- Information
- AI Chat
The Lexical Morpheme Acquisition of a Learner of English as a Second Language
English Education A (ECL461)
Deakin University
Recommended for you
Students also viewed
- Teaching English Using Poetry- An Alternative to Implement Contextual Teaching and Learning- An Alternative to Implement Contextual Teaching and Learning
- 2022 U4O2 SAC PLAN - Plan.
- Oral draft
- I began with doing extensive research with the questions provided in the planning sheet regarding American slavery and racism
- Imagery in The Women of Troy
- Wot essay plan - women of troy
Preview text
ISSN: 2502-292X, e-ISSN 2527-7448. © 2018, English Education Program, Graduate School University of Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA Jakarta DOI: 10/JER_Vol3Issue
JER|Journal of ELT Research
Vol. 3, No. 1, 2018, 58-67 DOI: 10/JER_Vol3Issue
The Lexical Morpheme Acquisition of a Learner of English
as a Second Language
Burhansyah
Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
DOI: 10/JER_Vol3Issue1pp58-
The present study aims to examine the acquisition of English lexical morphemes - i. past
- ed marker and plural – s marker on nouns, in L2 (second language) English within the framework of Processability Theory (henceforth PT). The participant of this research was LE, an Indonesian learner learning English as L2 in an instructional context. The data in the form of essay written by LE was collected longitudinally at four points in time during the period of four months. Based on the data, a distributional analysis was carried out, and then the findings were analysed by using the implicational scaling in accordance with the emergence criterion in order to determine the points of acquisition of the two morphological forms under scrutiny. The research finding indicates that the acquisition points of the lexical morphemes appear to follow PT‟s predictions, where the emergence point of past – ed marker and plural – s marker occurred at comparatively the same point in time as hypothesised in PT. Moreover, the finding of this research reveals that the predictions of PT seem to be followed in L2 written English; it indicates PT‟s capacity to account for morphological acquisition in both written and spoken language production.
Keywords: processability theory, L2 acquisition, lexical morpheme
Tujuan penelitian ini melihat pemerolehan morphem leksikal bahasa Inggris, yaitu penanda lampau -ed dan penanda jamak -s pada bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa kedua dengan menggunakan kerangka Processability Theory (PT). Partisipan penelitian adalah LE, pelajar Indonesia yang sedang belajar bahasa Inggris dalam konteks instruksional. Data dalam bentuk esai dikumpulkan selama empat bulan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan pemerolehan morphem sesuai pola prediksi PT, dimana penanda lampau dan jamak terjadi secara berbarengan pada waktu yang sama.
Corresponding author. Email: atiburhan@yahoo
Journal of ELT Research| 59
INTRODUCTION
The field of second language acquisition (SLA) has developed as an independent and autonomous field of study since the last four decades, and various disciplines such as linguistics, education and psychology have played an important role in informing approaches in SLA research (Saville-Troike, 2006). Processability Theory (PT), which was developed by Manfred Pienemann, is one of the current mainstream theories in SLA which has attracted attention among researchers (VanPatten & Williams, 2007). PT is a theory of second language acquisition, and as the name of the theory suggests PT focuses on language processing, particularly on the processing of output of L2 (second language) linguistic forms (VanPatten & Benati, 2007). The logic underlying the theory is explained by Pienemann (2008) as the following: the L2 learner produces and comprehends only linguistic structures which can be handled by the current state of the language processor. Consequently, understanding the architecture of the language processor and how it handles a second language is considered very important; for it would help one to be able to predict the course of the development of linguistic forms in L2 learner‟s interlanguage. The key assumptions of language processing in PT are as follows (Pienemann, 2003): (a) autonomous language processing: the processing component, e. the procedure to construct a phrase, is relatively autonomous, and its operation is mostly automatic, suggesting that the execution of the procedure is not generally under conscious control. This occurs as a result of the high speed at which language processing takes place. (b) Incremental language processing: there is a gradual construction of surface lexicogrammatical form during the on-going conceptualization. (c) Linear output: the output of the processor is linear, but its mapping onto the underlying meaning may not occur linearly, known as the linearization problem, which applies to the mapping of conceptual structure onto linguistic form, as well as to morphosyntactic structure generation. (d) Grammatical memory store access: grammatical processing has access to a grammatical memory store; the need for this is due to the linearization problem and the automatic and incremental characteristics of language generation. PT has as its core a universal processability hierarchy; this hierarchy is based upon the concept of grammatical information transfer within and between the phrases of a sentence (Pienemann, 2008). The following is an overview of the hypothesised processability hierarchy: 1. No procedure (e., single word utterances) 2. Category procedure (e., adding a plural morpheme to a noun) 3. Noun phrase procedure (e., matching plurality as in „several questions‟) 4. Verb phrase procedure (e., movement of elements within a verb phrase) 5. Sentence procedure (e., 3sg – s subject–verb agreement) 6. Subordinate clause procedure (e., use of a particular tense based on something in the main clause) (Pienemann, 2007, p. 140). Pienemann (2008) argues that the linguistic development of L2 learners follows the hierarchy due to the reasons that language development is implicationally ordered, that is, the
Journal of ELT Research| 61
which data was collected longitudinally is Yamaguchi‟s (2009). In what follows I will review this empirical study by Yamaguchi. The study was a longitudinal case study of a learner acquiring English in an English L context. In the study, the focus was on the acquisition of English plural marker -s on nouns and NP (noun phrase) plural agreement of a Japanese L1 child learner learning English as a second language, within the PT framework. The study addressed the question whether the acquisition of plural marking – s, which belongs to the stage-two procedure, emerges in the learner‟s interlanguage prior to the acquisition of NP plural agreement, belonging to the stage-three procedure, as predicted by PT. The research participant was Kumi, a daughter of Japanese native speaker parents who immigrated to Australia when she was five years old. The collection of data in the form of recorded speech production was conducted longitudinally over the period of two years, that is, from the time Kumi was 5 years 8 months old until she was 7 years 8 months. The data was collected fortnightly for the first two months, bimonthly for the rest of the first year, and every three months for the second year. There were 14 meeting sessions in total with the participant, with each of the sessions lasting approximately 20-30 minutes. The oral production samples were gathered by means of various tasks, including semi-structured interviews, narratives and communication games. After transcribing the oral data, Yamaguchi carried out a distributional analysis of the morphological forms under investigation. At the last stage of data analysis, the emergence criterion was applied to find out whether or not the learner had acquired the target linguistic forms. The result of Yamaguchi‟s research indicates that the learner‟s acquisition of the English morphological forms was implicational, i. lexical procedure > phrasal procedure, thus consistent with the developmental sequence as predicted in PT. The learner first acquired plural marker – s on nouns, which belongs to stage 2 (i. lexical procedure), and after that she acquired NP plural agreement, which belongs to stage 3 (i. phrasal procedure). On the basis of her research findings, Yamaguchi (2009) argues that both cross-sectional data and longitudinal data appear to support the English processability hierarchy for morphological plural marking. Given that her case study was the first attempt to longitudinally investigate English L plural marking within PT, Yamaguchi states that more longitudinal PT-based research to further examine the developmental sequence of the morphological structures is required in order to provide more evidence for the predictions made by PT. There were two major rationales for the undertaking of this present study, namely the focus of research on the written production of English as a second language and the longitudinal approach for data collection. With regard to the first reason – i. the focus of the research on production of written English, a great deal of research under PT has so far been oriented on spoken language production (Rahkonen & Håkansson, 2008). Nevertheless, L2 written production has recently started to be researched within the framework of PT, for example, research conducted by Håkansson and Norrby (2007), Rahkonen and Håkansson (2008), and Ågren (2009). The results of the research indicate that PT seems capable to account for the
62 | B u r h a n s y a h
acquisition of L2 morphology in spoken as well as written language production. In other words, it can be argued that the PT hypotheses can be tested against data of written language, which accordingly invites further research in the field. The need for this research, therefore, stems from the fact that there have been limited PT-based longitudinal studies focusing specifically on written production of L2 English. The other reason for this research is concerned with the longitudinal approach, which means that the research data is collected from the research participant over a prolonged period of time, the purpose of which is to gather information about change over time. Dörnyei (2007) states that “the salience of development and change highlights the significance of longitudinal research” (p. 78); accordingly, it is strongly argued that the longitudinal research design is most suitable for research within a transition theory such as PT which focuses on the developmental course of language over time (Pienemann, 2007). Moreover, Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005) assert that since second language learning is a process happening through and over time, investigations of most L2 learning problems can be interpreted in a more meaningful way with a full longitudinal perspective. Despite the theoretical centrality of time in second language research, the longitudinal approach still does not appear to receive adequate attention from second language researchers, which can be seen from the fact that the number of such research studies to date is still far fewer as compared to cross-sectional ones (Dörnyei, 2007). With regard to the selection of two morphemes, i. English plural – s and past – ed markers, for this study, the decision is principally based on the following reason – i. the need for a more detailed analysis within the PT framework on the emergence points of English plural
- s and past – ed markers in L2 learner‟s interlanguage. According to PT, the two morphemes emerge in L2 learner‟s interlanguage at comparatively the same point in time; therefore, this present research aims to examine whether the acquisition of the two lexical morphemes occurs as predicted by the theory. To sum up, given that the number of PT-based research specifically studying L2 English morphemes to date is still limited, and virtually all of them are cross-sectional, this longitudinal research can therefore be seen as another novel attempt to further investigate the L2 English morphological development. This research, unlike Yamaguchi‟s longitudinal case study which examined oral language production of a child learner, focused on the analysis of written language data produced by an adult learner learning L2 English in an instructional context, i. learning English formally as a foreign language in her native country.
METHODS This study investigated the main research question: does the acquisition of lexical morphemes – i. past – ed marker and plural – s marking follow the sequence predicted in PT? The design of this present research was in the form of longitudinal case study, involving one Indonesian adult learner learning English in an instructional context. The participant of this research, henceforth referred to as LE, was a first-year university student doing her undergraduate degree in English. Her formal learning of English as a foreign language started when she was in grade four of
64 | B u r h a n s y a h
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The finding of the distributional analysis of the lexical morphological structures under scrutiny – namely past – ed marker and plural – s marker, are presented in Table 1 below. The first row shows the different points in time (i. T1, T2, T3 and T4) in the corpus, while the far left column shows the hypothesised morphological forms.
Table 1. Distributional analysis of LE’s morphological acquisition Lexical morphemes T1 T2 T3 T Past – ed marker 1 / 14 .
2 / 21
.
11 / 29
.
13 / 19
.
Plural – s marker 1 / 3 .
2 / 5
.
4 /
.
4 / 10
.
The result of distributional analysis as shown in the table above indicates that there was only 1 positive instance of past – ed marker which was found in LE‟s writing in Time 1 of data collection, even though there were 14 obligatory contexts for this linguistic form. The same case was also found with plural – s marker; out of 3 obligatory contexts, LE could only supply 1 positive instance of this lexical morpheme. As for Time 2, in spite of the finding that the two morphological forms – i. past – ed marker and plural – s marker, started to develop in the subject‟s interlanguage in that point of time, which was indicated with an increase in the number of positive instances produced by LE, the two occurrences of positive instances were still considered insufficient; for there should be at least 3 positive instances in lexically varied contexts before a grammatical structure can be considered as having been acquired (Zhang, 2005). The first point of emergence for both morphological forms in the subject‟s interlanguage was found to occur in month 3, at which time LE started to steadily supply past – ed marker and plural – s marker in her writing. At this point of time, out of 29 obligatory contexts for past – ed marker, the subject successfully supplied 11 positive instances of this form. A similar emergence pattern was also observed for plural – s marker, where, out of 5 obligatory contexts for this morphological structure, 4 positive occurrences were found in LE‟s L2 written production. Time 4 reveals a similar pattern to Time 3, considered the first emergence point; the occurrences of positive instances of past – ed marker showed a steady increase (i. 13 occurrences of suppliance out of 19 obligatory contexts), while for plural – s marker there was the same number of occurrences as in Time 3 (i. 4 positive instances) found in LE‟s production of English L2. This finding indicates the emergence of the two morphological forms in the subject‟s interlanguage is implicational as illustrated in Table 2 below. That is, they follow the stages predicted in PT. According to Hatch and Lazaraton (1991), for the scale to be considered „valid‟, the coefficient score should be at least .90. The calculation of the scalability (or reproducibility)
Journal of ELT Research| 65
of the implicational scale following Pienemann (2011) shows that the coefficient score of the participant in this research is 1 (i. no cell in the table deviates from the prediction); it means the implicational scaling table is a valid implicational table.
Table 2. Implicational scaling of LE’s acquisition Lexical morphemes Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Past – ed marker - - + + Plural – s marker - - + + Note: “+”= acquired, “-“= not acquired
As shown in the table above, according to the emergence criterion, both types of lexical morphemes were not found to have been acquired by the subject at the first two points of time (i. Time 1 and Time 2). The first systematic use of the two morphological forms as shown in the table above occurred in Time 3, shown by the presence of more than three instances in lexically varied contexts. Since that point of time onwards, both past – ed and plural – s markers have regularly been supplied in the subject‟s L2 written production. Based on the research finding, it can be argued that the acquisition of the morphemes follows the prediction of PT which hypothesises that the emergence of both past – ed and plural – s markers occurs at comparatively the same point in time, as they are predicted to belong to the same processing procedure – i. the category procedure. Therefore, the processability hierarchy for English L2 morphemes under examination is supported by the longitudinal, written data of this research as well as the longitudinal, oral data (see e. Yamaguchi, 2009).
CONCLUSIONS The results of this longitudinal study has shown that the acquisition of the two morphological structures (i. past – ed marker and plural –s marker) in LE‟s interlanguage from her written production of English L2 appears to follow the predictions hypothesised by Processability Theory, which is indicated by the comparatively same point of time of emergence of the two morphemes and by the implicational sequence of the two structures without any gaps in the hierarchy. Further, the research result reveals that the PT‟s predictions on the two morphemes, hypothesised to belong to the same stage of processing procedure, are followed in the written production of English L2 as well as in the spoken production of English as L2 based on the findings of the previous research investigating the acquisition of English morphology based on Processability Theory.
REFERENCES Ågren, M. (2009). Morphological development in written L2 French: A processability perspective. In J.-U. Keβler & D. Keatinge (Eds.). Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp-151). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Journal of ELT Research| 67
Rahkonen, M. & Håkansson, G. (2008). Production of written L2-Swedish - Processability or input frequencies? In J.-U. Keβler (Ed.). Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp-161). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories in second language acquisition : An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yamaguchi, Y. (2009). The development of plural marking and plural agreement in child English L2 acquisition. In J.-U. Keβler & D. Keatinge (Eds.). Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp-39). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Zhang, Y. (2005). Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In M. Pienemann (Ed.). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp-177). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
The Lexical Morpheme Acquisition of a Learner of English as a Second Language
Course: English Education A (ECL461)
University: Deakin University
- Discover more from:
Students also viewed
- Teaching English Using Poetry- An Alternative to Implement Contextual Teaching and Learning- An Alternative to Implement Contextual Teaching and Learning
- 2022 U4O2 SAC PLAN - Plan.
- Oral draft
- I began with doing extensive research with the questions provided in the planning sheet regarding American slavery and racism
- Imagery in The Women of Troy
- Wot essay plan - women of troy