Task and word interactions

In this study, the only effects that proved significant in an ANOVA were those pertaining to the difference in the acquisition of the three wh-words, as well as to the difference between the GJ task and the other three tasks when the two language groups’ scores are added together and averaged. With alpha set at 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) between the 20 participants’ average group scores for items testing the three respective wh-words. This is due to the score obtained for shenme being significantly higher than both the other scores. The difference between the participants’ average group scores for the four different tasks was also statistically significant (p < 0.01), owing to the GJ task score being much higher than the other three tasks’ scores. These differences are presented in Tables 5.24, and 5.25 and illustrated in Figure 5.1 below.

%  correct:  SF  

task   %  correct:  OP  task   %  correct:  GJ  task   %  correct:  ST  task   shenme   “what”   46   68   66   60   nar   “where”   37   33   65   33   na   “which”   47   25   57   20   Overall   43   42   62   38  

Table 5.24: The two language groups’ combined performance for each task on items testing the three wh- words % correct: shenme (“what”) % correct: nar (“where”) % correct: na (“which”) 60 42 37

Table 5.25: The two language groups’ combined overall performance on items testing the three wh-words across all four tasks

Figure 5.1: Word-task interaction and variance

As can be seen in Figure 5.1 and Tables 5.24 and 5.25 above, the correct use of

shenme (“what”) was the most easily acquired, followed by nar (“where”) and then na (“which”). The accuracy of the placement of shenme improved considerably from

the SF task to the OP task, after which it stayed within a 10% range of its initial spike. Overall, shenme was correctly positioned 46% of the time in the case of the SF task and between 60% and 68% of the time in the case of the three remaining tasks. The somewhat low score for shenme in the first test could be due to the participants’ uncertainty with regard to the entire testing process and so perhaps this initial state of possible “performance anxiety” hindered their performance.

The accuracy of the placement of nar and na, on the other hand, only improved dramatically in the case of the GJ task but, as previously discussed (and illustrated by the participants’ performance), the results of GJ task are not necessarily an entirely accurate reflection of the participants’ TL knowledge. Also, the participants’ decline in performance on their final task proves that they did not improve on the GJ task because they had progressed in their knowledge of the relevant rule, but rather that, had the GJ task been the only measure of their performance, the results would have been misleading.

Nar was treated fairly consistently across all the tasks except in the case of the GJ

task (65% of placements were correct), with the correct placement of nar occurring between 33% and 37% of the time in the three remaining tasks. Na, however, was the

0   10   20   30   40   50   60   70   80   90   100   0   1   2   3   4   5   Percen tage  correct   SFT                                    OPT                              GJT                                  ESTT   shenme   nar   na   Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za

141  

wh-word that saw both the greatest inconsistency across tasks as well as the lowest

overall percentage in its correct usage. The percentages are as follows: 47% for the SF task, 25% for the OP task, 57% for the GJ task and 20% for the EST task. One practical explanation for this is that na was the wh-word most often avoided and replaced with either shenme or nar. As such, these constructions were regarded as incorrect and included as an “other error”.

A possible reason why there was such disparity in the participants’ scores on items testing the three respective wh-words (and a possible explanation for why na was the

wh-word most often avoided) is because wh-words, certainly in child language

acquisition, are acquired in a specific order that is determined by the complexity of the concept encoded in the wh-word in question (Bloom, Merkin and Wootten, 1982: 1086). Rowland, Pine, Lieven and Theakston (2003: 612) furthermore claim that the frequency with which wh-words are used, and therefore the frequency with which language learners hear them, also impacts upon the order in which they are acquired. Frequency and complexity in this sense are strongly correlated, as wh-words that relate to more complex concepts are used less than those related to more simple ones (Rowland et al., 2003: 612). Bloom et al. (1982: 1084) confirm that there is a specific order in which wh-words emerge in child L1 acquisition, and that the same order is replicated in child L2 acquisition.

The first words claimed to be acquired are the wh-pronominals what, where and who.

Wh-pronominals are assumed to be relatively simple to acquire as they inquire about

the “major sentence constituents that they replace” (Bloom et al., 1982: 1086). Following this, the wh-sententials why, how and when are acquired. Wh-questions with these wh-words are said to seek information pertaining to the “semantic relations among all the constituents in a sentence”, making the acquisition thereof significantly more difficult (Bloom et al., 1982: 1086). The last wh-words said to be acquired are the wh-adjectivals which and whose. Such wh-words are said to be even more complex as they require a specific answer about one of the sentence constituents. The results provided in Table 5.23 above provide evidence that this order of acquisition may also apply in the case of adult language acquisition.

In its presentation and discussion of the results of the present study, this chapter endeavoured to explain why there was no significant difference between the L1 isiXhosa-speaking and L1 English-speaking participants’ acquisition of wh-question formation in Mandarin and attempted to account for the different error patterns noted between the two groups. The following chapter summarises the above-mentioned findings and offers a final overview of the learners’ acquisition of in-situ wh- questions Mandarin. The study’s limitations are pointed out and suggestions for instruction pertaining to wh-question formation in Mandarin, as well as for future research are offered in the final chapter.

143  

CHAPTER 6