Second-language effects: Kenyan English

The final question of the present study is whether L2 Kenyan English dis-plays any effects of preposition placement different to L1 British English. In order to adequately address this issue it obviously first becomes important to get an overview of L2-specific properties of language learning before taking a closer look at English in Kenya.

25 Hawkins basically claims that a good indicator of structural complexity is the ratio of immediate constituents that have to be processed divided by the number of words encountered during processing. Take, for example, the two competing structures the man [on [whom]NP]PP [I]NP [relied]VP and [whom]NP [I]NP [relied]VP [on]PP. In both cases four ICs (two NPs, a PP and the VP) are realized by four words yielding an IC-to-Non-IC ratio of 4/4 = 100%. In contrast to this the MCNs for these structures would be [1+1+2+3]/4=

1.75 and [1+2+3+4]/4 = 2.5.

3.6.1 L2 language learning

Second-language acquisition/learning is ‘the way in which people learn a language other than their mother tongue, inside or outside of a classroom’

(R. Ellis 1998: 3). One of the characteristics of this acquisition process is the fact that the linguistic output of second-language learners displays far greater heterogeneity than that of first-language learners (both on an inter-speaker and an intrainter-speaker level). This variable output produced by language learners depends partly on situational factors (e.g. whether the language was acquired in natural settings or in a classroom): while learning languages in a natural setting seems to especially improve oral fluency, the advantage of classroom learning appears to lie in a greater increase in lexico-grammatical knowledge (Mackey 2006: 449).

In addition to this, individual differences stemming from the various L1 languages of the learners, their age and even factors such as motivation affect the learner’s output. The effect of the learner’s first language is also known as transfer. In cases where L1 influence leads to errors in a learner’s L2 output, one also speaks of ‘negative transfer’ or ‘interference’ (see Ellis 1998: 51–4; Mackey 2006: 446). While research has shown that L1 interfer-ence cannot account for all L2 errors, it is also well known that partly con-scious, positive transfer of L1 features does occur. Besides L1 transfer, age is usually considered of crucial importance: L1 acquisition is a fairly uni-form and fast process, while L2 acquisition, on the other hand, is crucially affected by age: younger language learners are far more successful at learn-ing second languages than adults (see e.g. Mackey 2006: 446). A point to note in this context is the distinction ‘between the rate of attainment and the ultimate level of success [… since] even though adults and adolescents may initially be faster at learning an L2, children generally out-perform them in the long run’ (Mackey 2006: 447). In addition to this, adults and older children, due to their cognitive capacities, will benefit more from classroom situations than younger children, who do better in natural settings (see Steinberg and Sciarini 2006: 123–35). Nevertheless, even though a sensitive period up to about puberty therefore appears to exist before which language acquisition in general is easier, occasionally even adult L2 learners achieve native-like proficiency (cf. Mackey 2006: 447). Finally, inter-individual dif-ferences can also be attributed to difdif-ferences with respect to the motivation of language learners (for further potential factors, see Mackey 2006: 446–9).

Motivation obviously includes integrative aspects (whether the learner per-ceives the target language group as positive and wants to associate himself with it) as well as instrumental aspects (whether learning an L2 is poten-tially associated with social or economic rewards; cf. Mackey 2006: 448).

Another integral component of second language acquisition is, of course, the input which a learner encounters. What is particular noteworthy is that input does not only consist of native-speaker data (with its underlying target-language

properties), but also data produced by other non-native speakers, such as teach-ers or other learnteach-ers. Thus learnteach-ers do not only come across native-speaker models. In fact, especially learners not living in a country where the target lan-guage is spoken as the mother tongue of a number of speakers will probably have more contact with L2 variants of the target language (see R. Ellis 1995: 276).

Concerning the complex interaction of all the above components it must be pointed out that both situational factors and learner differences can be said to influence learner processes such as different learning, production and communication strategies (see R. Ellis 1998: 76–8): learners employ differ-ent communication strategies in natural settings and classroom situations, and learners of different ages, for example, have different cognitive strategies available to them (see R. Ellis 1995: 275f.). Moreover, learner differences and situational factors also affect the input available to the learner: motivation and personality clearly ‘determine the quantity and quality of the input’ (R.

Ellis 1995: 275f.), and natural input is obviously different to data which has been specifically collected and prepared for classroom settings (see R. Ellis 1995: 275f.). Lastly, ‘[i]nput constitutes the data upon which the learner strategies work’, but the input that a learner receives also depends on his or her communication strategies (R. Ellis 1995: 276).

Despite the fact that L2 output is highly variable, however, it has also been shown that all learners seem to acquire a second language in similar ways: ‘For example, regardless of their L1 and the type of input they receive, learners of English pass through similar sequences of developmental stages when learn-ing negation and question formation’ (Mackey 2006: 451). One explanation of this phenomenon has been the concept of markedness, which ‘… refers to the general idea that some structures are more “natural” or “basic” than other structures’ (R. Ellis 1998: 70). The precise definition of markedness differs from framework to framework: Chomskyan generative linguists claim that unmarked structures are those that arise from an innate grammar device, i.e.

Universal Grammar, which can guide the acquisition of first and second lan-guages (see R. Hawkins 2001; White 2003). In contrast to this, typological linguists only consider the frequency of a structure in the world’s languages as a measure of markedness. While typological statements per se do not seem to be explanatory in nature, John A. Hawkins’s approach to processing con-straints (1999; 2004) actually seeks to explain the distribution of structures across languages: those structures which are easier to parse will also become grammaticalized in a greater number of languages, which in turn means that they are more unmarked (cf. also Eckman 2004; R. Ellis 1998: 70). Now, in section 3.1.4 it was pointed out that preposition-stranding is very rare cross-linguistically. As such, stranding would have to be considered as the marked, and pied-piping as the unmarked structure. It next becomes necessary to see whether this factor or any of the others discussed in this chapter influence the acquisition of preposition placement by L2 learners of English.

3.6.2 General properties of L2 preposition placement

The earliest study that touched upon the question of markedness and the acquisition of preposition placement by L2 learners of English was Mazurkewich’s (1985) investigation of the acquisition of dative wh-questions (which, among other things, tested the structures such as Who did you give the book to? and To whom did you give the book?). Since pied-piping is taken to be the unmarked structure, Mazurkewich predicted that regardless of their first language, learners should always acquire the umarked alterna-tive (i.e. pied-piping) before the marked one (i.e. stranding). Yet, testing two groups of learners, native speakers of Quebec French and native speakers of Inuktitut (an Inuit language), only the French learners showed the expected effects: they acquired preposition pied-piping before stranding, and even when they had acquired stranding they always produced more instances of pied-piping. In contrast to this, even during the early stages the Inuktitut speakers produced more stranded prepositions than pied-piped ones. As Bardovi-Harlig (1987: 388f.) correctly points out, this seems to be a case which can be partly accounted for by positive L1 transfer: Quebec French has obligatory pied-piping (but cf. Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 389) and thus it is not surprising to see that the French learners produce far more instances of pied-piping.

Inuktitut, on the other hand, has no prepositions, which precludes the effect of any L1 transfer. If unmarked structures should be acquired earlier by learners then one would expect the Inuktitut learners to learn pied-piping first and to exhibit marked preposition-stranding only later. Yet, Bardovi-Harlig (1987: 388–90) claims that the Inuktitut data suggest that marked-ness is not the only factor that influences the acquisition of grammatical features. Another factor which might assume importance is the frequency of a phenomenon in the target language, also known as the salience of a feature (Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 401). As mentioned in section 3.1.3, pied-piping in interrogative clauses is considered to be strongly dispreferred. Consequently, stranding in this context is far more frequent, and therefore more salient.

The Inuktitut data thus imply that high salience in the target language can also lead to a marked structure being acquired earlier than its unmarked counterpart.

Bardovi-Harlig (1987) tested this claim with a group of ninety-five second-language learners with various L1s in an elicitation task. In the test, subjects were given sentences like (3.140) and (3.141):

(3.140) Peter threw a football to Philip

(3.141) The person _______________________ was Louise.

Allen lent $100 to the person (examples from Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 392)

Subjects were then asked to convert sentences like (3.140) into wh-interroga-tive clauses by questioning the italicized element (resulting in either Who did Peter throw a football to? or To whom did Peter throw a football?). Similarly, subjects had to combine the two sentences in (3.141) into a single sentence by turning the sentence below the line into a wh-relative clause (yielding either The person to whom Allen lent $100 was Louise or The person who Allen lent

$100 to was Louise; cf. Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 391–2).

Bardovi-Harlig thus tested the acquisition of preposition placement in wh-interrogative and wh-relative clauses. Interestingly, for both these clause types learners first exhibited a third alternative: using no preposition at all (Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 393):

(3.142) Who did Susan create a costume?

(3.143) The policeman Bill reported the accident arrested him.

(examples from Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 393)

Establishing a dependency between a filler and a gap which is embedded in a PP involves a lot of processing cost (see sections 3.1.4 and 3.4). It is thus not surprising that learners should simplify such structures by simply omitting prepositions which introduce thematic participants. By omitting for in (3.142), the filler who becomes integrated by the learner’s processor upon encountering the main subcategorizor of the clause create (to create a costume for someone thus becomes to create someone a costume). Similarly in (3.143) to report the accident to someone is simplified to to report someone the accident (note that, despite the fact that Bardovi-Harlig (1987: 393) allegedly only asked for wh-relative clauses, (3.143) contains a Ø -relativizer, which would have induced obligatory stranding). As several studies have shown (cf.

e.g. Dekydtspotter, Sprouse and Anderson 1998; Kao 2001; Klein 2001), the omission of prepositions (also known as ‘null prepositions’) is a recurrent feature of L2 varieties.

In Bardovi-Harlig’s data, sentences with no preposition continuously decrease with increasing learner proficiency. In addition to that, all learners first acquire preposition-stranding before pied-piping in both interrogative and relative clauses (see Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 394f.). Again this indicates that the salience of preposition-stranding in the target language seems to be more important than the fact that it is a marked structure. Interestingly, a small number of subjects sometimes ‘employed a transitional strategy when moving from preposition stranding to pied-piping’ (Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 399), in which preposition-doubling occurs (the preposition appears pied-piped as well as stranded):

(3.144) To whom did Allen lend a dollar to? (from Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 399)

The later learners in Bardovi-Harlig’s study furthermore displayed a remarkable interaction effect: while pied-piping became the preferred

choice for questions, stranding remained the favourite variant in relative clauses. This result is somewhat unexpected since relative clauses are con-sidered more complex and accordingly more likely to favour pied-piping (see sections 3.1.3 and 3.5). Bardovi-Harlig explains these findings by pointing out that due to their complexity subjects employed the simplified

‘no preposition’ alternative much more often and much longer in relative clauses than in interrogative clauses (1987: 389). Moreover, preposition-stranding in relative clauses might also be more salient than previously thought, if learners take the many instances of stranded prepositions in that-/ Ø -relative clauses as a model for their wh-relative clauses (Bardovi-Harlig 1987: 402).

Kao (2001) tested Bardovi-Harlig’s claims in a grammaticality judgement experiment involving ninety-nine Japanese university learners of English.

In the experiment subjects had to judge whether they considered a sen-tence grammatical. If they found an item ungrammatical, they were asked to correct the sentence. Example (3.145) gives an overview of the factors investigated:

(3.145) a. *John lived that house two years ago.

b. *Which house did John live two years ago?

c. *This is the house which John lived two years ago.

(examples taken from Kao 2001: 200)

As (3.145) shows, Kao tested whether the Japanese learners detected the missing preposition in in these sentences, and if they did, whether they would strand or pied-pipe it in interrogative (3.145b) and relative (3.145c) clauses. In addition, it was also attempted to exclude a confounding effect that might have distorted Bardovi-Harlig’s results: by collecting the subjects’

responses to declarative sentences such as (3.145a), Kao was able to include only the judgements of participants who had already learnt that live and in form a collocational unit in English.

Kao’s results corroborate Bardovi-Harlig’s claim that the salience of prep-osition-stranding in English accelerates its acquisition by second-language learners: learners of all proficiency levels in the study favoured preposition stranding over pied-piping. In contrast to Bardovi-Harlig’s study, however, subjects favoured stranding in both clause types with a frequency of 70% or over. The only effect observable of clause type was the expected one of pied-piping being slightly more frequent in relative clauses (with ratios of 16.5%

null prepositions, 71.9% stranding, 11.7% pied-piping for learners with the lowest level of proficiency and 8.3% null prepositions, 77.2% stranding, 14.5% pied-piping for the highest level of proficiency) than in interroga-tive clauses (with ratios of 15.6% null prepositions, 80.5% stranding, 3.9%

pied-piping for learners with the lowest level of proficiency and 8.3% null prepositions, 90.4% stranding, 1.3% pied-piping for the highest level of pro-ficiency; Kao 2001: 201f.).

Other studies on the acquisition of preposition placement also supported the salience hypothesis: Sadighi, Parhizgar and Saadat (2004) working on the language of Iranian learners as well as Rezai’s (2006) study of preposition placement by Persian-speakers showed that learners acquire preposition-stranding before pied-piping. Again, pied-piping is obligatory in both Iranian and Persian, but due to the salience of preposition-stranding in the L2 input, learners first seem to favour the more marked alternative. Only when they can be sure that pied-piping is also a grammatical option do they seem to use it more frequently (then potentially also due to positive L1 transfer).

All of the studies on the acquisition of preposition placement thus suggest that, as a result of its salience, preposition-stranding is first acquired and pre-ferred by second-language learners of English. It needs to be pointed out that one reason for this result is the fact that all the studies above focused on the placement of prepositions which are lexically stored, i.e. prepositional verbs.

Whether the same effects should be expected for more adjunct-like PPs (cf.

section 3.2) remains doubtful, however, and requires further testing.

3.6.3 English in Kenya: Focus on preposition placement

So far, no empirical study on preposition placement in L2 Kenyan English has been carried out. In the light of the findings discussed in sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 it will therefore become necessary to take a closer look at the lin-guistic situation in Kenya and at the various factors affecting the acquisition of English.

Schmied (1991b: 52–7, 2004a: 924–5) argues that there are basically four factors that can be said to affect L2 varieties of English:

(a) general language-learning strategies (b) L1 transfer

(c) exposure to written language (d) influence of native-speaker models

By general language-learning strategies Schmied means universal psycho-linguistic processes that affect second-language learning (cf. Skandera 2003: 25). These include simplification and overgeneralization strategies.

One well-known feature of Kenyan English which displays signs of sim-plification is the preposition system. Prepositions are very often omitted in Kenyan English ‘when they are “obvious” anyway (e.g. put [in], protest [against])’ (Schmied 1991b: 68, 2004b: 931; sometimes this process also affects the particles of phrasal verbs, cf. Hancock and Angogo 1982: 316).

As the previous section indicated, this phenomenon of null prepositions is fairly frequent in the L2 Englishes of speakers with various L1s. In addition to this, Kenyan English also shows ‘a tendency to substitute in for on, at, or to’ (Schneider 2007: 196; cf. Mwangi 2004). This process of extending the meaning of a single preposition is of course a general learning strategy.

Besides, another reason for this simplification might be the system of the local languages: Kiswahili, for example, has a very simple preposition system in which e.g. mwituni can mean ‘at, to, in/inside, by/near/next to and from the forest’ (Schmied 1991b: 68). Moreover, Kenyan English exhibits verb–

preposition collocations not found in L1 varieties, e.g. attach with instead of attach to, or concentrate with instead of concentrate on (cf. Mwangi 2004;

Schneider 2007: 196).

Other concepts subsumed under general language-learning strategies include markedness (Schmied 1991b: 52) and salience effects. In the light of the second-language studies on preposition placement mentioned in section 3.6.2, it can be expected that the salience of preposition stranding should also lead to its frequent use in Kenyan English, despite its typologically marked status. Furthermore, it is possible that null prepositions will occa-sionally surface or that prepositions other than expected from L1 varieties will appear from time to time.

With respect to L1 transfer, Schmied argues that the influence of nega-tive transfer has been somewhat overestimated (1991b: 53). However, as discussed in section 3.6.1, several studies have indicated that it is especially positive, partly conscious, transfer that can affect second languages. It there-fore becomes necessary to take a closer look at preposition placement in the local Kenyan languages.

Kenya is home to more than seventy tribal groups (Parkinson, Philips and Gourlay 2006: 43). While this figure is somewhat vague, a definite number cannot be given since

distinctions between many groups are becoming increasingly blurred, largely as a result of migration to the cities and encroaching Western cul-tural values. Many smaller tribes have also come in under the umbrella of larger tribal groups to gain protection in intertribal disputes. (Parkinson, Philips and Gourlay 2006: 43)

All of these tribal groups speak some kind of vernacular, but it is not always easy to say whether the varieties of two tribes should be classified as two dia-lects of one language or two separate languages (Heine and Möhlig 1980: 9).

Thus Mbaabu’s figure of over forty indigenous languages (1996: 147) should only be considered a rough estimate.

Apart from a small percentage of Indian languages (mainly Hindi and Urdu) spoken natively by the Indian community, all of the vernacular Kenyan languages belong to either the Bantu, the Nilotic or the Cushitic language families: most Kenyans (about 65 per cent) speak a Bantu lan-guage such as Kikuyu (also known as Gikuyu), Kamba or Luyia. The second largest group (about 30 per cent) speak a Nilotic language such as (Dho)Luo or Kalenjin, while only 3 per cent of the population speak a Cushitic language like Boni (cf. Heine and Möhlig 1980: 10–55; Musau 2004: 60).

Interestingly, Swahili (also referred to as Kiswahili), which is the second official language of Kenya – and the second language of more than 50 per cent of Kenyans (cf. Heine and Möhlig 1980: 61) – is also a Bantu language. It is not a ‘pure’ Bantu language, however, since it ‘has been in intensive contact with non-Bantu languages, most notably Arabic and in more recent times English’ (Krifka 1995: 1397). Nevertheless, the ‘influx of these languages … is largely confined to the lexicon; as far as syntax and morphology is

Interestingly, Swahili (also referred to as Kiswahili), which is the second official language of Kenya – and the second language of more than 50 per cent of Kenyans (cf. Heine and Möhlig 1980: 61) – is also a Bantu language. It is not a ‘pure’ Bantu language, however, since it ‘has been in intensive contact with non-Bantu languages, most notably Arabic and in more recent times English’ (Krifka 1995: 1397). Nevertheless, the ‘influx of these languages … is largely confined to the lexicon; as far as syntax and morphology is