Developmental Sequences in L2 English Question Formation ...

[Pages:11]Running head: ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

1

Developmental Sequences in L2 English Question Formation Kristen Foster Lisa Harris Shinae Joo

Colorado State University

ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

2

Abstract Interlanguage is a learner's emergent system of language knowledge and use, and despite often being characterized by grammatical inaccuracy, in regards to particular linguistics systems (e.g., negation) it has been demonstrated to emerge in fixed sequences with "remarkable" (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 82) consistency. This consistency can be applied to the English system for question formation. This small-scale study represents an attempt to elicit questions from intermediate English language learners, and then categorize the elicited questions according to the developmental stages for English question formation described by Dyson (2008). While the researchers found that categorizing responses was straightforward, limitations of the study such as a low number of participants preclude the generalizability of the results.

Keywords: interlanguage, developmental sequence, English question formation

ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

3

Developmental Sequences in L2 English Questions Formation Introduction

In second language acquisition research, it is understood that second language learners do not attain language proficiency through imitation, repetition, and the acquisition of language forms in the neat and linear nature that those forms are traditionally laid out in popular English language teaching materials. Rather, what a learner knows about a language and how to use it at any given time interacts in complex ways with new linguistic information and stimuli, resulting in the constant and unique development of a learner's language ability (Ellis, 2008; Dyson, 2008; Makey & Philp, 1998; Makey, 1999; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Ortega, 2009).

A learner's emergent system of language knowledge and use is referred to as learner language or interlanguage. The study of interlanguage has provided researchers with many insights regarding the process of language acquisition (Ellis, 2008). Research has consistently demonstrated that despite differences in age, native language, and cultural background, the interlanguage of language learners emerges in fixed sequences with "remarkable" (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 82) consistency. For example, second language learners seem to acquire language structures necessary for expressing negation in stages that are consistent among L2 leaners and virtually the same as those followed by children learning their native language. The ordering of these stages seems to be impervious to the effects of form-focused instruction. According to Lightbown and Spada, (2006), "Students may produce certain structures after they have been taught them in class, but cease to use them later because they are not fully integrated into their language systems" (p. 160). Attempts to teach linguistic structures occurring in a later stage of development before those occurring in an earlier stage are largely unsuccessful as it has

ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

4

been demonstrated that learners should transition past earlier stages before later-stage structures can be acquired.

Stages in the development of language learners' ability to produce questions in the L2 were first described by Pienemann, et al. (1988), and this description has provided the foundation for numerous studies investigating the topic (Dyson, 2008; Lightbown & Spada, 1999; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Mackey, 1999; Ortega, 2009). Like the developmental stages observed for expressing negation, the sequence of development in question formation is similar to that observed in studies of native language development (Ortega, 2009). For example, English language learners in the first stage of development will typically ask questions through applying rising intonation to the end of a single word (e.g., Fork?). Questions in the second stage of development are characterized the same rising intonation applied to subject-verb-object clauses (e.g., You have a fork?). A complete description of the stages following Dyson (2008) is displayed in Appendix A.

The Present Study In this small-scale study, we were interested in eliciting questions from intermediate English language learners, and then attempting to categorize the elicited questions according to the development stages for English question formation described by Dyson (2008). In this way, we hoped to evaluate at which stage in the development of question formation our participants were currently operating. Modification of the Probe In their 1999 study, Lightbown and Spada used four tasks to elicit data on learners' use of question forms. One of these was a picture-cued written questions task, for which learners were asked to imagine what questions characters in a cartoon strip might be asking. For our study, we

ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

5

modified this picture task slightly. Instead of a cartoon strip, we used a colorful advertisement in which a family is preparing to eat dinner in their backyard. This advertisement was chosen because we felt there was enough activity in the photo to easily elicit questions and statements, and that the vocabulary needed to talk about the photo was basic enough that the participants would almost certainly be developed in subjects at an intermediate level. We prepared five statements that the participants would use to formulate questions. For example, if shown the statement They are eating dinner, the participant would ask a question that might have logically preceded this response, such as What is the family doing? Participants

Four ESL students who at the time were studying in the high-intermediate level at Colorado State University's Intensive English Program participated in this research. The subject group consisted of two Arabic, one Korean, and one Thai student, each of whom was male. Interviews were conducted separately to ensure that participant's answers were not affected by a participant who had gone first and been overhead. Procedure

Prior to the question-elicitation procedure, instructions were provided both in written form as well as explained by the researchers. After the subjects were given instructions, they were given a sheet of paper with the question elicitation instrument on it and the picture which the instrument described. They were instructed to make questions as the given answers implied, with no time limit. Each interview was recorded.

After we had completed our tasks with our subjects, we each individually transcribed our audio files and then met to analyze the data set (See Appendix B for transcriptions). Our goal was to place each response into one of the six stages, based on the questions' syntactic structure

ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

6

and correlation with question-types described in Dyson's (2008) description. After assigning each elicited question a stage descriptor, the stage descriptors were averaged in order to provide an overall idea of where participants were positioned among or between stages. Results

After examining the elicited questions alongside the developmental sequences chart, we easily reached a consensus in regards to placing the responses into a stage. Subject 1, an Arabicspeaking male, initially omitted the copula in three of his five responses (When they eating?; he self-corrected in the first of these responses), and used stage 4 constructions in his other two responses (How many people are in this family?). Based on the analysis, we concluded that he was showing signs of transitioning from stage 3 to stage 4. Subjects 2 and 3 displayed stage 4 constructions in all but one of their responses--they both omitted the copula in How many people in this picture?--so we determined that they were at stage 4, at least. And finally, subject 4--another Arabic-speaking male--consistently failed to insert the copula into his questions. We therefore interpreted his question development to be at stage 3.

Some problems were encountered with interpretation of the data. Two responses did not seem to fit clearly into the stage descriptions. The first of these was, Where the family cooked is their dinner? Stage 3 wh-fronting was displayed, but the auxiliary do was missing in the second position, and is was inserted in a strange position. There were no examples or descriptions in the chart that helped us place this item. The second response that defied categorization was, Where do the family cook? This question was correctly structured in regards to wh-fronting and secondposition do-placement, but the auxiliary do was not conjugated correctly into the singular form does. We felt that while using the developmental sequences chart, placement into a stage did not

ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

7

necessarily reflect correct verb conjugation, but at the same time, we felt that because of that incorrect verb conjugation, a stage 5 placement seemed inaccurate for this response.

Second, some subjects' question development was different from what we expected based on the rationale that, "If sample A contains rule 3 then it will also contain rules 2 and 1" (Pienemann et al., 1988). We saw this exception from subject 3, who formed a question in stage 5 successfully (Where did the family cook?), but later failed in copula-inversion, which was required in stage 4 (How many people in this picture?). In this regard, it was difficult to judge to what level the student's question formation had developed.

Another problem we faced in the interpretation of the data was that the statements we created to elicit questions tended not to provide the opportunity to form higher-stage questions. While constructing statements to elicit questions, we expected the level of the subjects to be stage 3 or 4. Therefore, the statements we created unintentionally set those subjects up to perform according to the level we expected. If we were to redesign the elicitation device, we would have included statements that could potentially elicit questions at every development stage. Discussion

There are a number of ways in which we might have approached this project differently. As mentioned previously, the question elicitation statements could have been better constructed in order to elicit questions from more advanced stages. In retrospect, we realized that the question-elicitation statements that were used were basically tailored to intermediatelevel English language learners (ELLs). Additionally, this study should have included a larger and more linguistically diverse group of participants, ranging from beginning to advanced L2 ability. It also would have been desirable to observe and analyze participant speech and writing

ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATION

8

over an extended period of time and in a more authentic setting. The setting that was used to elicit questions in this study was fairly clinical, and if data had been collected in a more naturalistic setting (e.g., recording, transcribing and analyzing discourse from actual language classes) the results might have been different.

We have several suggestions for additional research. Further studies could focus on comparing participants' developmental stages in written versus oral question formation. It would be interesting to see if learners began displaying characteristics of one stage sooner in a particular modality. Also, it could be interesting to observe the question formation patterns of speakers from the same L1 background, and to perform a contrastive analysis before-hand to anticipate the types of errors they might make due to transference from the L1.

Finally, we thought it would be interesting to conduct a study that examined whether an L2 speaker's stage in the development of questions showed any correlation to their overall speaking level. One of our subjects seemed less proficient at general communication than another of our subjects, yet his question formation was more accurate. We found this interesting and surprising, and it reminded us that efficient communication is not dependent upon grammatical accuracy, and that overall language proficiency is not necessarily congruent with specific stages in the development of questions. For example, one the investigators for this study--a Korean L1 graduate student in TEFL/TESL--enriched this idea with an interesting point: If her question formation were analyzed in a naturalistic setting, she might be placed in stage 2, due to her inclination to form questions through rising intonation rather than wh- or doinsertion. However, we certainly wouldn't classify her as a "stage 2 of 6" in English proficiency!

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download