructions in Mandarin.