UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Syntactic development in the writing of ESL students Yau, Margaret Sin-Siu 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 Y38.pdf [ 11.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078306.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078306-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078306-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078306-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078306-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078306-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078306-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078306-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078306.ris

Full Text

C . 5 SYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE WRITING OF ESL STUDENTS MARGARET SIN-SIU YAU B.A., The Chinese U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Language E d u c a t i o n ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1983 ( c ) MARGARET SIN-SIU YAU, I983 MASTER OF ARTS m In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 i i ABSTRACT The c u r r e n t s t u d y examined t h e development of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n a group of Chinese secondary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language ( E S L ) . The c o m p o s i t i o n s of these s t u d e n t s w r i t t e n i n response t o two t a s k s (a n a r r a t i v e assignment and an e x p o s i t o r y assignment) were a n a l y z e d - f o r i n c r e a s e on the use of t h r e e s y n t a c t i c measures ( T - u n i t l e n g t h , c l a u s e l e n g t h and number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t ) and t h r e e g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s ( n o m i n a l s , a d v e r b i a l s and c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s ) a c r o s s t h r e e grade l e v e l s and between two modes of w r i t i n g . The s c o r e s were a n a l y z e d by ANOVA i n a 3(grade) x 2(mode) f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n . A s t e p w i s e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was a l s o c a r r i e d out t o i s o l a t e g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s t h a t b e s t d i s c r i m i n a t e the w r i t i n g a c r o s s the t h r e e grade l e v e l s and between two modes of w r i t i n g . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n T - u n i t l e n g t h , c l a u s e l e n g t h and number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t a c r o s s the t h r e e grades and t h e r e were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n T - u n i t l e n g t h and c l a u s e l e n g t h between the two modes of w r i t i n g . These d i f f e r e n c e s were accounted f o r by the i n c r e a s e on th e s e measures from the lowe s t grade (F.3) t o the h i g h e s t grade (F.7) and a l s o from the e x p o s i t o r y assignment t o the n a r r a t i v e assignment. Moreover, t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between mode and grade i n T - u n i t l e n g t h and c l a u s e l e n g t h , caused by the n o n - p a r a l l e l i n c r e a s e w i t h grade l e v e l s between the two modes of writing. The increase in T-unit length and clause length between F.3 and F.7 was much greater on the expository assignment than on the narrative assignment. A similar increase and interaction was found in the grammatical structures. Both the nominals and adverbials increased with grade l e v e l , and as with the syntactic measures discussed above, the increases were much greater on the expository than on the narrative assignment. There was not a si g n i f i c a n t increase in the use of coordinate structures between grade l e v e l s , supporting other researchers' claims that t h i s i s a transformation acquired early. The ESL students in the current study showed a remarkable resemblance to native English speaking students in terms of syntactic development. Not only was the increase in the syntactic measures similar to the growth trend found with native English speaking students, but the grammatical structures that distinguished the compositions at the three grade levels were also very similar to the mature structures isolated in other studies. One implication that can be drawn from t h i s study i s that the s i m i l a r i t i e s between these ESL students and native speakers in the employment of syntax r e f l e c t s common cognitive strategies that underlie the language learning task. Morever, since the study shows that there i s a developmental trend, perhaps proven techniques (such as sentence combining) can be t r i e d on these students to test i f the syntactic growth can be speeded up. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 A. An overview of the experimental procedures 5 B. D e f i n i t i o n of terms 8 C. Research q u e s t i o n s 9 D. Assumptions 11 E. L i m i t a t i o n s 13 F. S i g n i f i c a n c e of the study 13 I I . RELATED. RESEARCH 16 A. V a r i o u s i n d i c e s used to t r a c e s y n t a c t i c development of c h i l d r e n 17 B. A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s 28 C. The T - u n i t and i t s r e l a t i o n to language growth....32 D. T - u n i t r e l a t e d measures i n other n a t i v e language and second language i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 36 E. The a p p l i c a t i o n s and the l i m i t a t i o n s of the T- u n i t 40 F. E f f e c t s of d i s c o u r s e on the T-uni t a n a l y s i s 44 G. Summary 47 I I I . RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE 48 A. The s u b j e c t s of the study 48 B. C o l l e c t i o n of the language samples 50 V Chapter Page C. Measurement 52 D. Processing of the data 58 IV. FINDINGS 60 A. Differences on three syntactic measures across three grades and between two modes of writing..61 B. Differences on three syntactic measures across three grades on the narrative assignment alone 70 C. Differences on three syntactic measures across three grades on the expository assignment alone 72 D. Differences between the modes within each grade l e v e l 74 E. A summary of the findings in the f i r s t l e v e l analysis 76 F. Differences in three types of grammatical structures across three grades and between two modes of writing 78 G. Differences in the use of transformationally-produced structures within each grammatical category across three grades 87 H. Differences in the use of transformationally-produced structures within each grammatical category between two modes of writing 90 v i Chapter Page I. A summary of the second l e v e l analysis 93 V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 95 A. Summary and conclusions 97 B. Implications 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY 115 Appendix A. Null hypotheses 122 Appendix B. Composition topics 127 Appendix C. Prewriting procedures 130 Appendix D. Letter to the teachers 133 Appendix E. A writing log 136 Appendix F. Other researchers' treatment of garbles 138 Appendix G. Examples of garbles in the current study 142 Appendix H. Sample analysis of two paragraphs 144 Appendix I. A table of raw scores 145 Appendix J. Results of discriminant analysis on nominal construction across three grade leve l s 148 Appendix K. Results of discriminant analysis on adverbial construction across three grade leve l s 157 Appendix L. Results of discriminant analysis on nominal construction between two modes of writing...166 Appendix M. Results of discriminant analysis on adverbial construction between two modes of writing...172 v i i Chapter Page Appendix N. R e s u l t s of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n between two modes of writing... 180 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sexes i n Grade L e v e l Groups of Subjects..49 2. Age Range and Mean Age i n Years f o r Students at Three Grade L e v e l s s t u d i e d 49 3. Range and Mean Number of Words Wri t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and i n Two Modes of W r i t i n g 61 4. Mean T- u n i t Length, Mean Clause Length, and Mean Number of Clauses per T-uni t W r i t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and i n Two Modes of W r i t i n g 62 5. A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T- u n i t Length among Three Grade L e v e l s and between Two Modes of W r i t i n g ; and Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s i n T- u n i t Length 63 6. A n a l y s i s of Va r i a n c e f o r Clause Length among Three Grade L e v e l s and between Two Modes of W r i t i n g ; and Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s i n Clause Length 66 7. A n a l y s i s of Va r i a n c e f o r Clauses per T-uni t among Three Grade L e v e l s and between Two Modes of W r i t i n g ; and Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s i n Number of Clauses per T - u n i t 69 8. Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s in T-uni t Length, Clause Length and Number of Clauses per T-uni t i n the N a r r a t i v e Assignment 70 9. Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s i n T-uni t Length, Clause Length and Number of Clauses per T-uni t i n the E x p o s i t o r y Assignment 73 ix Table Page 10. Mean Change between Two Modes within Three Grades Levels on T-unit Length, Clause Length and Number of Clauses per T-unit; and Corresponding t-values 74 11. Mean Number of Nominal Constructions, Adverbial Constructions and Coordinate Constructions per 100 T-units Written by Students at Three Grade Levels and in Two Modes of Writing 79 12. Analysis of Variance for Nominal Constructions per 100 T-units among Three Grade Levels and between Two Modes of Writing; and Mean Change between Grade Levels in Nominal Constructions per 100 T-units 80 13. Analysis of Variance for Adverbial Constructions per 100 T-units among Three Grade Levels and between Two Modes of Writing; and Mean Change between Grade Levels in Adverbial Constructions per 100 T-units 83 14. Analysis of Variance for Coordinate Constructions per 100 T-units among Three Grade Levels and between Two Modes of Writing; and Mean Change between Grade Levels in Coordinate Constructions per 100 T-units....86 LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e Pag 1. Mean Number of Words per T - u n i t Written by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and i n Two Modes of Writing....6 2. Mean Number of Words per Clause Written by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and i n Two Modes of Wr i t i n g . . . . 6 3. Mean Number of Nominal C o n s t r u c t i o n s per 100 T - u n i t s W r i t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and in Two Modes of W r i t i n g 8 4. Mean Number of A d v e r b i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n s per 100 T - u n i t s W r i t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and in Two Modes of W r i t i n g 8 1 CHAPTER ONE AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The purpose of conducting this study was twofold: 1) to find out whether the compositions written by a group of Chinese secondary school students learning English as a second language (ESL) show that these students increase their syntactic maturity in the second language as they reach a higher l e v e l of second language learning, and whether their development in syntactic maturity is similar to the development exhibited by native speakers of the target language; and 2) to find out i f these ESL students employ dif f e r e n t syntactic options at three lev e l s of second language learning (intermediate, advanced, and very advanced) and in two modes of writing (narrative and expository) so that this understanding can form the basis for further research into curriculum materials which would improve the writing performance of these students. One focus of t h i s study was on the development of syntactic maturity. Syntactic maturity has also been the focus of many studies that investigate the changes that occur across d i f f e r e n t age or treatment groups in the written or oral language samples of English speaking students. Syntactic maturity i s a term originated by Hunt (1965) and used by later researchers (e.g., O'Hare, 1973; Stewart, 1978; Morenberg et a l . , 1978). Different researchers have d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s for thi s term. For example, Hunt used the term to designate "the observed 2 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of w r i t e r s i n an o l d e r grade' (p.5). O'Hare d e f i n e d s y n t a c t i c m aturity i n a s t a t i s t i c a l sense as 'the range of the sentence types found i n samples of the students' w r i t i n g ' (p.19). Some re s e a r c h e r s have a l s o used the term ' s y n t a c t i c f l u e n c y ' (e.g., Mellon, 1969) or ' s y n t a c t i c complexity' (e.g., Crowhurst and Piche, 1979) to r e f e r to the s y n t a c t i c o p t i o n s e x h i b i t e d by students at a p a r t i c u l a r grade l e v e l . However, d e s p i t e the d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s , i n essence, s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y (or f l u e n c y or complexity) r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y to the a b i l i t y of a group of speakers or w r i t e r s to employ sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s so that s u b s i d i a r y p r o p o s i t i o n s are subsumed under more gen e r a l ones to make e x p l i c i t the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between the p r o p o s i t i o n s and to achieve economy and s u c c i n c t n e s s i n e x p r e s s i o n . T h i s i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e by r e s e a r c h e r s to the a b i l i t y to combine sentences i s evident i n the f a c t that s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i s measured by the T-unit--an index developed by Hunt--and that g r e a t e r s y n t a c t i c maturity i s r e f l e c t e d i n longer T - u n i t s , the l a t t e r g e n e r a l l y being lengthened i n p r o p o r t i o n to the number of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s performed. T h i s study was prompted by the d e s i r e to understand one aspect of second language development, i . e . , how these ESL students expand t h e i r s y n t a c t i c o p t i o n s as they reach a more advanced l e v e l of second language l e a r n i n g , or using the terminology i n most s t u d i e s , how they grow i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y . In s t u d i e s with n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students, s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , measured by T-uni t l e n g t h , i s found to 3 increase with each higher grade l e v e l . This trend is apparent in the speech and writing of kindergarten and elementary school children (O'Donnell et a l . , 1967). It is also apparent in the writing of older students and s k i l l e d adults (see the two studies by Hunt, 1965 and 1970). Syntactic maturity i s also found to increase with university l e v e l students at each successive years (Stewart, 1978). These studies, then, show that for native English speaking students at least, along with an increased communicative a b i l i t y (Grimm, 1975) and an expanded l i n g u i s t i c repertoire which are signs of maturation, there i s also a growth in syntactic maturity over the years. Another convincing support for t h i s claim i s the study by Loban (1961, 1963, 1964, 1976). In his longitudinal investigation of the language development of students from kindergarten to grade twelve, Loban examined the a b i l i t y of students in three groupings--a high language a b i l i t y group, a low group and a random group--to manipulate syntax, to employ vocabulary, and to present a coherent and fluent discourse. He supplemented his study with a measure of the students' reading a b i l i t y , l i s t e n i n g a b i l i t y and IQ as well as a subjective rating by th e i r teachers. He found that the a b i l i t y of students in each group to manipulate syntax (reflected e s p e i c a l l y in the number of words in the communication unit~-a measure similar to the T-unit) showed the most consistent growth over the thirteen years and that this a b i l i t y was the best discriminator between the high language a b i l i t y group and the low language a b i l i t y group. These studies are reviewed in Chapter Two. If syntactic 4 maturity r e f l e c t s development in syntactic control for native English speaking students, i t i s reasonable to assume that syntactic maturity in the second language w i l l also r e f l e c t development in syntactic control of the learners in that language. The study of syntactic maturity also provides a new perspective with which to look at the development of writing a b i l i t i e s of second language learners. Zamel (1976) expressed concern about the reliance of second language writing programs on controlled and guided materials which i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the emphasis of these programs on the prevention or eradication of errors. She suggested that second language instructors should learn from f i r s t language research and reduce, the emphasis on errors. However, since the publication of her a r t i c l e , there have been few changes in such programs as i s evident from the paucity of new textbooks for such programs that are not based on guided materials. To bring changes to such programs, the teaching profession must be shown that the development of second language writing a b i l i t i e s can be viewed from a perspective other than the error-oriented perspective. The current study, then, shows that the study of syntactic maturity provides one such perspective. By studying the growth of syntactic maturity and investigating the syntactic options exhibited by the learners at d i f f e r e n t points of growth and in response to d i f f e r e n t writing tasks, t h i s study attempted to provide a better understanding of how the syntactic structures of the less advanced second language learners evolve to the more complex 5 forms at l a t e r stages of second language l e a r n i n g and how these l e a r n e r s grow in t h e i r a b i l i t y to manipulate syntax to s u i t the w r i t i n g task. Since s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s are one of the major components f o r the conveyance of i d e a s , such an understanding can form a b a s i s f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n of c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s that w i l l a i d s y n t a c t i c growth, and, perhaps, improve w r i t i n g performance. T h i s study, then, looked c l o s e l y at the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s employed in the w r i t i n g of a group of second language l e a r n e r s at three l e v e l s of second language l e a r n i n g and i n two modes of w r i t i n g . The changes i n the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s a c r o s s the three l e v e l s and between the two modes were measured by means of T - u n i t l e n g t h , c l a u s e l e n g t h , and number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t . To d i s c o v e r the components of the change, grammatical s t r u c t u r e s produced by sentence-combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s were i s o l a t e d and analyzed. A. An overview of the experimental procedures T h i s study looked i n t o the development of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n a group of Chinese secondary school students l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language (ESL). Students at three grade l e v e l s were chosen to represent intermediate ESL l e a r n e r s , advanced ESL l e a r n e r s , and very advanced ESL l e a r n e r s . An i n t e r v a l of f i v e years separated the very advanced ESL l e a r n e r s from the intermediate ESL l e a r n e r s , an i n t e r v a l which r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g., Hunt, 1965) have found to be long enough f o r 6 s i g n i f i c a n t differences to be detected between the groups in terms of the syntactic structures they employ. Beginning ESL learners were excluded from the analysis because i t would be d i f f i c u l t to e l i c i t written discourse (in the form of free writing) from beginning learners. Another reason they were excluded i s that the T-unit analysis, the p r i n c i p a l tool for th i s investigation, is useful only beyond a certain l e v e l of development in the target language, as suggested by Gaies (1980). The students in each of the three grades were asked to write two compositions, one in response to a narrative assignment and the other to an expository assignment. To make comparisons across grades r e l i a b l e , a l l students wrote on the same two topics within the same given time. Although t e s t - l i k e conditions where students work on their own without any help are desirable for control purposes, i t i s also l i k e l y that under such conditions students would not put forward their best performance. In this research, a series of rewriting procedures was designed to ensure that students put forward their best e f f o r t s so that the syntactic structures produced in the writing would be representative of what they were capable of producing (see Chapter Three). To understand the development of syntactic maturity and the writing strategies employed by these second language learners, their writing was analyzed using the mean T-unit length, mean clause length, and the number of clauses per T-unit. Since these measures are widely used in syntactic development 7 re s e a r c h , data obtained on these measures c o u l d be compared with data obtained i n other s t u d i e s to f i n d out i f the development of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y in these students f o l l o w s the same t r e n d as that of n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers or other second language l e a r n e r s . Secondly, to f i n d out e x a c t l y what d i s t i n g u i s h e s the w r i t i n g of more mature students from that of younger students, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d grammatical s t r u c t u r e s c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o three t y p e s — n o m i n a l s , a d v e r b i a l s and c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s — w e r e i s o l a t e d and the occurrences of each of these s t r u c t u r e s i n the w r i t i n g at each grade l e v e l were t a b u l a t e d and compared. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d grammatical s t r u c t u r e s under these three headings was pioneered by O'Donnell et a l . (1967) and a l s o adopted by l a t e r r e s e a r c h e r s (see Chapter Two). A comparison of the f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study with those i n the other s t u d i e s would r e v e a l f u r t h e r whether these ESL l e a r n e r s develop s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n the same way as n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students do. A t h i r d a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d comparing the w r i t i n g of these students i n response to two d i f f e r e n t kinds of assignments. One assignment asked f o r w r i t i n g i n the n a r r a t i v e mode; the other, e x p o s i t o r y . A comparison of the students' performance on the two assignments would enable one to understand b e t t e r the w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s that these students employed as they responded to d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g t a s k s . A comparison can a l s o be drawn between these students and n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students (e.g., the research of Rosen, 1 9 6 9 ; San Jose, 1972; 8 Perron, 1976; Crowhurst and Piche, 1979; Crowhurst, 1980) on how they d i f f e r e d from n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students i n t h e i r response to d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g t a s k s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r employing these procedures i s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Two and the method of a n a l y s i s i s presented i n Chapter Three. B. D e f i n i t i o n of terms Terms c e n t r a l to t h i s study are : 1. S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y : the a b i l i t y of groups of speakers or w r i t e r s to perform sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s so that s u b s i d i a r y p r o p o s i t i o n s are subsumed under more general ones to make e x p l i c i t the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between the p r o p o s i t i o n s and to achieve economy and s u c c i n c t n e s s i n e x p r e s s i o n . Because i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r s or speakers may vary t h e i r s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s a c c o r d i n g to d i s c o u r s e demands and to t h e i r own s t y l i s t i c p r e f e r e n c e s , s y n t a c t i c maturity i s d e f i n e d here as a term r e f l e c t i n g group performance where i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s are averaged out. 2. Second language l e a r n e r s : i n g e n e r a l , l e a r n e r s l e a r n i n g a language other than t h e i r n a t i v e languages. The term E n g l i s h as a second language (ESL), as used i n t h i s study, r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y to a l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n where E n g l i s h i s a c q u i r e d i n a s c h o o l context and where use o u t s i d e the school i s r a r e , a 9 l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n common to the students i n Hong Kong. T h i s l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n i s to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from s i t u a t i o n s where the ESL l e a r n e r s are immersed i n an E n g l i s h speaking environment, such as ESL l e a r n i n g i n Canada. 3. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d grammatical s t r u c t u r e s : those grammatical s t r u c t u r e s produced by sentence-combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . They are c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o three types--nominals, a d v e r b i a l s and c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s . C. Research q u e s t i o n s The c u r r e n t study examines the f o l l o w i n g major q u e s t i o n s : 1. W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in mean T- u n i t l e n g t h , mean c l a u s e l e n g t h and mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t i n the compositions w r i t t e n by students at Form 3, 5 and 7? 2. W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l e c t e d grammatical s t r u c t u r e s i n the compositions w r i t t e n by students a t Form 3, 5 and 7? What grammatical s t r u c t u r e s w i l l best d i s c r i m i n a t e the w r i t i n g produced by the students at the three grades? 3. W i l l there be s i g n i f i c n a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T- u n i t l e n g t h , mean c l a u s e l e n g t h and mean number of c l a u s e s per T-uni t between the compositions w r i t t e n by students i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment? 10 4. W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences in selected grammatical structures between the compositions written by students in response to a narrative assignment and to an expository assignment? What grammatical structures w i l l best discriminate the writing done in response to the two assignments? The study also examines the following subsidiary questions: 5 . W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences in mean T-unit length, mean clause length and mean number of clauses per T-unit in the compositions written by students in Form 3 , 5 and 7 in response to a narrative assignment? 6 . W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences in mean T-unit length, mean clause length and mean number of clauses per T-unit in the compositions written by students in Form 3 , 5 and 7 in response to an expository assignment? 7 . W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences in mean T-unit length, mean clause length, and mean number of clauses per T-unit between the compositions written by students at Form 3 in response to a narrative assignment and to an expository assignment? 8 . W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t differences in mean T-unit length, mean clause length and mean number of clauses per T-unit between the compositions written by students at Form 5 in response to a 11 n a r r a t i v e assignment and to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment? 9. W i l l there be s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T-uni t l e n g t h , mean c l a u s e l e n g t h and mean number of c l a u s e s per T- u n i t between the compositions w r i t t e n by students at Form 7 i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment? For the purpose of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , the qu e s t i o n s were t r a n s l a t e d i n t o n u l l hypotheses and t e s t e d at a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . These n u l l hypotheses are given i n Appendix A. The s t a t i s t i c a l procedures i n v o l v e d were 1) three-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e to determine i f there were d i f f e r e n c e s among the three s y n t a c t i c measures and the three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s ; 2) stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s to f i n d out which s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n each grammatical category best d i s c r i m i n a t e d w r i t i n g done by students among the three grade l e v e l s ; 3)Newman-Keuls t e s t s to determine between which two grade l e v e l s there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ; 4) B o n f e r r o n i _ t - s t a t i s t i c s to make grade-wise comparisons on the s y n t a c t i c measures w i t h i n each mode of w r i t i n g ; and 5) t - t e s t s f o r c o r r e l a t e d measures to make mode-wise comparisons on the s y n t a c t i c measures w i t h i n each grade l e v e l . D. Assumptions The f o l l o w i n g assumptions u n d e r l i e the study: 12 1. That mean T-unit length , mean clause length and mean number of clauses per T-unit can d i f f e r e n t i a t e adequately syntactic maturity reflected in the writing done by students at the three grade l e v e l s . The e f f i c a c y of these measures with regard to native language data has been suggested by a number of research studies. These measures are also found to be indicative of the maturity of the writing done by university l e v e l students learning German as a second language or learning French as a second language (see Chapter Two). These measures, however, have not been t r i e d on subjects similar to the subjects in t h i s study ( i . e . , secondary school ESL students whose native language is Chinese). 2. That the sample size used in t h i s study (an average of 200 words per composition and 400 words per individual student) i s adequate to r e f l e c t the normal range of syntactic and grammatical structures used by these students. Research has not proved the minimun sample size required to most accurately r e f l e c t the normal range. O'Hare (1973) suggests that a sample size of about 400 words is as accurate as a sample size of 1000 words. Many researchers have come to regard t h i s sample size as the minimum (e.g., Crowhurst and Piche, 1979). However, smaller sample sizes have been used by researchers and considered to be adequate. For example, O'Donnell et a l . (1967) based their analysis of the syntactic maturity in the writing of elementary school students on a sample of about 200 words in grade 3 to about 500 words in grade 7. Hunt and O'Donnell (1970) used a 13 300 word sample to analyze the w r i t i n g of grade 4 students. Combs (1976) a l s o used a 300 word sample produced by grade 7 students. Those r e s e a r c h e r s basing t h e i r a n a l y s i s on a r e w r i t i n g passage (e.g., Hunt, 1970; Monroe, 1975; Stewart, 1978) have used sample s i z e s s h o r t e r than 200 words. E. L i m i t a t i o n s G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s i n t h i s study must not be extended to a l l second language l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . As s p e c i f i e d i n S e c t i o n C, the second language s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s study i s c o n f i n e d to a school c o n t e x t . Formal g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s must a l s o be q u a l i f i e d by the use of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group of s u b j e c t s . These s u b j e c t s seem r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f , but not f o r m a l l y g e n e r a l i z a b l e t o, c l a s s e s of Form 3, 5 and 7 students s t u d y i n g i n any government aided, Anglo-Chinese school i n Hong Kong. 1 F. S i q n i f icance of the study By l o o k i n g at the development of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y of a group of ESL l e a r n e r s , t h i s study attempted t o p r o v i d e some a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n to the i n q u i r y of whether these second language l e a r n e r s grow i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to combine sentences as they gain experience i n both second language l e a r n i n g and 'Students admitted to such schools are u s u a l l y of above average academic a b i l i t i e s as a l l o c a t i o n to such s c h o o l s i s determined by the students' performance i n a s c h o l a s t i c a p t i t u d e t e s t . 1 4 w r i t i n g . The i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y to combine sentences i s found to be one of the hallmarks of mature w r i t e r s r e g a r d l e s s of n a t i v e language (see Hunt, 1977). I t i s a l s o found to be the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of more advanced second language l e a r n e r s (see T h o r n h i l l , 1969, Monroe, 1975, and Cooper, 1976). I f these students show growth i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to manipulate syntax at a higher grade l e v e l , then they are approaching the second language w r i t i n g task i n a manner s i m i l a r to n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students and other second language l e a r n e r s . One i m p l i c a t i o n that, can be drawn from t h i s i s that the growth i n the a b i l i t y to combine sentences e x h i b i t e d by the d i f f e r e n t groups of students as they grow i n t h e i r language a b i l i t i e s i s a r e f l e c t i o n of common c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t u n d e r l i e a l l language l e a r n i n g t a s k s , a s p e c u l a t i o n r a i s e d by McLaughlin (1978). In a d d i t i o n , an understanding of how second language l e a r n e r s develop t h e i r w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to the design of b e t t e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodologies and b e t t e r language t e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l s i n the second language classroom. Such an understanding can come only when one looks at the second language data from d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s . In the area of w r i t i n g , the second language i n s t r u c t o r has p r i m a r i l y looked at the data from an e r r o r - o r i e n t e d p e r s p e c t i v e . Such a p e r s p e c t i v e may l e a d to the establishment of a h i e r a r c h y of developmental e r r o r s (an attempt made by many e r r o r - a n a l y s i s r e s e a r c h e r s ) , but the p i t f a l l of u s i n g such a p e r s p e c t i v e may be that so much emphasis i s p l a c e d on e r r o r s that one tends to overlook other 1 5 important aspects of language development. T h i s i n f l u e n c e can e a s i l y be d e t e c t e d i n a second language w r i t i n g program given the prevalence of c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g and e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n e x e r c i s e s . What t h i s study does i s to look at second language w r i t i n g from a second p e r s p e c t i v e - - a s y n t a c t i c p e r s p e c t i v e — t h e r e b y adding i n f o r m a t i o n of a new dimension to the e x i s t i n g data. The study of s y n t a c t i c development i n n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students have l e d to s t u d i e s of c u r r i c u l u m designs that aim at the improvement of w r i t i n g performance, e s p e c i a l l y i n the area of sentence combining. The f i n d i n g s of these s t u d i e s have been used i n new w r i t i n g textbooks. I t i s hoped that t h i s study would provide r e s e a r c h e r s with data that c o u l d form the b a s i s f o r s i m i l a r r e s e a r c h to improve the w r i t i n g performance of ESL students. 1 6 CHAPTER TWO RELATED RESEARCH Language development has been a t o p i c of i n t e r e s t f o r many r e s e a r c h e r s . However, i n order to t r a c e t h i s development, one has to i s o l a t e observable i n d i c e s of growth. Since l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s are r e a d i l y observable,, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that r e s e a r c h e r s have r e l i e d on t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n of such f e a t u r e s as phonomes (e.g., Leopold, 1947; E r v i n - T r i p p , 1966; Ingram, 1974), morphemes (e.g., Berko, 1958; Brown, 1973; Dulay and Burt, 1974), and s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s such as q u e s t i o n s and negations (e.g., M i l o n , 1974) to draw c o n c l u s i o n s about stages of language development. When s t u d i e s are conducted to i n v e s t i g a t e the language development of o l d e r c h i l d r e n (e.g., school-aged c h i l d r e n ) , they tend to concentrate on the s y n t a c t i c aspect because i t i s assumed that phonology and morphology are a c q u i r e d r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y (see McCarthy, 1954; d e V i l l i e r s and d e V i l l i e r s , 1973), whereas s y n t a t i c development ( e s p e c i a l l y a c q u i s i t i o n of s t r u c t u r e s i n v o l v i n g c o n s o l i d a t i o n ) i s assumed to continue u n t i l the age of twelve or so (see Menyuk, 1971). These s t u d i e s a l s o tend to concentrate on n a t i v e language data. From a c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s language, one can see why r e s e a r c h e r s are more i n t e r e s t e d i n the s y n t a c t i c development of c h i l d r e n than other aspects of language development. C h i l d r e n aged f i v e or s i x a l r e a d y know reasonably 1 7 well the various i n f l e c t i o n a l rules and the phonemic changes that come with the changes in the a r t i c u l a t i o n environment. However, their sentences are shorter and less complex than those of older children. It seems, therefore, that with older children, observation of their syntactic development w i l l provide more information than investigation on morphology or phonology. A. Various indices used to trace the syntactic development of  children Indices used in early investigations: Early studies investigating the syntactic development of children done between 1920 and 1950 include those by Stormzand and O'Shea (1924), Boyd (1927), Symonds and Daringer (1930), LaBrant (1933), Anderson (1937), Davis (1937), Bear (1939), Heider and Heider (1940), Davis (1941), Watts (1948). These investigators either tabulated the frequency of occurrences of various parts of speech or types of sentences--simple, compound, complex--or they studied sentence length or clause length, and types of subordiante clauses and their ratios to each other and to main clauses. Among these studies, LaBrant's work is the most i n f l u e n t i a l because her findings have helped to establish what has been c a l l e d the "standard procedures" (Hunt, 1965, p.14). LaBrant's study LaBrant studied the writing of 482 pupils in grades four to 18 nine and 504 pupils in grades ten to twelve. The writing by a l l students was done within a given time in response to a given stimulus. She also compared these samples to the writing of eminent psychologists. Observing that punctuation and coordination might influence sentence length, she focused her analysis of the writing samples on the clause. Her p r i n c i p a l tests were clause length and the subordination r a t i o which she defined as the r a t i o of dependent clauses to a l l clauses. LaBrant counted clauses simply by observing predicating expressions; but since coordinated verbs and "predicates containing two or more p a r t i c i p l e s or complementary i n f i n i t i v e s after a single a u x i l i a r y were counted as two predicates" (p.411), her procedure greatly reduced the length of clauses. Therefore, despite her observation that eminent psychologists wrote clauses that were twice as long as those written by school children, she concluded, "Apparently length of clause i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t measure of language development for children in Grades 4 to 12, i n c l u s i v e " (pp.467-468). Concluding that clause length was not a useful tool for measuring language development, LaBrant concentrated on the subordination r a t i o and found t h i s to increase with age. However, her attempt to relate t h i s index to chronological and mental age was confined to children in grades four to nine; therefore, the question remained as to whether th i s index could s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e the language of older children. Despite certain li m i t a t i o n s in her work, researchers before 19 the s i x t i e s were influenced by her findings and adopted the following three measures to trace language development: 1) mean sentence length, 2) subordination r a t i o and 3) the number and kinds of subordiante clauses. These are what Hunt referred to as the "standard procedures." These early language development studies and others have been c r i t i c a l l y reviewed by McCarthy (1954), C a r r o l l (1960), Ervin and M i l l e r (1963), Hunt (1965, 1970a) and O'Donnell et a l . (1969). Indices developed in the s i x t i e s : The early studies provided some valuable information on the syntactic development of children, one such piece of information being that the mere tabulation of parts of speech would reveal l i t t l e about language development. These studies also showed that the language of children undergoes such quantifiable changes over the years as the lengthening of their sentences. But in order for results across studies to be comparable, there was the need for a more standard unit of measurement. Such a need was especially apparent when mean sentence length was consistently adopted as a measure, and d i f f e r e n t researchers had d i f f e r e n t interpretations as to what constitutes a "sentence" (see O'Donnell et a l . , 1967, p.4). The phonological unit Perhaps i t was th i s f e l t need that prompted a conference of l i n g u i s t i c s p e c i a l i s t s which was held at Indiana University in 1959 for the p a r t i c u l a r purpose of providing a uniform index of 20 measurement for their investigations. In the conference, researchers developed the "phonological unit." This unit r e l i e s on intonation patterns such as the contours of i n f l e c t i o n , stress and pause for the purpose of segmenting oral language. They also developed a two-level analysis of syntax. The f i r s t concentrates on 1) "fixed s l o t s " and the items that f i l l them, 2) types and positions of "movables" and 3) "sentence connectors," while the second l e v e l i d e n t i f i e s the subordinate elements used in the fixed s l o t s and movable units. Such procedures have been used in the research of Strickland (1962), Hocker (1963), R i l i n g (1965) and Loban (1961, 1963, 1964, 1976). A summary of the findings made by these researchers (except Loban, 1976) can be found in O'Donnell et a l . (1967). The communication unit Even though the phonological unit ' seems to be a better defined measure than the rather haphazard treatment of a "sentence," as Loban observed, th i s unit i s nevertheless influenced by whether the subject uses coordination. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the subject w i l l always conform to standard intonation patterns, e.g., dropping the voice and pausing at the end of a sentence. Therefore, in his study, Loban supplemented this measure with a second measure which he termed the "communication unit." Working with what Watts (1948) had described as a "natural l i n g u i s t i c unit," Loban defined the communication unit as "a group of words which cannot be further divided without the loss of their essential meaning" (Loban, 1963, p.6). General features of what comprises a 21 communication unit are grammatically independent clauses with any of their modifiers, or answers to questions such as a simple "yes" or "no." Loban asserted that segmentation of language using this second measure can be done s y n t a c t i c a l l y , with the use of semantics as a reinforcer. Hence th i s method of segmentation greatly reduces the subjective interpretation that researchers may give to a sentence or a phonological unit. In his thirteen-year longitudinal study, an intensive observation of the development of language a b i l i t i e s of students from kindergarten to grade twelve, Loban found a gradual elaboration of the children's language. Even the kindergarten subjects were capable of using the basic structural patterns in English, but only the older or the more able students showed dexterity in their substitution of word groups for single words, in the choice and arrangement of movable syntactic elements, in variety of nominals, and in strategies with predications. Accompanied with t h i s elaboration in language was an increased a b i l i t y to make abstraction and generalization, using the appropriate connectives to relate the d i f f e r e n t ideas. The greater elaboration of language and the increased a b i l i t y to abstract and generalize were reflected in the increase in the t o t a l number of words, the number of communication units, and the average number of words in communication units in each succeeding year of measurement. One index in particular--mean number of words per communication unit--showed the most consistent growth over the thirteen years and also discriminated best among a l l the other indices between students of high 22 language a b i l i t y and students of low language a b i l i t y . However, even though the communication u n i t was a more o b j e c t i v e measure than any other measure developed d u r i n g the s i x t i e s , i t had not been widely adopted i n other r e s e a r c h . One reason i s that in the e a r l y monographs, Loban r e p o r t e d h i s f i n d i n g s with r e f e r e n c e to a b i l i t y groupings and not to age. I t i s another measure, the T - u n i t , which i s i n many aspects s i m i l a r to the communication u n i t , that has become the standard measurement used i n s y n t a c t i c development r e s e a r c h . The T - u n i t At the same time that Loban p u b l i s h e d h i s e a r l y r e p o r t s , Hunt conducted a study the purpose of which was: 1) to p r o v i d e , f o r the q u a n t i t a t i v e study of grammatical ( s y n t a c t i c ) s t r u c t u r e , a method or procedure which i s coherent, s y s t e m a t i c , broad, yet capable of refinement to accommodate d e t a i l s , 2) to search f o r developmental trends i n the frequency of v a r i o u s grammatical s t r u c t u r e s w r i t t e n by students of average IQ in the f o u r t h , e i g h t h , and t w e l f t h grades (Hunt, 1965, p.1). Hunt c o l l e c t e d w r i t i n g samples from school c h i l d r e n i n the three grades as w e l l as from s k i l l e d w r i t e r s who had p u b l i s h e d i n Harper's and The A t l a n t i c . He analyzed the w r i t i n g using d i f f e r e n t measures such as sentence l e n g t h , c l a u s e l e n g t h , and the r a t i o of subordinate c l a u s e s to main c l a u s e s . However, he found that none of these was s a t i s f a c t o r y because there was c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p p i n g a c r o s s grades. Sentence l e n g t h was e s p e c i a l l y u n r e l i a b l e because young c h i l d r e n may prolong t h e i r sentences c o n s i d e r a b l y through the i n d i s c r i m i n a t e use of c o o r d i n a t i o n or poor p u n c t u a t i o n . F i n a l l y , he p o s t u l a t e d a new 23 unit of measure c a l l e d the T-unit. A T-unit i s one main clause plus any subordinate clauses or non-clausal elements attached to, or embedded in, i t . In his study, Hunt found a steady, s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t increase in the mean length of T-units from grade l e v e l to grade l e v e l , and inspection of individual ranges on thi s measure showed less overlapping among groups than on any of the other measures explored. Thus he concluded that mean T-unit length was the best indicator of a student's grade l e v e l . The second best indicator was mean clause length. Third best was the subordination r a t i o and the poorest was sentence length. Through a detailed analysis of the strategies that the school children actually used to lengthen their T-units, Hunt explained why the T-unit was a good index of syntactic maturity (maturity i s defined by Hunt as the observed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of writing done by children at a higher grade). T-units are lengthened in two ways. One way is through the addition of subordinate clauses. The other is by increasing the number of non-clausal optional elements that are added to the minimal essentials of the clause such as a subject and a f i n i t e verb. However, s t y l i s t i c considerations l i m i t a greatly expanded use of the subordinate clause addition. The only other way to achieve substantial lengthening i s by reducing sentences or clauses into non-clausal elements and embedding or attaching them to other clauses. As evidenced from the writing of the s k i l l e d writsrs, "the increased succinctness and economy which come with the reducing of clauses (or sentences or T-units) to 24 n o n - c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s " are the hallmarks of mature w r i t e r s (p.145). The c l a i m made by Hunt that the T - u n i t i s a v a l i d measure of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i s borne out by l a t e r s t u d i e s , most notably by O'Donnell et a l . (1967) and Hunt (1970a). In t h e i r study of the speech and w r i t i n g of ki n d e r g a r t e n and elementary school c h i l d r e n i n response to a given s t i m u l u s , O'Donnell et a l . found that c h i l d r e n i n the higher grades produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer T - u n i t s i n both speech and w r i t i n g than c h i l d r e n i n the lower grades. They a l s o found that t h i s i n c r e a s e i n T - u n i t l e n g t h c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y with the number of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s per T - u n i t . In h i s l a t e r study, Hunt made use of a r e w r i t i n g passage c a l l e d the 'Aluminum passage' which c o n s i s t e d of short k e r n a l sentences each e x p r e s s i n g a s i n g l e p r o p o s i t i o n . High s c h o o l students at three grade l e v e l s as w e l l as average a d u l t and s k i l l e d a d u l t w r i t e r s were asked to r e w r i t e the passage i n a b e t t e r way us i n g these kern a l sentences as the so l e input f o r the content. By c a l c u l a t i n g the r a t i o of the t o t a l number of kernal sentences to the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s produced by the d i f f e r e n t groups of w r i t e r s , Hunt was abl e to compare the l e v e l of c l a u s a l and no n - c l a u s a l embedding performed by the d i f f e r n t groups. He p o s t u l a t e d e a r l i e r (Hunt, 1965) that the a b i l i t y to compress more 'thoughts' i n t o the T - u n i t s d i s t i n g u i s h e d mature w r i t i n g from immature w r i t i n g . A n a l y s i s of the w r i t i n g sample based on the 'Aluminum passage' showed that indeed the more mature w r i t e r s wrote fewer but longer T - u n i t s marked by a deeper 25 l e v e l of c l a u s e embedding than immature w r i t e r s . Other i n v e s t i g a t o r s c o r r o b o r a t i n g the v a l i d i t y of the T - u n i t as an index of s y n t a c t i c growth i n c l u d e Elount et a l . (1968), Braun and Klassen (1973) and Stewart (1978) . Other i n d i c e s developed i n the s e v e n t i e s : The T - u n i t , though proven by these s t u d i e s to be a v a l i d measure of s y n t a c t i c growth, i s n e v e r t h e l e s s a gross measure. Although i n c r e a s e d T - u n i t l e n g t h c o r r e l a t e s with an i n c r e a s e d number of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , i t does not d i s c r i m i n a t e what types of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s are being used. Th e r e f o r e , some re s e a r c h e r s have attempted to devise other measures that w i l l be as e f f e c t i v e as the T - u n i t , but more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g of the degree of complexity i n the language sample. E n d i c o t t ' s s c a l e One such index was developed by E n d i c o t t (1973). He advanced a t h e o r e t i c a l model that combines s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s with morphemic a n a l y s i s . Sentences that have undergone t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s r e c e i v e a g r e a t e r weight than sentences that have not, and words that are d e r i v e d from base morphemes (e.g., p r o d u c t i v i t y , from "product" p l u s " i v e " and " i t y " ) s i m i l a r l y r e c e i v e a g r e a t e r weight than base morphemes. E n d i c o t t c l a i m s t h a t h i s model has a p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c b a s i s . T h i s model has c e r t a i n l y taken more i n t o account than the T - u n i t a n a l y s i s , but as O'Donnell (1976) c r i t i c i z e d , complexity 26 i s not determined merely by the number of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l processes i n v o l v e d i n d e r i v i n g the s u r f a c e form from the deep s t r u c t u r e , nor i s the complexity of a word determined merely by the number of morphemes i t c o n t a i n s . T h e r e f o r e , the weighting i s to a c e r t a i n extent a r b i t r a r y and i t cannot compare to the T - u n i t i n terms of ease of s c o r i n g . And i n order f o r the s c a l e to be a p p l i c a b l e i n language r e s e a r c h , i t needs to be f u r t h e r expanded and t e s t e d f o r i t s v a l i d i t y i n measuring language growth. But so f a r , no such work has been done. The s y n t a c t i c d e n s i t y score Another index was developed by Golub and Kidder (1974). They i s o l a t e d s i x t y - t h r e e s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s from the w r i t i n g samples of school c h i l d r e n and s u b j e c t e d these to m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s t o determine which ones would best p r e d i c t h i g h , medium, or low r a t i n g by teachers of the w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e as a whole. They f i n a l l y i d e n t i f i e d ten s t r u c t u r e s that c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with t e a c h e r s ' judgments. Through a process of c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , they assigned r e l a t i v e weights to each s t r u c t u r e a c c o r d i n g to i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n to a f a c t o r named " s y n t a c t i c d e n s i t y . " The s c a l e , though s t a t i s t i c a l l y sound, i s not without i t s weakness. O'Donnell (1976) observed that the ten items i n c l u d e d have a high degree of redundancy i n what they measure, with one item a f f e c t i n g the other (e.g., number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t and number of words per c l a u s e would a f f e c t the T - u n i t l e n g t h , while the number of gerunds, p a r t i c i p l e s and unbound m o d i f i e r s would a f f e c t c l a u s e l e n g t h ) . He a t t r i b u t e d the high c o r r e l a t i o n he 27 found between the s y n t a c t i c d e n s i t y scores and words per T - u n i t in h i s a n a l y s i s of a w r i t i n g sample to t h i s redundancy. Belanger (1978) has a l s o observed that the score would be a f f e c t e d by the number of T - u n i t s that are analyzed. T h i s i s because Golub and Kidder have lumped together T - u n i t l e n g t h , main and subordinate c l a u s e l e n g t h and subordinate c l a u s e s per T - u n i t , average measures u n a f f e c t e d by the l e n g t h of the language sample, with occurrences of modals, gerunds, p a r t i c i p l e s , e t c . , raw scores that are l i k e l y to be more frequent i n longer samples. However, even when t h i s mathematical anomoly has been c o r r e c t e d , the occurrences of the l a t t e r group of items are s t i l l a f f e c t e d by s u b j e c t matter or i n d i v i d u a l w r i t i n g s t y l e which i n turn w i l l a f f e c t the score, a f a c t p o i n t e d out by O'Donnell (1976). Other i n d i c e s developed i n c l u d e the s y n t a c t i c complexity score by B o t e l and Granowsky (1972) and sentence weights by D i S t e f a n s and Howie (1979). These two measures are b a s i c a l l y s y n t a c t i c i n nature, g i v i n g d i f f e r e n t weights to sentences or T - u n i t s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r depth of embeddings. However, as f a r as the s y n t a c t i c aspect i s concerned and as f a r as the language sample used i s f a i r l y l a r g e and extended, the T - u n i t has been proved to be as e f f e c t i v e as any of these measures, but i s s u p e r i o r to any of them i n i t s ease of s c o r i n g . T h e r e f o r e , i t remains the most widely adopted measure i n language i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . 28 B. A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s Besides f i n d i n g means to t r a c e the s y n t a c t i c development of c h i l d r e n , r e s e a r c h e r s i n the s i x t i e s were a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g out how the grammatical s t r u c t u r e s that c h i l d r e n use develop over the y e a r s . As O'Donnell et a l . (1967) suggested, the i s o l a t i o n of 'growth buds' (p.24) i n the language sample of c h i l d r e n would have tremendous pedagogical i m p l i c a t i o n s because attempts to speed up s y n t a c t i c growth c o u l d use these 'growth buds' as s t a r t i n g p o i n t s . A n a l y s i s of the grammatical s t r u c t u r e s in the language sample of c h i l d r e n was e s p e c i a l l y popular in the s i x t i e s when the development of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar was at i t s z e n i t h . Among the pioneer s t u d i e s using t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar to a n a l y z e the o r a l and w r i t t e n language samples produced by school students are Hunt (1965, 1970a), Bateman and Z i d o n i s (1966) and O'Donnell et a l . (1967). Hunt's study In h i s e a r l y study, Hunt i s o l a t e d t h i r t y - s i x f a c t o r s that accounted for s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the w r i t i n g among students at three d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s . But among these t h i r t y - s i x f a c t o r s , s t r u c t u r e s that showed an i n c r e a s e with a higher grade are mostly s t r u c t u r e s that i n v o l v e d embedding of n o n - c l a u s a l elements, e s p e c i a l l y embeddings producing nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Of the kinds of subordinate c l a u s e s i n v e s t i g a t e d , o n l y a d j e c t i v e c l a u s e s i n c r e a s e d with a higher grade. Noun c l a u s e s were found to be a f f e c t e d by subject 29 matter, and adverb clauses did not increase s i g n i f i c a n t l y because even though the variety of adverb clauses was more r e s t r i c t i v e for the lower grade students, they produced as many adverb clauses as upper grade students did. In the 1970 study using the rewriting passage as a testing instrument, Hunt found that reduction to less than a predicate ( i . e . , embeddings involving deletion) accounts s i g n i f i c a n t l y for the differences in writing among the di f f e r e n t groups, as well as between the high t h i r d and the low t h i r d students within the same grade. A second finding in Hunt's (1970a) study that confirms his e a r l i e r results i s that the adjective clause is a s i g n i f i c a n t factor accounting for the increase in T-unit length. Another interesting finding in th i s study i s that there i s a set of kernal sentences that are consistently retained as main clauses in the rewriting by a l l the writers, and that c e r t a i n kernals are consistently subjected to a certain kind of transformations, showing that certain constraints (such as rh e t o r i c a l considerations) govern the transformational process. The Bateman-Zidonis study The p r i n c i p a l concern of the Bateman-Zidonis study (1966) was to find out the eff e c t of transformational-generative grammar on improving the students' a b i l i t y to employ mature sentence structures. To test their hypothesis, the researchers devised a "s t r u c t u r a l complexity score" for each sentence based on the number of transformations i t contained from a l i s t of f i f t y - f o u r transformational rules. These transformations can be divided into four main groups: 1) embedding transformations 30 which i n c l u d e noun expansion, noun replacement, a d j e c t i v e expansion, verb expansion, a d v e r b i a l expansion and a d v e r b i a l replacement; 2) c o n j o i n i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which i n v o l v e c o o r d i n a t i o n of main c l a u s e s ; 3) d e l e t i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which i n c l u d e c o o r d i n a t i o n of s u b j e c t s and p r e d i c a t e s , d e l e t i o n of the r e l a t i v e pronoun and the copula be i n a d j e c t i v e c l a u s e s and a d v e r b i a l embedment d e l e t i o n ; 4) simple t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which i n c l u d e the formation of p a s s i v e s , q u e s t i o n s , negatives and e x t r a p o s i t i o n s . The r e s e a r c h e r s p r o v i d e d a r a t h e r exhaustive l i s t of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s that are used to d e r i v e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e s from deep s t r u c t u r e s . However, l a t e r r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g., Mellon, 1969) have suggested that such a scheme be s i m p l i f i e d (e.g., d e l e t i n g the simple t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and c o n j o i n i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s from the l i s t ) s i n c e the study by Hunt suggested that sentence embedding and sentence d e l e t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s accounted more f o r mature w r i t i n g . The 0' D o n n e l l et §JL. study The study by O'Donnell et a l . (1967) con c e n t r a t e d on sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . They c l a s s i f i e d these t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s under three headings: 1) those producing nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s , 2) those producing a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s and 3) those producing c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s . A d j e c t i v a l c o n s t i t u e n t s of sentences were i n c l u d e d as p a r t s of nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s . When elements such as c l a u s e s or i n f i n i t i v e s m o d i f i e d a d j e c t i v e s , they were counted as a d v e r b i a l s . In a separate a n a l y s i s , the r e s e a r c h e r s a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d 31 the grammatical f u n c t i o n s of each of the transformed s t r u c t u r e s as w e l l as the s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n s of the main c l a u s e s i n the speech and w r i t i n g samples, but they d i d not f i n d these to be u s e f u l i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g growth. The s t r u c t u r e s they found to be used more by o l d e r students are noun m o d i f i c a t i o n by a p a r t i c i p l e or p a r t i c i p i a l phrase, the gerund phrase, the a d v e r b i a l i n f i n i t i v e , the sentence a d v e r b i a l , the c o o r d i n a t e p r e d i c a t e , and the transformation-produced nominal f u n c t i o n i n g as the o b j e c t of a p r e p o s i t i o n . T h e i r scheme that a nalyzes sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i s an improvement over the Hunt (1965) and Bateman and Z i d o n i s (1966) s t u d i e s because i t i s more compressed. I t s emphasis on the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s takes Hunt's f i n d i n g s i n t o account because Hunt concluded that the nominal s t r c u t u r e s are most i n d i c a t i v e of language growth. L a t e r r e s e a r c h e r s adopted such a scheme f o r t h e i r a n a l y s i s of language. These r e s e a r c h e r s i n c l u d e T h o r n h i l l (1969), Cooper (1976), Pope (1978) and Gebhard (1978). The language samples analyzed i n c l u d e both f i r s t and second language data and speech and w r i t i n g , as w e l l as language samples produced by students at v a r i o u s stages of development (from k i n d e r g a r t e n to elementary school to high school to u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l ) . These s t u d i e s suggest that the scheme i s promising f o r use with a wide v a r i e t y of language samples. The present study a l s o adopted t h i s scheme to i s o l a t e v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r e s used by students at the v a r i o u s grade l e v e l s . 32 C. The T - u n i t and i t s r e l a t ion to language growth Researchers using the T - u n i t a n a l y s i s f o r t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of c h i l d r e n ' s language at d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s of growth have c o n s i s t e n t l y found an i n c r e a s e i n the T - u n i t with higher grade l e v e l s . T h i s f i n d i n g has l e d them to suggest that the T - u n i t i s an accurate index f o r s y n t a c t i c development. A q u e s t i o n then a r i s e s : why i s an e x t e r n a l measure such as the T - u n i t , which i s a mere count of the s u r f a c e form, capable of r e f l e c t i n g s y n t a c t i c growth, which i s i n turn a part of the growth i n mental, p s y c h o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o r a l processes? O'Donnell et a l . (1967) have p o i n t e d out that the T - u n i t c o r r e l a t e s h i g h l y with the mean number of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s per T - u n i t . The l a t t e r measure i s i n d i c a t i v e of growth because: Except f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n of main c l a u s e s , sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s may be conceived as embedding one k e r n a l sentence ( o f t e n , though not always, i n reduced form) i n t o another in ways determined by the r u l e s of grammar. T h i s embedding i n c r e a s e s the i n f o r m a t i o n c a r r y i n g power of the r e s u l t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t may w e l l be supposed then, that at l e a s t f o r c h i l d r e n , the r e l a t i v e d e n s i t y of these t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s i g n a l i z e s the degree of m a t u r i t y a t t a i n e d (p.50). A s i m i l a r argument i s found i n Hunt's e a r l i e r study (Hunt, 1965). However, in h i s l a t e r study (Hunt, 1970a) and i n another a r t i c l e (Hunt, 1970b), Hunt a l s o e x p l a i n e d the r e l a t i o n of mean T - u n i t l e n g t h to language growth from a p s y c h o l o g i c a l standpoint. He p o i n t e d out that when mature w r i t e r s lengthen t h e i r sentences, they do not do so l i n e a r l y but h i e r a r c h i c a l l y . A h i e r a r c h i c a l arrangement makes e x p l i c i t the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s 33 between the k e r n a l sentneces. In so doing, the mature w r i t e r s ease the reader's burden of i n t e r p r e t i n g the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s . In other words, when mature w r i t e r s w r i t e , they have the readers i n mind. On the other hand, through the process of embedding, mature w r i t e r s subsume w i t h i n a s i n g l e chunk of language other recoded chunks. T h i s enables them to process more in f o r m a t i o n than an immature w r i t e r can. These two o p e r a t i o n s are c l e a r l y m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of a mature mind. A more comprehensive account of the p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s u r f a c e form and the c o g n i t i v e p r ocesses of the w r i t e r was p r o v i d e d by Kerek (1981). He p o i n t e d out that the w r i t e r ' s c h o i c e of syntax i s governed by three major types of c o n s t r a i n t s : developmental, l i n g u i s t i c and r h e t o r i c a l . For young w r i t e r s , the development c o n s t r a i n t tends to o f f s e t the r h e t o r i c a l c o n s t r a i n t so that they produce t e x t s that take l i t t l e account of audience or purpose. Developmental c o n s t r a i n t s such as the a v a i l a b l e c onceptual c a p a c i t y , short-term memory, temporal memory span, e t c . , a l s o a f f e c t t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c c h o i c e s . Many of the s y n t a c t i c types found f r e q u e n t l y i n the speech or w r i t i n g of young c h i l d r e n (as r e p o r t e d by Hunt, 1965 and O'Donnell et a t . , 1967) are d i r e c t m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of the developmental c o n s t r a i n t . Because young w r i t e r s cannot h o l d a long s t r e t c h of language i n t h e i r heads, they w r i t e sentences that are t y p i c a l l y short (Hunt found that f o u r t h graders wrote T - u n i t s that were mostly under nine words). They use c o o r d i n a t i o n to express a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two sentences unless i t i s a temporal r e l a t i o n . They f r o n t main 34 c l a u s e s and use underived nouns as s u b j e c t s , an o p e r a t i o n c a l l e d "nominal s e i z i n g " ( E r t l e , 1977), which i s t y p i c a l of young c h i l d r e n ' s egocentrism. They express s y n t a c t i c and semantic r e l a t i o n s on a one-to-one b a s i s because t h i s p r o v i d e s the maximum semantic c l o s u r e and i s the l e a s t s t r a i n i n g on t h e i r memory. I t i s only when they mature, when they have grown i n t h e i r c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s , that they can produce more complex syntax such as syntax that i n v o l v e s the use of d e l e t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . Mellon (1979), on the other hand, sees the growth in s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y as a r.esult of the growth in two a s p e c t s : 1) growth i n the students' c o g n i t i v e and conceptual a b i l i t i e s and 2) growth i n the s k i l l s of the students as w r i t e r s . Growth in the f i r s t aspect i s manifested c h i e f l y i n the complexity of what he c a l l s 'dominant noun phrases (NP's),' i . e . , NP's t h a t are expanded through the use of r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e r e d u c t i o n s , or NP's that c o n s i s t of an a b s t r a c t i v e v e r b a l noun p l u s whichever of i t s deep s t r u c t u r e s u b j e c t s , o b j e c t s , and complements that may be r e t a i n e d , or s e n t e n t i a l n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i n c l a u s a l or verbal-phrase form. He e x p l a i n s how the students' c o n c e p t u a l development a f f e c t s the use of these NP's i n t h e i r w r i t i n g : ...as young persons' conceptual knowledge grows broader in scope and r i c h e r i n s t r u c t u r e , t h i s growth causes them to see more t h i n g s i n t e r r e l a t e d i n more complex d e t a i l . The process of composing thought i n t o w r i t t e n language moves from con c e p t i o n to c o n s t r u c t i o n to i n s c r i p t i o n , and the s t r u c t u r e of the product d i r e c t l y m i r r o r s that i n i t i a l c o n c e p t i o n . As a r e s u l t , the names persons make, f i r s t to represent and then to say what they see, n e c e s s a r i l y grow more complex in content and t h e r e f o r e a l s o i n form, w i t h the p a s s i n g of time. In other words, that p a r t of s y n t a c t i c - f l u e n c y growth 35 a t t r i b u t a b l e to i n c r e a s i n g elaboratedness i n the grammatically r e s t r i c t i v e s t r u c t u r e of dominant NP's i s a d i r e c t and unavoidable consequence of the development of conceptual knowledge (p.18). Mellon's o b s e r v a t i o n i s p a r t l y confirmed by Hunt's (1965) f i n d i n g that grade 12 students used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more and longer complex NP's (analyzed by the number of sentence-combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n d e r i v i n g the nominals) than students at grade 8 and grade 4 d i d . Another aspect of growth i s the growth i n s k i l l s as w r i t e r s . As the students grow i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s as w r i t e r s (through p r a c t i c e i n w r i t i n g ) , they l e a r n to i n t r o d u c e " n o n r e s t r i c t i v e secondary statements i n t o primary statements" through the use of such o p e r a t i o n s as: ....predicate-phrase c o n j o i n i n g , p a r t i c i p i a l and gerundive c o n j o i n i n g i n c a t e g o r i e s u s u a l l y l a b e l e d a d v e r b i a l , c o n j o i n i n g i n nominative-absolute form, the l o g i c a l c o n j o i n i n g of whole sentences, and the c o n j o i n i n g of minor sentences reduced i n form to n o n r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , n o n r e s t r i c t i v e a p p o s i t i v e phrases, and so on (Mellon, 1979, p.20). Mellon suggests that i n v e s t i g a t i o n s that look i n t o language development ought to examime s e p a r a t e l y the two sources t h a t c o n t r i b u t e to the growth i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y as growth i n the f i r s t aspect would be r e l a t i v e l y u n a f f e c t e d by e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e (such as the e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n ) while growth i n the second aspect i s amenable to techniques such as sentence combining. However, these t h e o r e t i c a l c o n j e c t u r e s need to be proven. Hunt (1970b) suggested that i t was p o s s i b l e (though he thought i t h i g h l y u n l i k e l y ) that the longer and more complex sentences produced by o l d e r c h i l d r e n were j u s t i m i t a t i o n s of what they 36 read in books. In other words, the complex sentences are s t y l i s t i c imitations, and not developmental trends. Hunt (1970b) speculated that i f i t can proved that native speakers and writers of other languages, p a r t i c u l a r l y non-European languages, show similar developmental trends ( i . e . , using more complex syntax at an older age) then there is support that the complex syntax i s a psychological and behavioral r e a l i t y . He also raised the question of whether someone learning a second language as an adult w i l l show a rate of development in the second language as slow as i t was in the f i r s t , or whether i t happens instead that the mature a b i l i t y developed in the f i r s t language i s quickly applied to the second as soon as he has in t e r n a l i z e d the new rules and the new vocabulary. D. T-unit related measures in other native language and second  language investigations There is now preliminary evidence that an increased a b i l i t y to produce more complex syntax as one becomes older is a universal trend. In one a r t i c l e (Hunt, 1977), Hunt c i t e d the study by Reesink et a l . (1971) who translated the 'Aluminum passage' into Dutch and applied i t to Dutch children. The study demonstrated that "the s i m i l a r i t y between Dutch and American children in syntactic development i s outstanding." He also c i t e d his own investigation at the East West Centre in applying the rewriting passage to speakers of P a c i f i c Island languages 37 and some Asi a n languages. The r e w r i t i n g passage was t r a n s l a t e d i n t o these languages to be r e w r i t t e n by c h i l d r e n aged about 9, 13, and 17 who were n a t i v e speakers of the language t e s t e d . The i n i t i a l f i n d i n g s showed that the number of words per T - u n i t c o r r e l a t e s with the age group i n at l e a s t f i v e of the languages being i n v e s t i g a t e d . S i m i l a r s t u d i e s have been conducted with second language l e a r n e r s . T h o r n h i l l (1969) s t u d i e d the developmental sequence of syntax by four Spanish a d u l t s studying E n g l i s h as a second language. Using the T - u n i t measure and a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s , he demonstrated that these are v a l i d measures of second language l e a r n e r s ' growth i n the c o n t r o l of E n g l i s h syntax. He a l s o concluded that developmental stages i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n do e x i s t and that these stages are s i m i l a r to those through which n a t i v e language l e a r n e r s p r o g r e s s . Two other s t u d i e s c o n f i r m i n g the v a l i d i t y of the T - u n i t f o r measuring growth i n second language l e a r n e r s were done by Cooper (1976) and Monroe (1975). Cooper analyzed f r e e w r i t i n g done by four l e v e l s of American u n i v e r s i t y students l e a r n i n g German as a second language and a group of n a t i v e German speakers. Four of the f i v e measures he employed--clause l e n g t h , s u b o r d i n a t i o n r a t i o , T - u n i t l e n g t h , and sentence l e n g t h — d e t e c t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups. The remaining measure, the c o o r d i n a t i o n r a t i o between main c l a u s e s , f a i l e d to d e t e c t any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups. (This f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with Hunt's c o n c l u s i o n that 38 c o o r d i n a t i o n between main c l a u s e s i s an immature w r i t i n g t r a i t . ) He a l s o d i d a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s (based on the scheme of O'Donnell et a l . ) of the s t r u c t u r e s employed by the s t u d e n t s . Of these, nominal s t r u c t u r e s and c o o r d i n a t e d s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n T - u n i t s are b e t t e r able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the four l e v e l s of students than a d v e r b i a l s t r u c t u r e s or dependent i n f i n i t i v e s . He drew the c o n c l u s i o n that developmental stages i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of German syntax do e x i s t and that these stages are most c l e a r l y d e f i n a b l e between every other l e v e l . Monroe made use of a r e w r i t i n g passage to analyze the s y n t a c t i c growth of American u n i v e r s i t y students l e a r n i n g French as a second language. He a l s o compared the r a t e of growth with that of n a t i v e French speakers. L i k e Cooper, he found t h a t students at a higher l e v e l wrote longer sentences, longer T - u n i t s and longer c l a u s e s . They used more s u b o r d i n a t i o n s and performed more n o n - c l a u s a l embeddings. The mean d i f f e r e n c e f o r a l l the f i v e f a c t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t between non-adjacent groups. He concluded that these students l e a r n i n g French as a second language go through developmental stages t h a t are s i m i l a r to the stages found i n n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers. He a l s o showed that the T - u n i t measure combined with the use of a r e w r i t i n g passage i s a r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e instrument f o r measuring the s y n t a c t i c development of American students of French. A modified form of the T - u n i t in second language r e s e a r c h Some r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g., Scott and Tucker, 1974; Gaies, 1976; Larsen-Freeman and Strom, 1977; Vann, 1978 and Sharma, 1979) suggested or used a modified form of the T - u n i t i n t h e i r 39 i n v e s t i g a t i o n of second language data. Instead of merely c o u n t i n g T - u n i t l e n g t h , they counted the l e n g t h of e r r o r - f r e e T - u n i t s and the p r o p o r t i o n of these e r r o r - f r e e T - u n i t s to the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s . As Gaies (1976) argues, a study of s t r u c t u r a l e r r o r s i n sentences may r e v e a l as much about the students' c o n t r o l of syntax as a study of the l e n g t h of sentences. Although some of these r e s e a r c h e r s d i d f i n d the number of e r r o r f r e e T - u n i t s c o r r e l a t i n g with the degree of langauge p r o f i c i e n c y (as measured in most cases by TOEFL s c o r e s ) , t h i s researcher d i d not f e e l that a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the T - u n i t was warranted. One d i f f e r e n c e between these s t u d i e s reviewed above and the c u r r e n t study i s that they a l l measure the r e l a t i o n of s y n t a c t i c c o n t r o l to language p r o f i c i e n c y , not stages i n second language l e a r n i n g . O b j e c t i v e t e s t s such as TOEFL u s u a l l y assume a f a i r l y advanced l e v e l of second language l e a r n i n g , and they are o f t e n used as a c r i t e r i o n measure f o r non-native speakers f o r admission to u n i v e r s i t i e s where E n g l i s h i s the medium of i n s t r u c t i o n . Moreover, these t e s t s u s u a l l y measure a student's knowledge of grammar and usage, and i f such a c r i t e r i o n i s used f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s , any instruments that i n c o r p o r a t e a measure of e r r o r s would undoubtedly c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y with the p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . However, i f one's concern i s s y n t a c t i c s t r a t e g i e s e x h i b i t e d by the l e a r n e r s at d i f f e r e n t stages of second language l e a r n i n g , then the t a b u l a t i o n of e r r o r s w i l l not be a r e v e a l i n g measure because when a l e a r n e r expands h i s language use, he w i l l have more chances of making e r r o r s than a l e a r n e r whose language i s 40 i n i t s e l f l i m i t e d . In a l a t e r a r t i c l e , Gaies (1980) a l s o r a i s e s some q u e s t i o n s about the i n t r o d u c t i o n of an e r r o r measure i n t o the T - u n i t a n a l y s i s . He notes t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s do not have concensus on what should or should not be i n c l u d e d as e r r o r s . And even i f there were concensus, there would s t i l l remain the q u e s t i o n of whether or not i t would be worthwhile to e s t a b l i s h a h i e r a r c h y of e r r o r s , s i n c e d i f f e r e n t e r r o r s c l e a r l y have d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s . E. The a p p l i c a t i o n s and the l i m i t a t i o n s of the T - u n i t I t seems p r o f i t a b l e now to sum up the a p p l i c a t i o n s of the T - u n i t and i t s l i m i t a t i o n s as an index of s y n t a c t i c growth. When i t was f i r s t developed by Hunt, i t was intended to be a measure" that would r e f l e c t s y n t a c t i c development in school c h i l d r e n . I t was found to be b e t t e r able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among students at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s than c l a u s e l e n g t h , the s u b o r d i n a t i o n r a t i o or sentence l e n g t h . I t can a l s o be i n f e r r e d from the Loban study that to r e f l e c t language growth, perhaps a s y n t a c t i c measure (such as the T - u n i t or c l a u s e length) i s more o b j e c t i v e and more e f f e c t i v e than measures that i n v e s t i g a t e other aspects of language development as he found that the communication u n i t was the most e f f e c t i v e index to t r a c e the development of language c o n t r o l i n the students over the t h i r t e e n y e a r s . However, i t i s important to note that a s y n t a c t i c measure r e f l e c t s language growth from a s y n t a c t i c p e r s p e c t i v e . Even 41 though r e s e a r c h e r s have s p e c u l a t e d that growth i n s y n t a c t i c a b i l i t i e s i s very much r e l a t e d to c o g n i t i v e and p s y c h o l o g i c a l growth, the growth i s not language development i t s e l f . I t does not take i n t o account other a s p e c t s of language growth, such as development in vocabulary. I t i s l i m i t e d to a sentence l e v e l a n a l y s i s : l a r g e r d i s c o u r s e concerns such as coherence and o r g a n i z a t i o n of ideas cannot be measured by l o o k i n g at i n d i v i d u a l sentences. But d e s p i t e i t s l i m i t a t i o n s , i n view of the f a c t that no other measure can compare with the T - u n i t in i t s economy and that no other measure has such proven e f f i c a c y i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the language of students at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s as the T - u n i t , i t remains the most e f f e c t i v e t o o l i n l a r g e - s c a l e language i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t has a l s o been proved by at l e a s t two s t u d i e s to be u s e f u l i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g second language development. Caut ion i n i n t e r p r e t ing data analyzed by the T - u n i t N e v e r t h e l e s s , when i n t e r p r e t i n g language data analyzed by means of the T - u n i t , one must be c a u t i o u s not to o v e r - i n t e r p r e t the data. As Crowhurst (1979) notes: ... mature and able w r i t e r s have at t h e i r d i s p o s a l g r e a t e r s y n t a c t i c resources than do l e s s mature, l e s s a b l e w r i t e r s . These resources they use to a g r e a t e r or l e s s e r extent a c c o r d i n g to the demands of the w r i t i n g t a s k s . Over a s u b s t a n t i a l body of w r i t i n g , these g r e a t e r s y n t a c t i c resources are manifested i n a higher average l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c complexity than i s the case f o r younger or l e s s able w r i t e r s (p.96). I m p l i c i t i n t h i s comment i s that the T - u n i t measures group t r a i t s , not i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s , and that i t r e f l e c t s language growth b e t t e r with an extended language sample than a s i n g l e w r i t i n g . T h e r e f o r e , i t would be m i s l e a d i n g to use the T - u n i t to 42 compare the s y n t a c t i c development of i n d i v i d u a l students and to base the c o n c l u s i o n on a l i m i t e d language sample. One must a l s o bear in mind that the T - u n i t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between groups at d i f f e r e n t stages of language^development, and not groups at d i f f e r e n t p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . Nor i s mean T-uni t l e n g t h a major c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r to w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . As has been demonstrated by r e s e a r c h e r s (such as V e a l , 1974; Gebhard, 1978; Stewart and Grobe, 1979), w r i t i n g q u a l i t y i s dependent upon ideas, coherence, o r g a n i z a t i o n , word c h o i c e and usage, i n a d d i t i o n to syntax. Crowhurst (1979) warns a g a i n s t viewing language complexity (manifested by longer T - u n i t s ) as equated with mature w r i t i n g . Another problem a s s o c i a t e d with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of T - u n i t data i s to regard e s t a b l i s h e d data (such as the f i n d i n g s of Hunt) as developmental norms. Crowhurst and Piche (1979) have shown that there i s a g r e a t e r v a r i a t i o n i n T - u n i t l e n g t h a c r o s s d i f f e r e n t modes of d i s c o u r s e than between students at two d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s . They a l s o found that n a r r a t i o n tends to e l i c i t s h o r t e r T - u n i t s than argument, and t h a t f o r n a r r a t i o n , T - u n i t s cease to i n c r e a s e i n l e n g t h beyond a c e r t a i n grade. They argue that unless the mode of w r i t i n g i s s p e c i f i e d , d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g samples w i l l produce d i f f e r e n t "norms." They a l s o suggest that s i n c e argument makes the g r e a t e s t demand on a w r i t e r ' s l i n g u i s t i c r e s o urces, language development research should make use of t h i s d i s c o u r s e mode to e l i c i t w r i t i n g samples. That the T - u n i t a n a l y s i s i s a f f e c t e d by the w r i t i n g task i s d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l i n S e c t i o n F. 43 Other r e s e a r c h e r s have a l s o shown that socioeconomic s t a t u s has c e r t a i n e f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s s y n t a c t i c development. The study by Loban (1976) i s a good example. The low a b i l i t y students (coming e x c l u s i v e l y from a lower socioeconomic stratum than the high a b i l i t y students) c o n s i s t e n t l y lagged behind the high a b i l i t y group on a l l of the i n d i c e s of language growth. The study by Conway (1971) which i s a r e p l i c a t i o n of the O'Donnell et a l . study but uses Ohama Indian c h i l d r e n as s u b j e c t s a l s o shows that these c h i l d r e n have a slower r a t e of growth "than t h e i r Caucasian c o u n t e r p a r t s who come from a middle or upper-middle socioeconomic stratum. On the other hand, the c l a i m made by some r e s e a r c h e r s that the T - u n i t i s a v a l i d measure in second language r e s e a r c h and the c l a i m that second language l e a r n e r s go through s i m i l a r developmental stages in s y n t a c t i c growth as n a t i v e speakers need to be f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t e d . The s t u d i e s by Cooper (1976) and Monroe (1975), though c o n f i r m i n g ..the two c l a i m s , i n v o l v e c o l l e g e l e v e l students l e a r n i n g second languages that are not so d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r f i r s t lanugage ( i . e . , both the n a t i v e and f o r e i g n languages belong to the Indo-European f a m i l y ) . T h o r n h i l l ' s study (1969) l a c k s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y because i t i n v o l v e s only four s u b j e c t s . Other s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g ESL l e a r n e r s coming from a v a r i e t y of language backgrounds are marked with the one flaw that they d i f f e r e n t i a t e the students by p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s , thereby i n t r o d u c i n g an e x t r a f a c t o r i n t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s y n t a c t i c development. To provide b e t t e r evidence f o r the two claims than that provided so f a r , f u r t h e r 44 r e s e a r c h i n the s y n t a c t i c development of second language l e a r n e r s should use s u b j e c t s with a non-European n a t i v e language background i n age comparable to the s u b j e c t s used in the Hunt study. T h i s i s the o b j e c t i v e of the c u r r e n t study. F. E f f e c t s of d i s c o u r s e on the T - u n i t a n a l y s i s Researchers have long been aware that the kinds of s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s produced are dependent upon the w r i t i n g task f o r which the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s are used. T h e r e f o r e , r e s e a r c h e r s have t r i e d to c o n t r o l t h i s v a r i a b l e by using a uniform stimulus to e l i c i t the speech or w r i t i n g sample from d i f f e r e n t groups of students (e.g., LaBrant, 1933; O'Donnell et a l . , 1967). In h i s e a r l y study (Hunt, 1965), Hunt d i d not c o n t r o l the w r i t i n g task a c r o s s d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s . Instead, he r e l i e d on a l a r g e w r i t i n g sample (1000 words per student) to c a n c e l out i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s . However, he too was aware that s u b j e c t matter had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s produced. T h e r e f o r e , i n h i s l a t e r study, he s t r i v e d to c o n t r o l t h i s v a r i a b l e not only by s p e c i f y i n g the s u b j e c t matter, but s u p p l y i n g the content as w e l l (he asked a l l s u b j e c t s to r e w r i t e the same passage). The e f f e c t of the w r i t i n g task on s y n t a c t i c maturity was i n v e s t i g a t e d by a number of r e s e a r c h e r s . Rosen (1969) asked the same group of students to write on e i g h t d i f f e r e n t t o p i c s , each t o p i c e l i c i t i n g a d i f f e r e n t kind of w r i t i n g . He found that the students produced the longest T - u n i t s in argumentation: the 45 T - u n i t l e n g t h i n t h i s mode of w r i t i n g was almost four words longer than the T - u n i t l e n g t h i n n a r r a t i o n . San Jose (1972) i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t d i s c o u r s e modes on the w r i t i n g of fourth-grade students. She found that students wrote longer T - u n i t s i n the argumentative and e x p o s i t o r y modes than i n the n a r r a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e modes. The s c o r e s on mean T - u n i t l e n g t h f o r the four modes of w r i t i n g were r e s p e c t i v e l y 10.4, 9.9, 8.7 and 8.4. Perron (1976) found the same trend with f i f t h - g r a d e r s whose mean scores on T - u n i t l e n g t h i n argumentation were almost three words longer than t h e i r scores i n n a r r a t i o n . Crowhurst and Piche (1979) s t u d i e d the w r i t i n g of s i x t h -and t e n t h - g r a d e r s i n three modes of w r i t i n g : n a r r a t i o n , d e s c r i p t i o n and argumentation. The tenth-grade students wrote almost four words more per T - u n i t i n argumentation than i n n a r r a t i o n . There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in T - u n i t l e n g t h on the s i x t h - g r a d e assignments between the two modes of w r i t i n g , although the c o n t r a s t was not as marked a s . t h a t of the t e n t h - g r a d e r s . On the other hand, i n n a r r a t i o n , there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on any of the s y n t a c t i c measures between the two grades, although the tenth-graders were supposed to be four years more 'mature' than the s i x t h - g r a d e r s . T h e r e f o r e , they qu e s t i o n e d the p r o p r i e t y of regarding e s t a b l i s h e d data (such as the f i n d i n g s of Hunt) as developmental norms when mode exe r t e d a g r e a t e r e f f e c t on s y n t a c t i c complexity than grade l e v e l s . They a l s o found that audience had an e f f e c t on the s y n t a c t i c measures, with longer T - u n i t s being produced i n 46 assignments w r i t t e n f o r 'teacher' than f o r 'best f r i e n d . ' P a r t i a l l y r e p l i c a t i n g her 1979 study, Crowhurst (1980) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t of d i s c o u r s e mode on s y n t a c t i c complexity on three grade l e v e l s : s i x t h , t e n t h and t w e l f t h . She found the same tr e n d as the e a r l i e r study, i . e . , s y n t a c t i c complexity was gr e a t e r i n argumentation than i n n a r r a t i o n . The only d e v i a t i o n from the e a r l i e r study was that whereas she found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s y n t a c t i c complexity between the t e n t h graders and s i x t h graders i n n a r r a t i o n i n the e a r l i e r study, i n t h i s l a t e r study, she found that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . However, that there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between grade ten and twelve l e n t some support to the suggestion made i n the e a r l i e r study that i n n a r r a t i o n , age r e l a t e d s y n t a c t i c complexity may stop at a c e r t a i n age p o i n t . A l l these s t u d i e s support the c l a i m that the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s produced by the students are a f f e c t e d by the w r i t i n g task they are r e q u i r e d to do. Moreover, the argumentative or e x p o s i t o r y assignment tends to e l i c i t higher l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c complexity from students than a n a r r a t i v e or d e s c r i p t i v e assignment. These s t u d i e s , however, are a l l based on f i r s t language d a t a . Whether second language l e a r n e r s w i l l e x h i b i t such d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s they employ i n response to d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g tasks, i s a q u e s t i o n to be answered by t h i s study. 47 G. Summary Researchers' attempts to i s o l a t e an index to t r a c e s y n t a c t i c development have r e s u l t e d i n the establishment of the T - u n i t , a measure developed by Hunt (1965). Though a gross measure as i t i n v o l v e s a mere count of words, the T - u n i t has n e v e r t h e l e s s been shown by v a r i o u s s t u d i e s to be able to r e f l e c t the m a t u r i t y of language of students at v a r i o u s grade l e v e l s . Researchers have a l s o developed v a r i o u s schemes to analyze the development of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s from immature to mature speakers or w r i t e r s , among which the scheme developed by O'Donnell et a l . (1967) i s the most widely adopted i n r e s e a r c h . Some r e s e a r c h e r s t r i e d to p r o v i d e e x p l a n a t i o n s from a p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c viewpoint about the r e l a t i o n of the T - u n i t to language growth, and t h e i r c o n j e c t u r e s were to a c e r t a i n extent borne out by s t u d i e s conducted with n a t i v e speakers of languages other than E n g l i s h and with second language l e a r n e r s who showed a s i m i l a r i n c r e a s e i n T - u n i t l e n g t h with age. However, the l i m i t a t i o n of the T - u n i t i s that i t r e f l e c t s group performance and i s not u s e f u l f o r a s s e s s i n g an i n d i v i d u a l student's s y n t a c t i c development. I t i s a l s o found to be a f f e c t e d by a number of f a c t o r s , most notabl y the mode of w r i t i n g . However, when mode d i f f e r e n c e s have been taken i n t o account, the T-u n i t has been found to be an economical and a c c u r a t e measure f o r l a r g e s c a l e language i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 48 CHAPTER THREE . RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES A. The s u b j e c t s of the study The s u b j e c t s were Chinese secondary school students l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language i n Hong Kong. The d e c i s i o n to use ESL s u b j e c t s i n Hong Kong was based on two c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : 1) s i n c e the study concerned growth i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , i t seemed more reasonable to group s u b j e c t s according to age and the l e v e l i n ESL l e a r n i n g as i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r grade l e v e l s r a t h e r than to group them by scores on o b j e c t i v e t e s t s which measure knowledge of usage and grammar. Groups d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n such a way are easy to o b t a i n i n Hong Kong but d i f f i c u l t i n Vancouver; 2) the s u b j e c t s chosen i n Hong Kong are homogeneous in the sense that they a l l have the same n a t i v e language background (Chinese) and they a l l l e a r n E n g l i s h as a school s u b j e c t ; t h e r e f o r e , the c o n d i t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g the second language are very uniform f o r a l l the s u b j e c t s . T h i s homogenity was a p p r o p r i a t e to t h i s study which measured s k i l l a c r o s s the three groups because each group would d i f f e r from the other only i n terms of age and the l e v e l of second language l e a r n i n g . The f i n d i n g s , then, would not be confounded by the v a r i a t i o n i n the amount of exposure to the second language that each s u b j e c t had. A l l s u b j e c t s were studying i n Hoi Ping Secondary School, a 49 school with a uniform Chinese student p o p u l a t i o n coming from a lower-middle or low socioeconomic background (as evidenced from the f a c t t h at over 50 percent of the students i n the school r e c e i v e subsidy from the government f o r fee payment because of low f a m i l y income). Despite the socioeconomic background, the academic a b i l i t y of these students was above average ( e x p l a i n e d i n Chapter 1). The school has E n g l i s h as one s c h o o l subject among ot h e r s , but s t a r t i n g i n F.3, E n g l i s h i s a l s o used i n the other s u b j e c t s as the medium of i n s t r u c t i o n . The s u b j e c t s were studying i n F.3, F.5. and F.7 ( i n Canada t h i s would be roughly e q u i v a l e n t to grade 9, grade 11 and grade 13). Twenty s u b j e c t s each were randomly chosen from two i n t a c t c l a s s e s (with 30 to 40 students in a c l a s s ) . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of sexes and the range and mean age f o r the students i n each grade are shown i n Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1: D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sexes by Grade L e v e l Grade F.3 F.5 F.7 Male 8 9 11 Female 12 11 9 Table 2: Mean Age and Age Range for Students at the Three Grade L e v e l s S t u d i e d Grade F.3 F.5 F.7 Mean Age 15:1 17:2 18:10 Age Range 13:11-17:4 15:10-19:2 17:11-20:11 Note:Age i n years and months c a l c u l a t e d as of Dec. 1982. Month numbers separated by a c o l o n from year numbers. 50 E n g l i s h l e a r n i n g s t a r t s as e a r l y as at the kindergarten l e v e l i n Hong Kong, but formal i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading and w r i t i n g E n g l i s h s t a r t s only . i n the secondary school when the students are about t h i r t e e n years o l d . However, i t i s only when they have reached F.3 that the students produce genuine compositions (compositions i n the form of f r e e w r i t i n g as opposed to c o n t r o l l e d w r i t i n g done i n the lower forms). T h i s p r o v i d e s the b a s i c reason for s t a r t i n g the i n v e s t i g a t i o n at the F.3 l e v e l . B. C o l l e c t ion of the language samples The r e s e a r c h of Crowhurst and Piche (1979) i n d i c a t e d that t here would be c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n s y n t a c t i c performance when students were w r i t i n g i n d i f f e r e n t modes or to d i f f e r e n t audiences. Hunt (1965) a l s o i n d i c a t e d that c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s were dependent upon sub j e c t matter. In the c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h , the audience and s u b j e c t matter v a r i a b l e s were c o n t r o l l e d by having students at the three grades w r i t e on the same subj e c t matter to t h e i r teacher (see Appendix B f o r the composition t o p i c s ) . To i n v e s t i g a t e the i n f l u e n c e of mode on t h e i r w r i t i n g , the s u b j e c t s wrote two compositions (one i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the other to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment). The students produced a w r i t t e n sample of about 200 words f o r the mode-wise comparisons and about 400 words f o r the grade-wise comparisons. O'Hare (1973) i n d i c a t e d that a sample 51 j u s t over 400 words in l e n g t h was as r e l i a b l e an i n d i c a t o r of average T - u n i t l e n g t h as a 1000 word sample was. But smaller sample s i z e s have a l s o been used i n other r e s e a r c h (e.g., 300 words i n Hunt and O'Donnell, 1970; and 300 words in Combs, 1976). The students wrote the two compositions i n two separate 40-minute s e s s i o n s at the end of the f i r s t school term (mid-December to e a r l y January). The a c t u a l w r i t i n g was done i n an examination s e t t i n g with the students working on t h e i r own without help from the teachers or other students. However, although examination c o n d i t i o n s are s u i t a b l e f o r c o n t r o l purposes, i t i s a l s o l i k e l y that students w i l l not put forward t h e i r best performance so that the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s e x h i b i t e d i n the w r i t i n g w i l l not be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the f u l l range of s t r u c t u r e s that they are capable o f . To prevent t h i s , v a r i o u s e f f o r t s were made i n t h i s r e s e a r c h to e l i c i t b e t t e r w r i t i n g performance from the students. The compositions f o r the a n a l y s i s were photocopied and then graded by the students' teachers and r e t u r n e d to them, while the r e s e a r c h e r kept the o r i g i n a l c o p i e s . I t was f e l t that the grading would i n c r e a s e students' i n c e n t i v e to w r i t e . Two t o p i c s were chosen which the r e s e a r c h e r judged (through her experience i n t e a c h i n g s i m i l a r s u b j e c t s ) to be e q u a l l y manageable and c h a l l e n g i n g f o r the students at the three grades. The most important e f f o r t , however, was the d e v i s i n g of procedures that would h e l p the students i n the p r e w r i t i n g stage. Modern composition r e s e a r c h ( e s p e c i a l l y C l i f f o r d , 1981) has i n d i c a t e d that the best i n s t r u c t i o n a l method to e l i c i t good 52 w r i t i n g performance from students i s to h e l p them to slow down and elongate the composing sequence d e s c r i b e d by Emig (1971). In t h i s r e s e a r c h , a s p e c i a l attempt was made to prolong the p r e w r i t i n g stage so that the students would have s u f f i c i e n t time to think about, and to gear themselves t o , the w r i t i n g . A s e r i e s of p r e w r i t i n g procedures was designed to be ad m i n i s t e r e d by the teachers (see Appendix C ). Since the resear c h e r c o u l d not be present to e x p l a i n the procedures, the r a t i o n a l e and the s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each procedure were e x p l a i n e d i n a l e t t e r to the teach e r s (see Appendix D). To f i n d out how the teachers had c a r r i e d out the procedures, a w r i t i n g l o g (see Appendix E) was given to teachers f o r them to i n d i c a t e the d u r a t i o n of each s e s s i o n , the p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l of the students, and the ease of implementing the procedures. Response from the te a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the procedures were u n i f o r m l y c a r r i e d out at a l l three grade l e v e l s . C. Measurement The w r i t i n g produced by the 20 students randomly s e l e c t e d at the three grade l e v e l s was su b j e c t e d to a tw o - l e v e l a n a l y s i s : 1) a n a l y s i s of the average l e n g t h of T - u n i t s , the average l e n g t h of c l a u s e s and the number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t ; and, 2) a n a l y s i s of the sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 2 used by the 2 The term f o l l o w s Hunt (1965) and O'Donnell et a l . (1967). I t i s to be noted, however, that what i s measured i s not sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n per se. Rather, the a n a l y s i s counted occurrences of three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s (nominals, a d v e r b i a l s , and c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n a T- u n i t ) produced as a r e s u l t of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . 53 students at each grade. Before each composition was segmented i n t o T - u n i t s , extraneous matter c a l l e d ' g arbles' was excluded. A 'garble' was d e f i n e d by t h i s researcher as any sentence, or p a r t of a sentence, that i s u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . T h i s researcher r e t a i n e d sentence fragments that r e s u l t e d from non-standard usage (e.g., wrong punctuation, misused p a r t s of speech, wrong p r e p o s i t i o n s , omissions, e t c . , ) as long as t h e i r semantic contents were c l e a r , but d e l e t e d g a r b l e d sentences or g a r b l e d segments (see Ney and F i l l e r u p , 1980) from the a n a l y s i s . An account of how other r e s e a r c h e r s d e f i n e d g a r b l e s i s presented i n Appendix F. Examples on t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ' s treatment of g a r b l e s are found in Appendix G. A f t e r g a r b l e s or g a r b l e d segments were d e l e t e d , the two compositions were segmented i n t o T - u n i t s and c l a u s e s . Then the average T - u n i t l e n g t h and c l a u s e l e n g t h , as w e l l as the number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t , were c a l c u l a t e d . F o l l o w i n g Hunt (1970a), a T - u n i t was d e f i n e d as one main cl a u s e p l u s any subordinate c l a u s e s or n o n - c l a u s a l elements at t a c h e d to, or embedded i n , i t . Again, f o l l o w i n g Hunt (1970a, pp.13-14): [t]he c r i t e r i o n used to decide whether a c e r t a i n e x p r e s s i o n was to be counted as a c l a u s e was the same as that which appears i n most schoolbook grammars: the expression must c o n t a i n a s u b j e c t (or c o o r d i n a t e d s u b j e c t s ) and must c o n t a i n a f i n i t e verb (or c o o r d i n a t e d v e r b s ) . Mean T- u n i t l e n g t h was c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number of words by the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s . Mean c l a u s e l e n g t h was c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number of words by 54 the t o t a l number of c l a u s e s . The number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t was c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number of c l a u s e s by the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s . The mean fo r each studeat i n each composition on each measure was f i r s t o btained; then a grade mean was c a l c u l a t e d by averaging the i n d i v i d u a l means. F o l l o w i n g O'Hare (1973, p.48) "speaker tags" were r e t a i n e d and counted as main c l a u s e s (or as subordinate c l a u s e s i f they happened t o serve a subordinate f u n c t i o n ) . The f i r s t e x p r e s s i o n o c c u r r i n g i n d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e was counted as a noun c l a u s e , while the r e s t v were c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n the d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e . Clauses j o i n e d by c o o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s were counted as two T - u n i t s except when these c l a u s e s were a l r e a d y embedded i n another c l a u s e . F o l l o w i n g Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), a c o o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n was d e f i n e d as a l i n k f o r two c l a u s e s without e x p l i c i t l y i n d i c a t i n g s u b o r d i n a t i o n . The l i n k would be l o c a t e d between two c l a u s e s and c o u l d not be moved to head the f i r s t c l a u s e without producing unacceptable sentences or at l e a s t changing the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the c l a u s e s . For example, the f i r s t sentence would be accep t a b l e i n i t s use of the c o o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n (underlined) but not the second: They are l i v i n g i n England or they are spending a v a c a t i o n t h e r e . Or they are spending a v a c a t i o n there, they are l i v i n g i n England. Clauses j o i n e d by s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s were counted as one T - u n i t . S u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from c o o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s by the f a c t that they c o u l d be p l a c e d e i t h e r at the beginning of the sentence or i n the middle 55 between the two c l a u s e s , as i n these examples: Because she was t i r e d , she went to bed. She went to bed because she was t i r e d . 'For' and 'so t h a t ' o c c u r r i n g somewhere on the g r a d i e n t between the 'pure' c o o r d i n a t o r s and 'pure' s u b o r d i n a t o r s were t r e a t e d as s u b o r d i n a t o r s . Word count followed O'Donnell et a l . (1967). C o n t r a c t i o n s such as "he'd" were regarded as two words. Compound nouns were given the count i n d i c a t e d by the number of bases i n v o l v e d , e.g., 'policeman' would be counted as two words. The second l e v e l a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d a n a l y z i n g the kinds of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s used by students at the three grade l e v e l s . Based on O'Donnell et a l . (1967), a l l sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ( e x c l u d i n g c o o r d i n a t i o n of main c l a u s e s ) were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o three major c a t e g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r grammatical f u n c t i o n s i n the sentence: l ) n o m i n a l s , 2) a d v e r b i a l s , and 3) c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s . Within these three major c a t e g o r i e s , s u b c a t e g o r i e s were i d e n t i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to types of s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n . Nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n c l u d e a l l those s t r u c t u r e s that expand a s i n g l e noun through the a d d i t i o n of a d j e c t i v e s , nouns, a p p o s i t i v e s , p a r t i c i p l e s , i n f i n i t i v e s and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e r e d u c t i o n s . Included i n t h i s category are a l s o c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t are d e r i v e d from verbs (such as gerunds or i n f i n i t i v e s ) but f u n c t i o n i n g as nouns, and c l a u s e s s e r v i n g as s u b j e c t s or o b j e c t s . No d i s t i n c t i o n was made here between r e s t r i c t i v e or n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s because an i n i t i a l i n s p e c t i o n of the sample r e v e a l e d that the l a t t e r d i d 56 not occur f r e q u e n t l y i n the d a t a . Nouns m o d i f i e d by an adverb or a post-noun a d j e c t i v e ( e . g . , something s t r a n g e ) were a l s o o m i t t e d from the a n a l y s i s because of t h e i r i n f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e s . A d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n c l u d e a l l k i n d s of c l a u s e s m o d i f y i n g the v e r b i n the main c l a u s e . These c l a u s e s were s u b d i v i d i e d i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s : 1) time c l a u s e s and 2) o t h e r s ( e . g . , c l a u s e s of r e a s o n , r e s u l t , c o n c e s s i o n , c o n d i t i o n , e t c . , ) . Such a d i s t i n c t i o n was made because of Hunt's f i n d i n g t h a t w h i l e younger and o l d e r w r i t e r s produce a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same number of a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s , o l d e r w r i t e r s d i s t i n g u i s h t hemselves from the younger w r i t e r s by u s i n g a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of t h e s e c l a u s e s , w h i l e younger w r i t e r s tended t o use more time c l a u s e s . C l a u s e s m o d i f y i n g an a d j e c t i v e a r e a l s o c l a s s i f i e d i n t o t h i s c a t e g o r y . A d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s a l s o i n c l u d e the s u b - c a t e g o r y of i n f i n i t i v e s t h a t modify v e r b s or a d j e c t i v e s . Another s u b d i v i s i o n i s what O'Donnell et a l . c a l l e d sentence a d v e r b i a l s . These are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y movable elements not c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o a s i n g l e c o n s t i t u e n t . Examples of sentence a d v e r b i a l s are i n t e r j e c t i o n s , a b s o l u t e s , sentence c o n n e c t o r s and p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s m o d i f y i n g the main c l a u s e . C o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n c l u d e c o o r d i n a t i o n of nominal s t r u c t u r e s , m o d i f i e r s , as w e l l as c o o r d i n a t e p r e d i c a t e s . The scheme f o r the a n a l y s i s w i t h examples (some t a k e n from O'Donnell et a l . ) i s d e l i n e a t e d below: 57 D. E c o l d r a i n man' s c o a t i N o m i n a l C o n s t r u c t i o n s Headed A. Noun+noun s c h o o l B. N o u n + a d j e c t i v e C. N o u n + g e n i t i v e form N o u n + r e l a t i v e c l a u s e N o u n + a p p o s i t i v e o r a p p o s i t i v e c l a u s e Noun+prepos i t i o n a l p h r a s e N o u n + i n f i n i t i v e p h r a s e N o u n + p a r t i c i p l e o r p a r t i c i p i a l p h r a s e Mr. Young, t h e p r i n c i p a l , t h e f a c t t h a t he drowned  b i r d i n a t r e e f o o d t o e a t f a l l i n g l e a f o r t h e a n t  r o l l i n g t h e b a l l 2. Non-headed A. Noun c l a u s e B. I n f i n i t i v e p h r a s e C. I n f i n i t i v e w i t h s u b j e c t D. G e r u n d o r g e r u n d p h r a s e The dove saw t h a t t h e a n t was d r o w n i n g . He wanted t o r e t u r n t h e f a v o r . The sun made t h e f l o w e r bloom. Dane i n g i s good e x e r c i s e . She kept him from b e i n g drowned 1. A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e A. Time B. O t h e r s A d v e r b i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n s when he a r r i v e s S e n t e n c e a d v e r b i a l A. I n t e r j e c t i o n B. A b s o l u t e C. P r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e D. S e n t e n c e c o n n e c t o r E. O t h e r s A d v e r b i a l i n f i n i t i v e He i s g l a d t h a t he comes. i f I_ were you The more t h e m e r r i e r . He i s wrong, I_ t h i n k . F e e l i n g h u n g r y , he a t e . W i t h o u t s a y i n g a word, he went away. S u r p r i s i n g l y , he came. However, he d i d not t a k e i t . He o n l y g o t f o u r d o l l a r s , much l e s s t h a n t h e o t h e r s . He went t o g e t some f o o d . I t i s l i k e l y t o r a i n . C o o r d i n a t e C o n s t r u c t i o n s 1. C o o r d i n a t e n o m i n a l boys and g i r l s 2. C o o r d i n a t e m o d i f i e r f r e s h , w h i t e b r e a d r a n q u i c k l y and c a r e f u l l y 3. C o o r d i n a t e p r e d i c a t e he r e a d s and w r i t e s A sample a n a l y s i s of two p a r a g r a p h s w r i t t e n by s t u d e n t s can be f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x H. I n s t a n c e s o f e a c h t y p e o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d s t r u c t u r e were t a b u l a t e d and 58 converted i n t o i n s t a n c e s of such per 100 T - u n i t s . Then a l l occurrences w i t h i n the same category were c a l c u l a t e d and compared among the three grades and between the two modes of w r i t i n g u sing ANOVA. Where there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , a stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was performed to decide which of the s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n the category accounted f o r the d i f f e r e n c e . The T - u n i t and c l a u s e segmentation and the frequency count were performed by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r . To e s t a b l i s h the r e l i a b i l i t y of s c o r i n g , a t r a i n e d check-coder independently scored a 10 percent sample of the compositions on word count, number of T - u n i t s , number of c l a u s e s , number of gerunds, nouns m o d i f i e d by an a d j e c t i v e , a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s other than time and sentence a b s o l u t e . I n t e r s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y , c a l c u l a t e d by a Pearson product-moment c o e f f i c i e n t , was 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.95, 0.96, 0.88, and 1.0 on the above measures (the l a s t score was accounted f o r by the f a c t that there were only three i n s t a n c e s of t h i s measure i n the sub-sample). D. P r o c e s s i n g of the data The f i r s t l e v e l a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d scores on three dependent v a r i a b l e s : mean number of words per T - u n i t (W/TU), mean number of words per c l a u s e (W/CL) and mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t (CL/TU). Each v a r i a b l e was analyzed by a separate ANOVA in a 3 (grade) x 2 (mode) f a c t o r i a l design with a repeated measure on the second f a c t o r . R e s u l t s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t ' the 59 .05 l e v e l . For the planned p a i r w i s e comparisons a c r o s s grades w i t h i n the same mode, Bon f e r r o n i t - s t a t i s t i c s ( K i r k , 1968) was used. For p a i r w i s e comparisons a c r o s s modes w i t h i n the same grade, t - t e s t f o r c o r r e l a t e d measures (Glass and S t a n l e y , 1970) was used as the two assignments were w r i t t e n by the same students and t h e r e f o r e the samples were not independent. The second l e v e l a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d scores on the occurrences of three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s . Each score was analyzed by ANOVA as d e s c r i b e d above.. Then each f a c t o r w i t h i n each grammatical type was analyzed by a stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s to decide which s t r u c t u r e was more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g of the w r i t i n g done by the students i n the three grades and i n the two modes of w r i t i n g . 3 The g r e a t e r p a r t of the computation i n v o l v e d i n the. study was performed on the computer system at UBC using Program P2V: A n a l y s i s of V ariance and Covariance with Repeated Measures and Program P7M: Stepwise D i s c r i m i n a n t A n a l y s i s on the BMPD S t a t i s t i c a l Software Package (Dixon, 1981). Newman-Keuls t e s t s were conducted where necessary to c l a r i f y the nature of the more complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 3 The d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s i s a s t a t i s t i c a l procedure f o r independent groups (e.g., students at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s ) . Since the two compositions f o r the a n a l y s i s of mode d i f f e r e n c e were produced by the same students, r e s u l t s thus obtained must be q u a l i f i e d t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t . However, precedence f o r the use of t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l procedure on dependent groups can be found i n Clemens et a l . (1970). For e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l technique, r e f e r e n c e can be found i n A f i f i and Azen (1979, pp.310-318). 60 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS To f i n d out whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r n e c e s on three s y n t a c t i c measures and three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s • a c r o s s three grade l e v e l s and between two modes of w r i t i n g , two compositions (one i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and one to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment) w r i t t e n by ESL students at F.3, F.5 and F.7 were c o l l e c t e d and analyzed. The range and mean number of words ( e x c l u d i n g g a r b l e s ) w r i t t e n by the students at the three grade l e v e l s and i n the two modes of w r i t i n g are shown i n Table 3. Although the students were encouraged to w r i t e as many words as they c o u l d , the m a j o r i t y of them wrote w i t h i n the range of 180-250 words. They were conforming to the s t i p u l a t e d l e n g t h of 200 words which they were u s u a l l y i n s t r u c t e d to w r i t e . In g e n e r a l , however, there was a g r e a t e r v a r i a t i o n i n word l e n g t h at F.7 than at F.3 and students a l s o produced longer compositions at each higher grade l e v e l . A t a b l e of raw scores f o r number of words, number of T - u n i t s , number of c l a u s e s , and the in s t a n c e s of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l students i n each mode of w r i t i n g i s presented i n Appendix I. The compositions were subjected to a tw o - l e v e l a n a l y s i s : 1) a n a l y s i s of three s y n a t c t i c measures—mean T - u n i t l e n g t h , mean cl a u s e l e n g t h , and mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t ; 2) a n a l y s i s of^ three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s — n o m i n a l s , 61 Table 3: Range and Mean Number of Words W r i t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and in Two Modes of W r i t i n g Grade Mode F.3 F.5 F.7 Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range N a r r a t i v e 201.0 148-267 236.0 187-305 238.4 145-428 E x p o s i t o r y 186.8 109-292 218.9 157-295 229.3 154-337 T o t a l Words per Student 387.8 310-559 454.9 365-550 467.7.358-671 a d v e r b i a l s , and c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T-units--which were the r e s u l t of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . Twenty-seven n u l l hypotheses were p o s t u l a t e d (see Appendix A). A f t e r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s were conducted, twenty-one of these n u l l hypotheses were r e j e c t e d . In g e n e r a l , the f i n d i n g s confirmed the general hypothesis that there was a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on the s y n t a c t i c measures and the grammatical s t r u c t u r e s among grade l e v e l s and between the two modes of w r i t i n g . A. D i f f e r e n c e s on three s y n t a c t i c measures acr o s s three grades  and between two modes of w r i t i n g The f i r s t l e v e l a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d scores on three s y n t a c t i c measures—mean T-un i t l e n g t h , mean c l a u s e l e n g t h , and mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t . Mean scores on each measure f o r each grade l e v e l and f o r each mode of w r i t i n g are shown i n Table 4. As can be seen i n Table 4, there was an i n c r e a s e on each measure with each s u c c e s s i v e grade l e v e l , and except f o r number 62 of c l a u s e s per T- u n i t at F.7, there was a l s o an i n c r e a s e on these.measures from the n a r r a t i v e to the e x p o s i t o r y assignment. Table 4: Mean T- u n i t Length, Mean Clause Length, and Mean Number of Clauses per T-uni t W r i t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and i n Two Modes of W r i t i n g Measure Grade Narrat ive Mode E x p o s i t o r y Two Modes Mean SD Mean SD Mean W/TU F.3 F.5 F.7 9.00 10.00 1 1 .48 1 .49 1 .67 1 .92 1 1 .04 12.71 1 5.64 2.06 2.41 3.61 10.02 1 1 .35 1 3.56 3 Forms combined 10.16 13.13 1 1 .64 W/CL F.3 F.5 F.7 7.16 7.19 7.57 1 .07 0.71 0.93 7.93 8.87 1 0.40 1 .30 1 .78 1 .80 7.54 8.03 8.98 3 Forms combined 7.30 9.07 8.19 CL/TU F.3 F.5 F.7 1 .26 1 .38 1 .52 0.16 0.14 0.19 1 .40 1 .45 1 .52 0.18 0.27 0.33 1 .33 1 .42 1 .52 3 Forms combined 1 .39 • 1 .46 1 .42 To f i n d out whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on these s y n t a c t i c measures, each measure was analyzed by means of ANOVA in a 3 (grade) x 2 (mode) f a c t o r i a l design with a repeated measure on the second f a c t o r . The s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among grade l e v e l s on a l l three measures, and between the two modes i n mean T- u n i t l e n g t h and c l a u s e l e n g t h . 63 Table 5: A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r T - u n i t Length among Three Grade L e v e l s and between Two Modes of W r i t i n g ; and Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s i n T - u n i t l e n g t h Source Mean Grade Within Mode ModexGrade Within Mean Change Sum of Squares 16266.5 256.6 406.9 266.0 23.5 197.4 Degrees of Freedom 1 2 57 1 2 57 Mean Square 16266.5 1 28.3 7.1 266.0 11.7 3.5 F R a t i o 2278.75 1 7.97 76.79 3.39 2 - T a i l Prob. <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0406 F.7 - F.3 F.7 - F.5 F.5 - F.3 df 57 57 57 d 3.54* 2.21* 1 ,33(NS) * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of conf i d e n c e based on the Newman-Keuls t e s t Mean T-uni t l e n g t h Table 5 shows the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t o b tained on the T - u n i t measure from a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . Table 5 a l s o shows the mean change acr o s s grade l e v e l s and the s t a t i s t i c a l d e c i s i o n s based on the Newman-Keuls t e s t . As can be seen from the t a b l e , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the mean number of words per T - u n i t a c r o s s the three grades. The p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l of P<0.0001 means that there was an extremely low p r o b a b i l i t y that d i f f e r e n c e s as great as these between grade l e v e l s were caused by chance. Post-hoc a n a l y s i s through the use of the Newman-Keuls t e s t was c a r r i e d out to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t 64 d i f f e r e n c e s between adjacent grade l e v e l s . The t e s t i n d i c a t e d that f o r adjacent grade l e v e l s , the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was maintained only between F.5 and F.7; the d i f f e r e n c e between F.3 and F.5 was not great enough to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 5 a l s o shows that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t h i s measure between the two modes of w r i t i n g . Again, the p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l of p<0.000l shows that the d i f f e r e n c e on t h i s measure was u n l i k e l y to have been caused by chance. An examination of the mean scores on t h i s measure (Table 4) r e v e a l s that on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, students wrote s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer T - u n i t s than they d i d on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. N u l l hypotheses Ho 1a and 3a, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s the three grades and between the two modes of w r i t i n g , were thus r e j e c t e d . Table 5 a l s o shows that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between grade and mode. Th i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 1. As can be seen i n F i g u r e 1 (and from the raw s c o r e s i n Table 4), although there was an i n c r e a s e i n each mode of w r i t i n g at each higher grade l e v e l , the i n c r e a s e on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment between adjacent grades was much l a r g e r than the i n c r e a s e on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between grade and mode was f u r t h e r confirmed when the w r i t i n g done by the students at the three grades in each mode was examined s e p a r a t e l y and when the two modes of w r i t i n g were examined w i t h i n the same grade. Mean c l a u s e l e n g t h Table 6 shows the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t obtained on the c l a u s e 65 I [ i_ F.3 F.5 F.7 Grade Levels 66 Table 6: A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r Clause Length among Three Grade L e v e l s and between Two Modes of W r i t i n g ; and Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s i n Clause Length Source Mean Grade Within Mode ModexGrade Within Mean Change F.7 - F.3 F.7 - F.5 F.5 - F.3 Sum of Squares 8042.9 42.9 107.0 92.9 21.3 95.0 df 57 57 57 Degrees of Freedom 1 2 57 1 2 57 d 1.44* 0.95* 0.49(NS) Mean Square 8042.9 21.4 1 .9 92.9 10.6 1 .7 F R a t i o 4283.45 11.41 55.74 6.39 2 - T a i l Prob. <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0031 * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of confidence based on the Newman-Keuls t e s t l e n g t h measure from a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . Table 6 a l s o shows the mean change a c r o s s grade l e v e l s and the s t a t i s t i c a l d e c i s i o n s based on the Newman-Keuls t e s t . As can be seen from Table 6, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the mean number of words per c l a u s e a c r o s s the three grades. As with the T - u n i t measure r e p o r t e d above, the p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l of p<0.000l showed th a t i t was u n l i k e l y t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d due to chance. Post-hoc a n a l y s i s through the use of the Newman-Keuls t e s t again i n d i c a t e d that l i k e the T - u n i t measure, between adjacent grades, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between F.5 and F.7 but not between F.3 and F.5. Table 6 a l s o shows that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two modes of w r i t i n g . Again, the p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l 67 of p<0.000l showed that i t was u n l i k e l y that the d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r e d due to chance. An examination of the raw data on t h i s measure (Table 4) r e v e a l e d that the students wrote longer c l a u s e s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment than on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. N u l l hypotheses Ho 1b and 3b, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s grades and between modes, were both r e j e c t e d . As with the T - u n i t measure, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between grade and mode. An examination of F i g u r e 2 and the raw s c o r e s i n Table 4 suggested that there was h a r d l y any i n c r e a s e i n t h i s measure on the n a r r a t i v e assignment, while t h e r e was a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, e s p e c i a l l y between F.5 and F.7. Mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t Table 7 shows the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t obtained on the mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t from a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . The t a b l e a l s o shows the mean change acr o s s grade l e v e l s and the s t a t i s t i c a l d e c i s i o n s based on the Newman-Keuls t e s t . As Table 7 shows, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t a c r o s s the three grades. The p r o b a b i l t y l e v e l of p=.0046, though l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t than the p r e v i o u s two measures, s t i l l i n d i c a t e s that there were fewer than f i v e chances in a hundred that the d i f f e r e n c e was caused by chance. N u l l hypothesis Ho 1c, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s , was thus r e j e c t e d . U n l i k e the p r e v i o u s two measures, post-hoc a n a l y s i s through the use of the Newman-Keuls t e s t r e v e a l e d that there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between any adjacent grades because the 68 Figure 2: Mean Number of Words per Clause Written by Students at Three Grade Levels and i n Two Modes of Writing l l h F.3 F.5 Grade Levels F.7 69 Table 7: A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Number of Clauses per T - u n i t Among Three Grade L e v e l s and between Two Modes of W r i t i n g ; and Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s i n Mean Number of Clauses per T-uni t Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F R a t i o 2 - T a i l Prob. Mean Grade Within 242.86 0.71 3.42 1 2 57 242.86 0.35 0.06 4052.87 5.93 <0.0001 0.0046 Mode ModexGrade Within 0.14 0.09 2.21 1 2 57 0.14 0.04 0.04 3.54 1.15 0.0651 0.3227 Mean Change F.7 - F.3 F.7 - F.5 F.5 - F.3 df 57 57 57 d 0.19* 0.10(NS) 0.09(NS) * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of confidence based on the Newman-Keuls t e s t i n c r e a s e on t h i s measure with grades was not as great as the prev i o u s two measures. T h e r e f o r e , there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between adjacent grade l e v e l s . Again, u n l i k e the pre v i o u s two measures, there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two modes of w r i t i n g . The F-value of 3.54 (p=.065l) approached s i g n i f i c a n c e but d i d not reach i t . Thus n u l l hypothesis Ho 3c which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e between the two modes c o u l d not be r e j e c t e d . Nor was there a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between grade and mode, i n d i c a t i n g that grade l e v e l s d i d not a f f e c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y the in c r e a s e on t h i s measure i n each mode of w r i t i n g . 70 B. D i f f e r e n c e s on three s y n t a c t i c measures a c r o s s three grades on the n a r r a t i v e assignment alone To f i n d out i f w i t h i n the n a r r a t i v e mode of w r i t i n g students performed d i f f e r e n t l y on the three s y n t a c t i c measures, B o n f e r r o n i t - s t a t i s t i c s were used to i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s . Table 8 shows the mean change between grade l e v e l s on each of the three s y n t a c t i c measures and the s t a t i s t i c a l d e c i s i o n s . Table 8: Mean change between Grade L e v e l s i n T - u n i t Length, Clause l e n g t h and Number of Clauses per T - u n i t i n the N a r r a t i v e Assignment W/TU W/CL CL/TU F.7 - F.3 2.48** 0.41(NS) 0.26** F.7 - F.5 1.48* 0.38(NS) • 0.14* F.5 - F.3 1.00(NS) 0.03(NS) 0.12(NS) * * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l of confidence • s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of con f i d e n c e based on the B o n f e r r o n i t - s t a t i s t i c s As can be seen from Table 8, when the n a r r a t i v e assignments were examined s e p a r a t e l y , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f f e r e n c e i n mean T- u n i t l e n g t h and mean number of c l a u s e s per T-un i t between F.3 and F.7 and between F.5 and F.7 but not between F.3 and F.5. T h i s confirms the f i n d i n g s i n S e c t i o n A that the w r i t i n g between the F.3 and F.5 students was not s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . T h e r e f o r e , there was not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . On the other hand, there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between any two grades on c l a u s e l e n g t h . As i n d i c a t e d i n S e c t i o n A above, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between 71 mode and grade. T h i s grade-wise comparison w i t h i n the n a r r a t i v e mode confirms the p r e v i o u s c o n c l u s i o n that grade l e v e l s do not have an equal e f f e c t on both modes of w r i t i n g . On the n a r r a t i v e assignment, the students h a r d l y i n c r e a s e d t h e i r c l a u s e l e n g t h at each higher grade. The n o n s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n c l a u s e l e n g t h on the n a r r a t i v e assignment but a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment (to be d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n C) p a r t l y e x p l a i n e d the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t found i n S e c t i o n A i n T - u n i t l e n g t h . Since T - u n i t l e n g t h i s the product of c l a u s e l e n g t h and number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t , both f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e to the lengthen i n g of the T - u n i t s . On the n a r r a t i v e assignment, the F.7 students wrote more c l a u s e s per T - u n i t but not longer c l a u s e s than the F.3 students. On the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, however, they wrote s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer c l a u s e s . R e s u l t s of ANOVA, on the other hand, i n d i c a t e that there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n mean number of c l a u s e s between the two modes of w r i t i n g . In f a c t , an examination of the raw scores (Table 4) r e v e a l s that the F.7 students embedded an equal number of c l a u s e s i n t h e i r T - u n i t s i n both modes of w r i t i n g . Since on the n a r r a t i v e assignment the F.7 students i n c r e a s e d t h e i r T - u n i t s s o l e l y through the use of an inc r e a s e d number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t whereas on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment they used an equal number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t but i n c r e a s e d t h e i r c l a u s e l e n g t h s u b s t a n t i a l l y , i t was l o g i c a l then that the increase with grade l e v e l s on t h i s measure was gr e a t e r cn the e x p o s i t o r y assignment than on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. 72 Since there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T- u n i t l e n g t h and mean number of c l a u s e s per T-uni t among grade l e v e l s , n u l l hypotheses Ho 5a and 5c, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n T-unit l e n g t h and number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t , were both r e j e c t e d . Since there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n c l a u s e l e n g t h between any two grades, n u l l h y p o t h e s i s Ho 5b, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n c l a u s e l e n g t h , c o u l d not be r e j e c t e d . C. D i f f e r e n c e s on three s y n t a c t i c measures a c r o s s three grades on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment alone To f i n d out i f w i t h i n the e x p o s i t o r y mode of w r i t i n g students performed d i f f e r e n t l y on the three s y n t a c t i c measures, B o n f e r r o n i t / - s t a t i s t i c s were used to i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s . Table 9 shows the mean change between grade l e v e l s on each of the three s y n t a c t i c measures and the accompanying s t a t i s t i c a l d e c i s i o n s . As can be seen i n Table 9, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n mean T-uni t l e n g t h from F.3 to F.7 and from F.5 to F.7. However, l i k e a l l previous r e s u l t s , there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between F.3 and F.5. The longer T - u n i t s w r i t t e n by the F.7 students o c c u r r e d as a r e s u l t of the longer c l a u s e s that they had w r i t t e n as i n d i c a t e d by the s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e on 73 Table 9: Mean change between Grade L e v e l s i n T - u n i t Length, Clause l e n g t h and Number of Clauses per T - u n i t i n the E x p o s i t o r y Assignment F.7 - F.3 F.7 - F.5 F.5 - F.3 W/TU 4.60** 2.93** 1.67(NS) W/CL 2.47** 1 .53* 0.94(NS) * * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l of conf i d e n c e * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of confidence based on the B o n f e r r o n i - t - s t a t i s t i c s CL/TU 0. 12(NS) 0.07(NS) 0.05(NS) t h i s measure from F.3 to F.7 and from F.5 to F.7 but a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the number of c l a u s e s per T-un i t between any two grades. While the F.7 students embedded an equal number of c l a u s e s i n t o t h e i r T - u n i t s i n both modes of w r i t i n g , the F.3 students i n c r e a s e d t h i s number on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, thus b r i d g i n g the gap that p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t e d on the n a r r a t i v e assignment between them and the F.7 stud e n t s . On t h i s measure, then, there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among any of the three grade l e v e l s . Since there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T-uni t l e n g t h and mean c l a u s e l e n g t h i n t h i s mode of w r i t i n g , n u l l hypotheses Ho 6a and 6b, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s on the two measures on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, were both r e j e c t e d . Since there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t among grade l e v e l s , n u l l hypothesis Ho 6c, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s on t h i s measure, c o u l d not be r e j e c t e d . 74 D. D i f f e r e n c e s between the modes w i t h i n each grade l e v e l To f i n d out i f there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two modes of w r i t i n g w i t h i n each grade, the means i n each of the three s y n t a c t i c measures i n the two modes of w r i t i n g were compared using a t - t e s t f o r c o r r e l a t e d measures. The mean change on the three measures between the two modes of w r i t i n g and the t - v a l u e s on the three measures i n each grade are shown in Table 10. Table 10: Mean Change between Two Modes w i t h i n Three Grade L e v e l s on T - u n i t Length, Clause Length and Number of Clauses per T - u n i t ; and corresponding t - v a l u e s _ W/TU _ W/CL _ CL/TU d t - v a l u e d t - v a l u e d t-value F.3 2.04 4.65*** 0.77 2.18** 0.12 2.59* F.5 2.71 5.40*** 1.68 3.96*** 0.07 1.12(NS) F.7 4.16 5.41*** 2.83 6.42*** 0.00 0.00(NS) * * * s i g n i f i c a n t at or beyond the .0005 l e v e l of confidence * * s i g n i f i c a n t at or beyond the .025 l e v e l of confidence * s i g n i f i c a n t at or beyond the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e As can be seen from Table 10, the t - v a l u e s obtained on the d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of words per T - u n i t between the two modes of w r i t i n g reached a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (a^.0005) at a l l three grades. Thus n u l l hypotheses Ho 7a, 8a and 9a, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between modes at the three grades, were a l l r e j e c t e d . Table 10 a l s o shows that on t h i s measure, the t - v a l u e s f o r F.7 and F.5 were s i m i l a r , but were g r e a t e r than the t - v a l u e f o r F.3. T h i s i n d i c a t e s that the students at F.5 75 and F.7 showed a gr e a t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n T - u n i t l e n g t h i n t h e i r w r i t i n g between the two assignments than the students at F.3 d i d . The t - v a l u e s obtained on the d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of words per c l a u s e between the two modes of w r i t i n g a l s o reached a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e at each grade (a>.025).- Thus n u l l hypotheses Ho 7b, 8b and 9b, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between modes at the three grades, were a l l r e j e c t e d . The t- v a l u e f o r F.7 was gr e a t e r than the t-value f o r F.5 which i n tur n was gr e a t e r than the t-v a l u e f o r F.3. T h i s i n d i c a t e s that at each higher grade l e v e l , there was a gr e a t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the two assignments on t h i s measure. The t - v a l u e s obtained on the d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of c l a u s e s per T- u n i t between the two modes of w r i t i n g reached a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e only at F.3.' The t - v a l u e s d i m i n i s h e d with grade l e v e l s , u n t i l at F.7 there was p r a c t i c a l l y no d i f f e r e n c e on t h i s measure between the two modes of w r i t i n g . T h i s i n d i c a t e s that while the F.3 students d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the two assignments through the use of two d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of c l a u s e embedding, the F.5 and F.7 students d i d not. T h i s occurred as the r e s u l t of a c e i l i n g e f f e c t when the students at the two upper grades were a l r e a d y embedding a great number of c l a u s e s i n t o t h e i r n a r r a t i v e assignments. Thus they c o u l d not i n c r e a s e g r e a t l y the number of c l a u s e s they c o u l d embed i n t o t h e i r T - u n i t s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment. Only hypothesis Ho 7c, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between modes at the F.3 l e v e l , c o u l d be r e j e c t e d . Ho 8c and 9c, which p o s t u l a t e d no 76 d i f f e r e n c e s between modes at F.5 and F.7, c o u l d not be r e j e c t e d . E. A summary of the f i n d i n g s i n the f i r s t l e v e l a n a l y s i s When the r e s u l t s of the v a r i o u s analyses are combined, a c l e a r p i c t u r e emerges i l l u s t r a t i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s on the three s y n t a c t i c measures i n the compositions w r i t t e n by the students in the three grades i n response to assignments e l i c i t i n g a n a r r a t i v e and an e x p o s i t o r y mode of w r i t i n g . 1. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the number of words per T-u n i t from F.3 to F.7 and from F.5 to F.7 in the two modes of w r i t i n g combined and i n the n a r r a t i v e mode and e x p o s i t o r y mode alone. However, the lengthening of the T - u n i t s at the higher grades was a r r i v e d at very d i f f e r e n t l y i n the two modes of w r i t i n g . On the n a r r a t i v e assignment, the longer T - u n i t s w r i t t e n by the upper-grade students were lengthened s u b s t a n t i a l l y by the m u l t i p l e embedding of subordinate c l a u s e s w i t h i n the T- u n i t as i s evidenced by the s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the number of c l a u s e s per T-uni t at each higher grade. Clause l e n g t h , on the other hand, showed no s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e with grade l e v e l s , i n d i c a t i n g that students at the higher grade l e v e l s d i d not wr i t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer c l a u s e s i n the n a r r a t i v e mode than students at the lower grade wrote. On the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, however, the longer T - u n i t s produced by the upper-grade students were lengthened c h i e f l y through the use of longer c l a u s e s . The inc r e a s e i n the number of c l a u s e s per 77 T - u n i t was n e g l i g i b l e i n t h i s mode of w r i t i n g , while the i n c r e a s e i n c l a u s e l e n g t h was s i g n i f i c a n t between F . 3 and F . 7 and F .5. and F . 7 but not F . 3 and F . 5 . 2. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c rease i n the number of words per c l a u s e from F .3 to F . 7 and from F . 5 to F . 7 i n the two modes of w r i t i n g combined. However, when looked at i n d i v i d u a l l y , only the e x p o s i t o r y assignment showed a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e on t h i s measure while on the n a r r a t i v e assignment, the d i f f e r e n c e between grades was n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . 3. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t from F . 3 to F .7 i n the two modes of w r i t i n g combined. On the n a r r a t i v e assignment, the i n c r e a s e was s i g n i f i c a n t between F . 3 and F . 7 and between F . 5 and F . 7 . On the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, however, the d i f f e r e n c e between grade l e v e l s was not s i g n i f i c a n t . 4. The w r i t i n g of the F . 5 students was not s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from the w r i t i n g of the F . 3 students; consequently, on none of the measures (whether i n the two modes of w r i t i n g combined or examined s e p a r a t e l y ) was there a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between these two grades. 5. Even at the F . 3 l e v e l , the students (who are beginning w r i t e r s i n E n g l i s h ) performed d i f f e r e n t l y when w r i t i n g i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and to an e x p o s i t o r y 78 assignment. At a l l grade l e v e l s , students wrote s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer T - u n i t s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment than on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. The F.3 students produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer T - u n i t s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment than on the n a r r a t i v e assignment by w r i t i n g longer c l a u s e s and embedding more c l a u s e s i n t o the T - u n i t s . At the two higher grade l e v e l s , however, students lengthened the T - u n i t s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment c h i e f l y through w r i t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer c l a u s e s , but there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of c l a u s e s they embedded i n t o the T - u n i t s between the two modes of w r i t i n g . F. D i f f e r e n c e s i n three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s a c r o s s  three grades and between two modes of w r i t i n g The s e c o n d - l e v e l a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d scores on the frequency of occurrences of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s produced as a r e s u l t of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . Instances of each t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d s t r u c t u r e were t a b u l a t e d and converted i n t o i n s tances of such per 100 T - u n i t s . Then they were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o three major c a t e g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r grammatical f u n c t i o n s i n the sentence: 1) nominals, 2) a d v e r b i a l s , and 3) c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s . The t o t a l number of occurrences w i t h i n each category was c a l c u l a t e d and means were obtained f o r each grade and f o r each mode of w r i t i n g . Mean scores on each measure f o r each grade l e v e l and f o r each mode of w r i t i n g are shown i n Table 11. As can be seen from Table 11, there was an in c r e a s e i n both 79 the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s and a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s with grade l e v e l s , but not the c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Across modes, on the other hand, the i n c r e a s e from the n a r r a t i v e assignment to the e x p o s i t o r y assignment was evident on a l l three measures. Table 11: Mean Number of Nominal C o n s t r u c t i o n s , A d v e r b i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n s and Coordinate C o n s t r u c t i o n s per 100 T - u n i t s W r i t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and i n Two Modes of W r i t i n g Measure Grade Narrat ive Mode E x p o s i t o r y Two Modes Mean SD Mean SD Mean Nominals per 100 T - u n i t s F.3 F.5 F.-7-113.1 125.8 1 53.8 44.2 40.7 45.8 142.0 197.3 274.0 50.2 50.2 96.9 127.6 161.5 213.9 3 Forms combined 130.9 204.4 167.7 A d v e r b i a l s per 100 T - u n i t s F.3 F.5 F.7 29. 1 37.7 51 .5 15.2 19.2 26.7 52.0 69.4 101.1 22.6 23. 1 37.8 46.6 53.6 76.3 3 Forms combined 39.4 74.2 56.8 Coordinates F.3 28.1 16.1 53.8 31.9 40.9 per 100 F.5 23.2 15.3 51.8 40.0 37.5 T - u n i t s F.7 24.3 9.7 56.7 33.6 40.5 3 Forms 25.2 54.1 39.6 combined The scores were analyzed by ANOVA i n a 3(grade) x 2(mode) f a c t o r i a l design with a repeated measure on the second f a c t o r . Nominal c o n s t r u c t ions Table 12 shows the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s obtained on the mean 80 number of nominal constructions from analysis of variance. The table also shows the mean change on this measure that occurred between grade leve l s and the s t a t i s t i c a l decisions based on the Newman-Keuls test. As shown in Table 12, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the use of th i s construction across the three grades. The Table 12: Analysis of Variance for Nominal Constructions per 100 T-units among Three Grade Levels and between Two Modes of Writing; and Mean Change between Grade Levels in Nominal Constructions per 100 T-units Source Mean Grade Within Mode ModexGrade Within Mean Change F.7 - F.3 F.7 - F.5 F.5 - F.3 Sum of Squares 3373481 .7 151278.7 237652.9 162363.0 41722.3 194023.6 df 57 57 57 Degrees of Freedom 1 2 57 1 2 57 Mean Square 3373481 .7 75639.4 4169.3 162363.0 20861.2 3403.9 d 86.3* 52.4* 33.9(NS) • s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 le v e l of confidence based on the Newman-Keuls test F Ratio 809.11 18.14 47.70 6.13 2 - t a i l Prob. <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0039 proba b i l i t y l e v e l of p<0.000l indicated that the difference was unlikely to have been caused by chance. Post-hoc analysis through the use of the Newman-Keuls test showed that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between F.3 and F.7 and between F.5 and F.7. However, the increase from F.3 to F.5 was not s u f f i c i e n t l y great to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . This corroborates the 81 conclusion drawn in Section E. As these structures are partly responsible for the lengthening of clauses and T-units (clauses in p a r t i c u l a r ) , a non-significant difference found on this measure as well as in the adverbial and coordinate structures (to be discussed below) between F.3 and F.5 explains the non-significant differences found between these two grade levels on the syntactic measures. As indicated in Table 12, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in nominal constructions between the two modes of writing. Again, the probability that the difference was caused by chance was extremely low (p<0.000l). The students tended to use more nominal constructions on the expository assignment than on the narrative assignment. Null hypotheses Ho 2a and 4a, which postulated no difference in the use of this construction, were both rejected. There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction on this measure between grade and mode. This again corroborates the e a r l i e r interaction e f f e c t found between grade and mode in T-unit length and clause length. Figure 3 i l l u s t r a t e s that although there was an increase on thi s measure on each of the two assignments, the increase between grade levels on the expository assignment was much greater than the increase on the narrative assignment. As explained above, these structures are partly responsible for the increase in T-unit length and clause length. Thus, the interaction found on this construction should be similar to the interaction found on the two syntactic measures. 82 •H c 3 I H O O OJ & CO c o •H •U O 3 >J 4-1 CO C o CJ cfl C •H s o 3 3 2 Figure 3: Mean Number of Nominal Constructions per 100 T-units Writt en by Students at Three Grade Levels and i n Two Modes of Writing 270 240 210 190 160 130 110 h Narrative Assignment F.3 F.5 F.7 Grade Levels 83 Adverbial constructions Table 13 shows the s t a t i s c t i c a l results obtained on the mean number of adverbial contructions per 100 T-units. The table also shows the mean change on th i s measure between grade level s and the s t a t i s t i c a l decisions based on the Newman-Keuls tes t . Table 13: Analysis of Variance for Adverbial Constructions per 100 T-units among Three Grade Levels and between Two Modes of Writing; and Mean Change between Grade Levels i n Adverbial Constructions per 100 T-units Source Mean Grade Within Mode ModexGrade Within Mean Change F.7 - F.3 F.7 - F.5 F.5 - F.3 Sum of Degrees of Mean F Squares Freedom Square Ratio 387498.0 1 387498.0 453.41 26095.0 2 13047.5 15.27 48714.2 57 854.6 36383.4 1 36383.4 89.71 3693.7 2 1846.8 4.55 23117.2 57 405.6 df d 57 35.7* 57 22.7* 57 12.9(NS) 2 - t a i l Prob. <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0146 • s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of confidence based on the Newman-Keuls test As shown in Table 13, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the use of the adverbial construction across the three grades. The low p-value indicates that i t was unlikely that the difference was caused by chance alone. The s i g n i f i c a n t difference was caused by an increase on this measure with each higher grade l e v e l as shown in Table 11. The Newman-Keuls test 84 showed that the i n c r e a s e s from F.3 to F.7 and from F.5 to F.7 were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . As with the p r e v i o u s measures, the w r i t i n g of the F.3 and F.5 students was not s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d to show a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n . Table 13 shows that there was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t h i s measure between the two modes of w r i t i n g . Again, the d i f f e r e n c e was u n l i k e l y to have been caused by chance because of the low p-value (p<0.000l). The students tended to use more a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment than on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. N u l l hypotheses Ho 2b and 4b, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e i n the use of the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , were both r e j e c t e d . There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n on t h i s measure between grade and mode. As with the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s , the i n c r e a s e between grade l e v e l s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment on t h i s measure was much gr e a t e r than the i n c r e a s e on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. The i n t e r a c t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 4. C o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s Table 14 summarizes the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s obtained on the mean number of c o o r d i n a t e c o n t r u c t i o n s 100 T - u n i t s from a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . I t shows that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of the c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n across the three grades. That i s , any d i f f e r e n c e s found on t h i s measure were l i k e l y to be a t t r i b u t a b l e to sampling e r r o r s or to chance alone . Thus hypothesis Ho 2c, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s among grade l e v e l s i n the c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s , c o u l d not be Figure 4: Mean Number of A d v e r b i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n s per 100 T-units W r i t t e n by Students at Three Grade L e v e l s and i n Two Modes of W r i t i n g F.3 1 F.5 Grade L e v e l s F.7 86 r e j e c t e d . However, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t h i s measure between the two modes of w r i t i n g . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e , on the other hand, was u n l i k e l y to be a t t r i b u t a b l e to chance because of the extremely low p-value (p<0.000l). The students tended to use more c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment than on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. N u l l hypotheses Ho 4c, which p o s t u l a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between modes i n the c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n , was thus r e j e c t e d . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n on t h i s measure between grade and mode. T h i s i s accounted f o r by the f a c t t h a t the i n c r e a s e from the n a r r a t i v e assignment to the e x p o s i t o r y assignment was s i m i l a r at each grade l e v e l . Table 14: A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Coordinate C o n s t r u c t i o n s per 100 T - u n i t s among Three Grade L e v e l s and between Two Modes of W r i t i n g ; and Mean Change between Grade L e v e l s in Coordinate C o n s t r u c t i o n s per 100 T - u n i t s Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F 2 - t a i l Squares Freedom Square R a t i o Prob. Mean 188633.1 1 189633.1 234.43 <0.0001 Grade 289.0 2 144.5 0.18 0.8361* Within 45864.4 57 804.6 Mode 25082.0 1 25082.0 39. 1 5 <0.0001 ModexGrade 227.5 2 113.8 0.18 0.8378 Within 36414.0 57 640.6 * s i n c e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d that there were no d i f f e r e n c e s among grade l e v e l s , the Newman-Keuls t e s t was not conducted. 87 Since there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s across grade l e v e l s , Newman-Keuls t e s t s were not conducted. G. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d  s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n each grammatical category a c r o s s three grades To f i n d out which s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n each grammatical category accounted more f o r the d i f f e r e n c e found a c r o s s the three grades, a stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was performed on each of the two grammatical c a t e g o r i e s of nominals and a d v e r b i a l s . No such a n a l y s i s was performed on c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n T - u n i t s as t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n was found not to be d i s c r i m i n a t i n g of the w r i t i n g a c r o s s the three grades. A number of s t r u c t u r e s were i s o l a t e d which were used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n at F.7 than at F.3. R e s u l t s of the stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s are o u t l i n e d below. Nominal c o n s t r u c t ions Of the twelve s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d w i t h i n the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n , e i g h t were found to be able to d i s c r i m i n a t e among the w r i t i n g produced by the students at the three grades (a=.05). That i s , i f independent a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e were performed on these s t r u c t u r e s , these e i g h t would produce a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t a c r o s s the three grades. These e i g h t s t r u c t u r e s , grouped a c c o r d i n g to a descending order of d i s c r i m i n a t i n g power, together with t h e i r F-values, are l i s t e d below: 88 Gerund (GRTU) Noun+adjective (NATU) Noun+prepositional phrase (PPTU) Noun+relative c l a u s e (NRTU) Noun c l a u s e (CLTU) Noun+qenitive (NGTU) Noun+appositive (APTU) Noun+ p a r t i c i p l e (PATU) 9.866 9.415 514 481 573 452 1 1 0 741 7, 7, 5, 4, 4, 3, A l l these F-values exceed the c r i t i c a l value r e q u i r e d to reach a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e at .05. When the s t r u c t u r e with the highest F-value ( i . e . , Gerund) was entered i n t o a l i n e a r equation and used as a c o v a r i a t e f o r the computation of the F-values f o r the remaining measures, only four maintained an F-value that exceeded the c r i t i c a l F-value r e q u i r e d . These four s t r u c t u r e s are Noun+adject i v e , Noun+appositive, Noun+genitive and Noun+prepositional phrase. Since Noun+adjective has the h i g h e s t F-value among the four, together with the f i r s t v a r i a b l e (Gerund), i t was entered i n t o a second l i n e a r equation and the two served as c o v a r i a t e s f o r the remaining v a r i a b l e s . At t h i s stage, none of these remaining v a r i a b l e s had an F-value great enough to be s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e , the computation of a t h i r d d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n was not c a r r i e d out. I t can thus be concluded t h a t w i t h i n t h i s grammatical category, the s t r u c t u r e s that would most o p t i m a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e the w r i t i n g a c r o s s the three grades were Gerund and Noun+adjective. These two s t r u c t u r e s were able to p l a c e 85 percent of the F.3 students, 35 percent of the F.5 students, and 60 percent of the F.7 students i n t o t h e i r c o r r e c t groupings. These two s t r u c t u r e s were e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l to d i s c r i m i n a t e the w r i t i n g of the F.3 students from the w r i t i n g of the F.7 students 89 as none of the F.3 students used these two s t r u c t u r e s to an extent that approached the performance of the F.7 stud e n t s . F u l l d e t a i l s of the r e s u l t s o b tained on the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n are presented i n Appendix J . A d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t ions Of the e i g h t s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d w i t h i n the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , f i v e were found to be able to d i s c r i m i n a t e among the w r i t i n g produced by the students at the three grades (a=.05). A l l f i v e s t r u c t u r e s were sub-groups of sentence a d v e r b i a l s . These f i v e s t r u c t u r e s , together with t h e i r F -values, are l i s t e d below: A l l these F-values exceeded the c r i t i c a l value r e q u i r e d to reach a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e at .05. When the s t r u c t u r e with the hig h e s t F-value ( i . e . , Sentence  connector) was entered i n t o a l i n e a r equation and used as a c o v a r i a t e f o r the computation of the F-values f o r 'the remaining measures, a l l but the sentence a d v e r b i a l s Others reached a s i g n i f i c a n t F-value. Then Absolute was combined with Sentence  connector i n a second l i n e a r f u n c t i o n . With these two as c o v a r i a t e s , only I n t e r j e c t i o n had a s i g n i f i c a n t F-value. When I n t e r j e c t i o n was combined with the other two measures and used as c o v a r i a t e s , none of the remaining measures had a s i g n i f i c a n t F - v a l u e . I t can thus be concluded that these three s t r u c t u r e s Sentence connector  P r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase  Abolute  Others  I n t e r j e c t i o n (SACTU) (SAPTU) (SAATU) (SAOTU) (SAITU) 1 7.450 1 1.351 7.970 6.733 6. 1 28 90 are the optimal v a r i a b l e s f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among the w r i t i n g produced by the three groups of st u d e n t s . The three s t r u c t u r e s were able to p l a c e 95 percent of the F.3 students, 50 percent of the F.5 stude n t s , and 60 percent of the F.7 students i n t o t h e i r c o r r e c t groups. In the use of these t h r e e s t r u c t u r e s , none of the F.7 students wrote at the F.3 norm while none of the F.3 students approached the F.7 norm and only one approached the F.5 norm. F u l l d e t a i l s of the r e s u l t s obtained on the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n are presented i n Appendix K. H. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d  s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n each grammatical c a t e g o r y between two modes of  w r i t i n g To f i n d out which s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n each grammatical category accounted more f o r the d i f f e r e n c e found between the two modes of w r i t i n g , a stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was performed on each of the three grammatical c a t e g o r i e s . C e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s are found to be able to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the two modes of w r i t i n g . R e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s are o u t l i n e d below. Nominal c o n s t r u c t ions Of the twelve s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d w i t h i n t h i s category, f i v e were found to be ab l e to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the two modes of w r i t i n g (at a=.05). They are l i s t e d below with t h e i r c orresponding F - v a l u e s : 91 Noun+adjective (NAGN) 56.384 Gerund (GRGN) 15.118 Noun+prepositional phrase (PPGN) 14.333 Noun+qenitive (NGGN) 7.526 N o u n + i n f i n i t i v e (NFGN) 4.348 A l l these F-values exceeded the c r i t i c a l value r e q u i r e d to reach a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e at .05. When the s t r u c t u r e with the h i g h e s t F-value ( i . e . , Noun+adjective) was entered i n t o a l i n e a r equation and used as a c o v a r i a t e for the computation of the F-values f o r the remaining measures, only Noun+partic i p l e (PAGN) had an F-value (3.422) which exceeded the c r i t i c a l F-value. T h i s measure, which p r e v i o u s l y d i d not have a s i g n i f i c a n t F-value, came out when the f a c t o r s h i e l d i n g i t ( i n t h i s case Noun+Adjective) was removed. However, since t h i s F-value was small i n comparison to the F-value of the c o v a r i a t e , the step was aborted at t h i s stage. I t can thus be concluded that the s t r u c t u r e Noun+adjective i s the best d i s c r i m i n a t o r between the two modes of w r i t i n g . I t was able to p l a c e 95 percent of the n a r r a t i v e assignments and 90 percent of the e x p o s i t o r y assignments i n t o t h e i r c o r r e c t category. F u l l d e t a i l s of the r e s u l t s obtained on the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n are presented i n Appendix L. A d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s Of the e i g h t s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d w i t h i n t h i s category, a l l but one--Sentience a d v e r b i a l a b s olute ( G S A A ) - - f a i l e d to reach an F-value great enough to be s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l . The F-values f o r the other seven s t r u c t u r e s are shown below: 92 Sentence connector  A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e other than time  A d v e r b i a l i n f i n i t i v e  Sentence adv. p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase  Sentence a d v e r b i a l i n t e r j e c t i o n s  A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of time  Sentence a d v e r b i a l T o ther) (GSAC) (GCLO) (GANF) (GSAP) (GSAI) (GCLT) (GSAO) 39.907 31.974 19.886 15.198 6. 128 4.098 3.780 The f i r s t v a r i a b l e entered i n t o the d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n was Sentence connector (GSAC) which had an F-value of 39.907. The second v a r i a b l e to enter i n t o the second d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n (together with the f i r s t ) was A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e other  than time (GCLO). At t h i s step, Absolute (GSAA) rose to a s i g n i f i c a n t F-value. The e x p l a n a t i o n was that t h i s v a r i a b l e was masked by the other two v a r i a b l e s , or, p u t t i n g i t d i f f e r e n t l y , t h i s v a r i a b l e c o n t r i b u t e d to the d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n i n a d i r e c t i o n o p p o s i t e to e i t h e r of the pre v i o u s two v a r i a b l e s . When GSAA was entered i n t o a t h i r d d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n , none of the remaining v a r i a b l e s remained s i g n i f i c a n t . I t can thus be concluded that these three v a r i a b l e s are the optimal v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between the two modes of w r i t i n g . The three v a r i a b l e s were able to p l a c e 90 percent of the n a r r a t i v e assignments and 85 percent of the e x p o s i t o r y assignments i n t o t h e i r c o r r e c t c a t e g o r i e s . F u l l d e t a i l s of the r e s u l t s obtained on the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n are presented i n Appendix M. C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n T - u n i t s A l l three c o o r d i n a t e s t r u c t u r e s were able to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the two modes of w r i t i n g ; but C o o r d i n a t i o n between  m o d i f i e r s (GMOD) was the best d i s c r i m i n a t o r . In the presence of 93 t h i s s t r u c t u r e , C o o r d i n a t i o n between p r e d i c a t e s (GPRD) was b e t t e r able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two modes of w r i t i n g than C o o r d i n a t i o n between nominals (GNOM). The three c o o r d i n a t e s were able to place a l l the n a r r a t i v e assignments (100 percent) and 80 percent of the e x p o s i t o r y assignments i n t o t h e i r c o r r e c t c a t e g o r i e s . F u l l d e t a i l s of the r e s u l t s obtained on the c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n are presented i n Appendix N. I. A summary of the second l e v e l a n a l y s i s When the r e s u l t s of the v a r i o u s analyses are combined, the f o l l o w i n g p i c t u r e emerges: 1. At each higher grade, students produced more nominal s t r u c t u r e s . The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between grade l e v e l s was c o n t r i b u t e d mainly by e i g h t s t r u c t u r e s — G e r u n d , Noun+adjective, Noun+prepositional phrase, Noun+relative c l a u s e , Noun c l a u s e , Noun+genitive, Noun+appositive, and N o u n + p a r t i c i p l e s . Among these s t r u c t u r e s , however, Gerund and Noun+adjective were the best d i s c r i m i n a t o r s . 2. At each higher grade, students produced more a d v e r b i a l s t r u c t u r e s . The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between grade l e v e l s was c o n t r i b u t e d mainly by the group of sentence a d v e r b i a l s . Within the group, Sentence connector, Absolute, and I n t e r j e c t i o n formed the optimal v a r i a b l e s f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among the three grades. 94 3. Coordination within T-units was not a good discriminating factor for the three grade l e v e l s . 4. On the expository assignment, students used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more nominal structures than on the narrative assignment. Structures that contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to thi s difference were Noun+adject ive, Gerund, Noun+preposit ional phrase, Noun+qenitive and Noun+infinitive. Among these structures, however, Noun+adjective alone could d i f f e r e n t i a t e adequately between the two modes of writing. 5. On the expository assignment, students used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more adverbial structures than on the narrative assignment. A l l structures within t h i s category made a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the difference except Sentence absolute. This structure, however, formed one of the best discriminators in that t h i s was the only one factor among the group that did not show an increase on the expository assignment. The three variables that could adequately discriminate between the two modes of writing were Sentence connector, Adverbial clause other than time, and Sentence absolute. 6. On the expository assignment, students used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more coordinations within T-units. Among the three kinds of coordinations, coordination between modifiers and coordination between predicates were better able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two modes of writing than coordination between nominals. 95 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The study focused on the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. D i d the compositions w r i t t e n by a group of Chinese secondary s c h o o l ESL students show that these students i n c r e a s e t h e i r s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n the second language as they reach a more advanced l e v e l of second language l e a r n i n g ; and was t h e i r development i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y s i m i l a r to the development e x h i b i t e d by n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking secondary s c h o o l students? 2. Did these ESL students employ d i f f e r e n t s y n t a c t i c and grammatical o p t i o n s at three l e v e l s of second language l e a r n i n g ( i n t e r m e d i a t e , advanced, and very advanced) and i n two modes of w r i t i n g ( n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y ) ? To answer these q u e s t i o n s , a group of Chinese ESL students s t u d y i n g at Form 3, 5 and 7 were asked to w r i t e two compositions to produce a w r i t i n g sample of about 400 words per student. The compositions were w r i t t e n under c o n d i t i o n s that favoured good w r i t i n g performance through the use of a s e r i e s of p r e w r i t i n g procedures. The compositions were w r i t t e n i n response to two w r i t i n g t a s k s : the f i r s t task asked f o r w r i t i n g i n the n a r r a t i v e mode and the second, the e x p o s i t o r y mode. The two w r i t i n g tasks were designed to allow t h e i r w r i t i n g performance on the two assignments to be compared. A f t e r the compositions were c o l l e c t e d , they were screened f o r g a r b l e d expressions which were then d e l e t e d . Then the 96 compositions were segmented into T-units and clauses, and the mean T-unit length, mean clause length, and the mean number of clauses per T-unit were calculated for each grade l e v e l and in each mode of writing. Three transformationally-produced grammatical structures (nominals, adverbials and coordinations within T-units) were also isolated from the writing and their occurrences within each grammatical category were tabulated and compared across the three grade levels and in the two modes of writing. The p r i n c i p a l s t a t i s t i c a l procedure used was analysis of variance to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the three syntactic measures and on the three grammatical structures among the three grade levels and between the two modes of writing. Secondary s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were 1) the Newman-Keuls test to determine between which two grade levels there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference on the syntactic measures; 2) Bonferroni _ t - s t a t i s t i c s to compare grade-level differences on the syntactic measures in each mode of writing; 3 ) t-test for correlated measures to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the three syntactic measures between the two modes of writing within the same grade l e v e l ; and 4 ) stepwise discriminant analysis to determine which structures within each grammatical category were best able to discriminate the writing done by students at the three grade levels and in the two modes of writing. 97 A. Summary and conclusions Analysis of the compositions written by these ESL students indicated that at each higher grade l e v e l , the students exhibited greater syntactic maturity as i s evident from the increase in T-unit lengh, clause length, and number of clauses per T-unit. The increase on the f i r s t two measures was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t between F.3 and F.7 and between F.5 and F.7. The increase in the number of clauses per T-unit was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t between F.3 and F.7 only. Since a l l three indices are affected by the number of sentence combining transformations performed, the increase on these three indices suggests that as these ESL students reach a more advanced l e v e l of second language learning (as in the case of the F.7 students), they increase their a b i l i t y to combine sentences. Such an increase can be regarded as growth and not an idiosyncratic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the students at a pa r t i c u l a r grade l e v e l because the scores of the F.5 students on a l l three measures were very close to the mean scores for the three grades. Since the F.5 students are at an intermediate stage of second language learning compared with the F.3 and F.7 students, the juxtaposition of their scores between the two grade l e v e l s indicates that the increase on these measures from F.3 to F.7 i s a gradual and sequential change over the years and not a change that occurs e r r a t i c a l l y . Analysis of the three types of grammatical structures indicates that the compositions written by the F.7 students were 98 d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from those w r i t t e n by the F.3 students through the more frequent use of c e r t a i n kinds of sentence combining t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . While a l l three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d i n the study were produced by such kinds of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e a l l three have p o t e n t i a l to c o n t r i b u t e to the i n c r e a s e i n T - u n i t length and c l a u s e l e n g t h found i n the w r i t i n g of the F.7 students, r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that only two of these s t r u c t u r e s - - n o m i n a l s and a d v e r b i a l s - - a c c o u n t e d for the growth on these measures. The t h i r d s t r u c t u r e - - c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s - - d i d not show an i n c r e a s e with grade l e v e l . C o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s simply add more d e t a i l s to e x i s i t i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s but do not e x p l i c i t l y i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i o n s between d i f f e r e n t p r o p o s i t i o n s . Such a kind of l i n e a r c o n j o i n i n g (as opposed t o a h i e r a r c h i c a l c o n j o i n i n g expressed i n a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y - p r o d u c e d nominal or a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n ) has been found by r e s e a r c h e r s (Hunt, 1965 and O'Donnell et a l . , 1967) to be a type of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n that i s a c q u i r e d r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y . In the c u r r e n t study, c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s were a l r e a d y used f r e q u e n t l y by the F.3 s t u d e n t s . S t y l i s t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s prevent a g r e a t l y expanded use of t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s then accounts f o r the lack of growth i n t h i s s t r u c t u r e with grade l e v e l s . An examination of the raw scores (Appendix I) suggests that almost a l l of the s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d i n the three grammatical c a t e g o r i e s were used to a g r e a t e r or l e s s e r extent by the students at a l l three grades. However, r e s u l t s of the d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e that the mature w r i t e r s 99 (the F.7 students) d i s t i n g u i s h themselves from the immature w r i t e r s (the F.3 students) i n the extent that they use c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s . The s t r u c t u r e s that the d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s i s o l a t e d w i t h i n the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n that were used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n by the F.7 students were gerunds, nouns m o d i f i e d by an a d j e c t i v e , nouns m o d i f i e d by a p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase, nouns m o d i f i e d by a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , noun c l a u s e s , nouns m o d i f i e d by a g e n i t i v e , nouns m o d i f i e d by an a p p o s i t i v e , and nouns m o d i f i e d by a p a r t i c i p l e . Among these s t r u c t u r e s , gerunds and nouns m o d i f i e d by an a d j e c t i v e were found to be the two best s t r u c t u r e s to d i s c r i m i n a t e the w r i t i n g of the students a t the three grades. Using these two s t r u c t u r e s i n a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f u n c t i o n , the d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d that while the F.7 and F.5 students showed v a r i a b i l i t y among i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n the group by w r i t i n g above or below t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e group norms, the F.3 students were r e l a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t i n the use of these two s t r u c t u r e s . E i g h t y - f i v e percent of the F.3 students wrote at the F.3 norm while three of them (accounting f o r the remaining 15 percent) used these two s t r u c t u r e s a s i m i l a r number of times as the F.5 norm but none of them used these two s t r u c t u r e s to the same extent as the F.7 norm. T h i s c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between the F.3 and F.7 students i n t h e i r employment of these s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e i r w r i t i n g lends f u r t h e r support to the suggestion that m a t u r i t y of syntax i s not r e f l e c t e d i n the kinds of s t r u c t u r e s that the students employed but i n the extent that they employ c e r t a i n mature s t r u c t u r e s . Within the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , the 'mature' s t r u c t u r e s 100 i s o l a t e d were the group of sentence a d v e r b i a l s . These are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y movable elements, not c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o a s i n g l e c o n s t i t u e n t w i t h i n the sentence. These s t r u c t u r e s were a l s o found by O'Donnell et a l . (1967) to be the s t r u c t u r e s used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n by students at upper grade l e v e l s . Among these s t r u c t u r e s , sentence connectors, a d v e r b i a l a b s o l u t e s and i n t e r j e c i o n s were found to be the best s t r u c t u r e s to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the compositions w r i t t e n at the three grade l e v e l s . These three s t r u c t u r e s d e f i n e d the three groups more sh a r p l y than the nominal s t r u c t u r e s d i d . While some F.5 students overlapped with both the F.3 and F.7 norms i n the use of these s t r u c t u r e s , 7 of the F.7 students (accounting f o r 35 percent of the group) wrote at the F.5 norm but none of them wrote at the F.3 norm. Only one F.3 student wrote at the F.5 norm while the r e s t (95 percent of the group) conformed to the F.3 norm. Both the s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s and the grammatical a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d that the development of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n these students i s very s i m i l a r to the development e x h i b i t e d by n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students. As reviewed i n Chapter Two, v a r i o u s s t u d i e s that look i n t o the growth of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n both the speech and w r i t i n g of n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students show that there i s an i n c r e a s e on the s y n t a c t i c measures with the i n c r e a s e i n grade l e v e l s . Crowhurst (1979) compared e i g h t such s t u d i e s conducted i n Canada and the United S t a t e s and noted i n p a r t i c u l a r the s i m i l a r i t i e s of the data ( i n mean T - u n i t length) w i t h i n the same grade l e v e l s across the v a r i o u s s t u d i e s . A 101 comparison of the s y n t a c t i c data i n t h i s study with the data i n the o t h e r s was not c a r r i e d out because of the v a r i a t i o n s between t h i s study and the others, i n t o p i c s , modes, audience, and the c o n d i t i o n s under which the language sample was obtained, v a r i a t i o n s concluded by r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g., Crowhurst and Piche, 1979) to a f f e c t the s y n t a c t i c s c o r e s . However, so f a r as the developmental t r e n d i s concerned, the i n c r e a s e on these measures with grade l e v e l s found i n t h i s study agrees with the f i n d i n g s in s t u d i e s using both n a t i v e language data and second language data, i n d i c a t i n g that as the students gain experience i n using the language, they a l s o i n c r e a s e t h e i r a b i l i t y to combine sentences, thereby producing longer T - u n i t s and c l a u s e s . The i n c r e a s e found on the s y n t a c t i c measures i n t h i s study c o u l d be d i s m i s s e d as r e p r e s e n t i n g merely a s u p e r f i c i a l resemblance to n a t i v e language data i f these ESL students i n c r e a s e d t h e i r T - u n i t s and c l a u s e s i n ways d i f f e r e n t from those used by n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students. But t h i s i s not the case. In f a c t , the s i m i l a r i t y i n the employment of 'mature' s t r u c t u r e s by the ESL students at a higher grade l e v e l was s t r i k i n g between the c u r r e n t study and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s with f i r s t or second language s y n t a c t i c development. T h i s study and three others (Hunt, 1965; O'Donnell et a l . , 1967; Cooper, 1976) have found that nominal s t r u c t u r e s show the most c o n s i s t e n t i n c r e a s e with i n c r e a s e d experience i n the f i r s t or second language. Within t h i s grammatical c o n s t r u c t i o n , s t r u c t u r e s found to be used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n by more mature students were a l s o very s i m i l a r . Seven of the e i g h t s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d i n t h i s 102 study (the e i g h t h being nouns m o d i f i e d by a p p o s i t i v e s which were not analyzed i n e i t h e r the Hunt or O'Donnell et a l . study) c o i n c i d e d with the 'mature' nominal s t r u c t u r e s i s o l a t e d by Hunt who found that headed nominals m o d i f i e d by a d j e c t i v e s , g e n i t i v e s , p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, a d j e c t i v e c l a u s e s and n o n - f i n i t e verbs ( i n f i n i t i v e s and p a r t i c i p l e s ) were used more f r e q u e n t l y by students at each higher grade. He a l s o found that a l l the non-headed nominal s t r u c t u r e s showed an i n c r e a s e with grade l e v e l s , but the most s t r i k i n g i n c r e a s e was i n the use of gerunds which i n c r e a s e d four times from grade 4 to grade 8, and ten times from grade 4 to grade 12. In t h i s study, the stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that gerunds best d i s c r i m i n a t e the w r i t i n g done by students at the three grade l e v e l s , s u p p o r t i n g Hunt's o b s e r v a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , Hunt found that nouns m o d i f i e d by a noun adjunct are not i n d i c a t i v e of the m a t u r i t y of w r i t i n g ; the same was found i n the c u r r e n t study. The f i n d i n g s of the present study and the Hunt study a l s o agree with those of the O'Donnell et a l . study i n which younger s u b j e c t s were used. The r e s u l t O'Donnell et a l . obtained on the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n the w r i t i n g sample i s quoted below: Among subtypes of the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s s t u d i e d , those i n which a noun i s m o d i f i e d by another noun, an a d j e c t i v e , a p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase, a p a r t i c i p l e , or a g e n i t i v e form showed l a r g e o v e r a l l i n c r e a s e i n use by grade in both speech and w r i t i n g . . . . I n w r i t i n g , s i g n i f i c a n t increments were observed in the use of g e n i t i v e m o d i f i e r s and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s i n grade 5, and i n the use of p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, p a r t i c i p i a l phrases, and gerund phrases i n grade 7 (p.78). T h i s study and the O'Donnell et a l . study found a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the use of the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 03 with grade l e v e l s , but the in c r e a s e was mainly accounted f o r by the group of sentence a d v e r b i a l s . Hunt (1965) and Cooper (1976) d i d not f i n d such an in c r e a s e i n the use of t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e i r s t u d i e s , but n e i t h e r of them analyzed the ins t a n c e s of sentence a d v e r b i a l s . N e i t h e r t h i s study nor the O'Donnell et a l . study found s i g n i f i c a n t increment i n the use of a d v e r b i a l s t r u c t u r e s other than the group of sentence a d v e r b i a l s . In t h i s sense, the four s t u d i e s are i n agreement. In the c u r r e n t study and the s t u d i e s by Hunt and O'Donnell et a l . , the c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n was not found to be i n d i c a t i v e of the mat u r i t y i n w r i t i n g among grade l e v e l s . Cooper found c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s i n the use of t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i n h i s study. While he found n a t i v e German speakers using more c o o r d i n a t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s i n t h e i r w r i t i n g than undergraduate or graduate students l e a r n i n g German as a second language, he a l s o found the beginning German l e a r n e r s using more of t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n than the l e a r n e r s at l e v e l 3 or l e v e l 4. Since n e i t h e r subject matter, t o p i c nor mode was c o n t r o l l e d i n h i s study, h i s f i n d i n g may have been confounded by these v a r i a b l e s . The agreement between the c u r r e n t study and the f i r s t two s t u d i e s , however, lends strong support to the c l a i m that c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n T - u n i t i s a s t r u c t u r e a c q u i r e d e a r l y . T h i s c l o s e agreement i n the s t r u c t u r e s employed by the students i n the three s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e s that growth i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y does not occur i n a haphazard manner. When the students i n c r e a s e t h e i r s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , they do so through the more frequent use of c e r t a i n 'mature' s t r u c t u r e s . Since the 1 04 w r i t i n g tasks by which these s t r u c t u r e s were e l i c i t e d were d i f f e r e n t i n the three s t u d i e s , that the same s t r u c t u r e s were used more f r e q u e n t l y by the o l d e r students suggests that they might have been induced by the more mature c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t e s of the o l d e r students. These 'mature' s t r u c t u r e s are, namely, the group of sentence a d v e r b i a l s , nouns m o d i f i e d by a d j e c t i v e s , p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, p a r t i c i p l e s or p a r t i c i p i a l phrases, r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , g e n i t i v e s , and gerunds and g e r u n d i a l phrases. A n a l y s i s of the students' performance i n response to two modes of w r i t i n g ( n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s i t o r y ) r e v e a l s that the students employed d i f f e r e n t s y n t a c t i c and grammatical s t r u c t u r e s i n the two modes of w r i t i n g . In g e n e r a l , they wrote longer T - u n i t s and longer c l a u s e s on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, but they d i d not i n c r e a s e the number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t s i g n i f i c a n t l y from grade to grade. The i n c r e a s e i n T - u n i t l e n g t h and c l a u s e l e n g t h was c o n t r i b u t e d to by a l l three types of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s . Within the nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n , the students were found to use a g r e a t e r number of nouns m o d i f i e d by an a d j e c t i v e , gerunds, nouns m o d i f i e d by a p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase, nouns m o d i f i e d by a g e n i t i v e and nouns modified by an i n f i n i t i v e on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment than on the n a r r a t i v e assignment. However, the most d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e among the group between the two modes of w r i t i n g was noun mo d i f i e d by an a d j e c t i v e (which has an F-value of 56.384, much higher than the c r i t i c a l value of 3.2 r e q u i r e d to reach the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e ) . The frequent occurrences of t h i s s t r u c t u r e on 105 the e x p o s i t o r y assignment may be due t o the n a t u r e of the p a r t i c u l a r c o m p o s i t i o n t o p i c . The t o p i c asked f o r the s t u d e n t s ' i d e a of an i d e a l p e r s o n . Throughout the c o m p o s i t i o n s , t h e n , the s t u d e n t s made abundant use of the word ' i d e a l ' which a c c o u n t s f o r the l a r g e number of nouns m o d i f i e d by a d j e c t i v e s i n the e x p o s i t o r y mode. W i t h i n the a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n c r e a s e s were found f o r a l l the s t r u c t u r e s except the sentence a d v e r b i a l a b s o l u t e . Sentence a d v e r b i a l a b s o l u t e s are t y p i c a l ' f r e e ' m o d i f i e r s which f u n c t i o n t o add s u b o r d i n a t e d e t a i l s . The e x p o s i t o r y a s s i gnment, however, demands the e x p l i c i t e x p r e s s i o n of r e l a t i o n s between p r o p o s i t i o n s . T h i s may e x p l a i n why such a s t r u c t u r e d i d not i n c r e a s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment. On the o t h e r hand, the two s t r u c t u r e s found t o d i s c r i m i n a t e b e s t between the two modes of w r i t i n g - - s e n t e n c e c o n n e c t o r s and a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s o t h e r than t i m e - - f i t w e l l w i t h i n the e x p o s i t o r y mode of w r i t i n g . The former e x p r e s s r e l a t i o n s between sentences w h i l e the l a t t e r e x p r e s s r e l a t i o n s between c l a u s e s such as c a u s e , r e a s o n , c o n c e s s i o n or r e s u l t . S i n c e the e x p o s i t o r y assignment r e q u i r e s the e x p r e s s i o n of such k i n d s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i t i s l o g i c a l t o f i n d the s t u d e n t s u s i n g t h e s e two s t r u c t u r e s a l a r g e number of t i m e s . However, the s t u d e n t s a t the t h r e e grade l e v e l s d i d not respond t o the two assignments i n the same way. W h i l e s t u d e n t s a t a l l t h r e e grade l e v e l s showed d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the two modes of w r i t i n g , a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and the subsequent grade-wise and mode-wise comparisons i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a 106 g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n T - u n i t l e n g t h and c l a u s e l e n g t h between the two modes of w r i t i n g with each higher grade l e v e l . The s y n t a c t i c options employed at the upper grade (F.7) and the lower grade (F.3) were a l s o d i f f e r e n t , as a comparison of the students' performance in the two modes of w r i t i n g at the two grade l e v e l s makes c l e a r . The T - u n i t s w r i t t e n by the F.7 students were s i g n i f i c a n l t y longer than the T - u n i t s w r i t t e n by the F.3 students i n both modes of w r i t i n g . However, the s i g n i f i c a n l t y longer T - u n i t s produced by the F.7 students were lengthened very d i f f e r e n t l y i n the two modes of w r i t i n g . On the n a r r a t i v e assignment, while the F.7 students d i d not w r i t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer c l a u s e s than the F.3 students d i d , they embedded a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number of subordinate c l a u s e s i n t o t h e i r T - u n i t s . As hypothesized by Mellon (1979) (and reviewed i n Chapter Two), s u b o r d i n a t i o n i s a s y n t a c t i c device that adds secondary statements to the main c l a u s e s . I f t h i s i s the case, the employment of t h i s s y n t a c t i c d e v i c e served to add more d e t a i l s to the F.7 n a r r a t i o n . The F.3 students, on the other hand, employed a low l e v e l of c l a u s e embedding (mean score on t h i s v a r i a b l e f o r F.3 i s 1.26, compared to 1.52 f o r F.7). A s u b j e c t i v e examination of the sample indeed suggested that the F.7 n a r r a t i o n s had more d e t a i l s than the F.3 n a r r a t i o n s . On the e x p o s i t o r y assignment, the F.7 students made use of s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer c l a u s e s than the F.3 students d i d . As longer c l a u s e s are formed by the a d d i t i o n of n o n - c l a u s a l elements (which i n turn represent a kind of compressed thought 1 07 u n i t ) , the longer c l a u s e s w r i t t e n by the F.7 students mean that they were ex p r e s s i n g the r e l a t i o n s between p r o p o s i t i o n s in a v a r i e t y of ways besides using s u b o r d i n a t i o n . If as Hunt (1977) noted, longer c l a u s e s are u s u a l l y the r e s u l t of a deeper l e v e l of n o n - c l a u s a l embedding, these F.7 students were a l s o e x p r e s s i n g more complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h e i r w r i t i n g than the F.3 students were. The c l a u s e s w r i t t e n by the F.3 students on the e x p o s i t o r y assignment were, on the average, 2.47 words s h o r t e r than the c l a u s e s w r i t t e n by the F.7 students. Two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t e r c l a u s e l e n g t h produced by the F.3 students are the students' l a c k of f a m i l a r i t y with the e x p o s i t o r y mode of w r i t i n g and t h e i r l a c k of fl u e n c y in s y n t a c t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n . A s u b j e c t i v e examination of the F.3 e x p o s i t i o n s suggested that many of the F.3 students turned the e x p o s i t i o n i n t o a kind of n a r r a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n . Even those who managed to conform to the w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n made use of a s u b s t a n t i a l number of n a r r a t i v e d e t a i l s as support f o r t h e i r e x p o s i t i o n s . Being i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s ( f r e e w r i t i n g in E n g l i s h s t a r t s at the F.3 l e v e l i n the school where the c u r r e n t study was conducted), these F.3 students may not have had so much p r a c t i c e i n the e x p o s i t o r y mode as they d i d i n the n a r r a t i v e mode. (Th i s e x p l a n a t i o n agrees with the i n t u i t i o n of teachers of beginning w r i t e r s : Crowhurst (1980) repo r t e d that Grade 6 teachers d i d not o f t e n ask t h e i r students to wr i t e i n the argumentative or e x p o s i t o r y mode.) T h e i r l a c k of f a m i l i a r i t y with the e x p o s i t o r y mode of w r i t i n g may then e x p l a i n 108 why the F.3 students depended on the n a r r a t i v e d e t a i l s as support fo r t h e i r e x p o s i t i o n . Since n a r r a t i o n does not u s u a l l y e n t a i l a high l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c complexity, the n a r r a t i v e d e t a i l s that these students used in t h e i r e x p o s i t i o n s may p a r t l y account f o r the s h o r t e r c l a u s e length of t h e i r e x p o s i t i o n s . A second p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the s h o r t e r c l a u s e s w r i t t e n by the F.3 students i s t h e i r lack of f l u e n c y i n s y n t a c t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n , or lack of f l u e n c y i n w r i t i n g i n g e n e r a l . Being u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d users of the second language and u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s (compared to the F.7 s t u d e n t s ) , t h e i r poor a b i l i t i e s i n E n g l i s h might c o n s t r a i n them from a t t e n d i n g to the r h e t o r i c a l tasks i n the way that the F.7 students d i d . B e r e i t e r (1980) suggested: Mature w r i t i n g i n v o l v e s a l a r g e number of s k i l l s at d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s i n g l e v e l s . Adequate mature f u n c t i o n i n g can be p o s s i b l e only when many of the s k i l l s are h i g h l y automated and when they are w e l l enough c o o r d i n a t e d to permit e f f i c i e n t t i m e - s h a r i n g . Neither of these c o n d i t i o n s i s met i n the young w r i t e r , and so the young w r i t e r , i n order to f u n c t i o n at a l l , must employ a s t r u c t u r a l l y s i m p l e s t system that does not r e q u i r e so much simultaneous and c o o r d i n a t e d f u n c t i o n i n g . Since low-order schemes--those i n v o l v e d i n g e t t i n g words on to paper—must take p r i o r i t y i n order f o r w r i t i n g to occur, i t f o l l o w s that the system employed by the young w r i t e r must be one i n which low-order schemes predominate and higher order schemes play a l e s s e r p a r t . . . ( p . 8 2 ) . A t t e n t i o n to such low-order schemes r e s u l t s i n a kind of " a s s o c i a t i v e w r i t i n g " which " c o n s i s t s e s s e n t i a l l y of w r i t i n g down whatever comes to mind, in the order i n which i t comes to mind" ( B e r e i t e r , 1980, p.83). Whether the F.3 students produced such kinds of a s s o c i a t i v e w r i t i n g remains to be i n v e s t i g a t e d , but B e r e i t e r ' s suggestion may p a r t l y e x p l a i n the n a r r a t i v e d e t a i l s and, i n g e n e r a l , the s h o r t e r c l a u s e s found i n the F.3 109 e x p o s i t i o n . N a r r a t i o n does not r e q u i r e the kind of a b s t r a c t i o n that e x p o s i t i o n or argumentation e n t a i l s and i s t h e r e f o r e the l e a s t c o g n i t i v e l y demanding of the .three to process (c_f. , Winterowd, 1983). Shorter c l a u s e s are a l s o l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y s t r a i n i n g to process (Kerek, 1981). Since the F.3 students were not f l u e n t i n the second language, the d i f f i c u l t y they experienced i n w r i t i n g an e x p o s i t i o n i n E n g l i s h (a demanding mode of w r i t i n g even f o r n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students) may have focused t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on the lower-order schemes d e s c r i b e d by B e r e i t e r which, i n t u r n , may have caused them to opt f o r r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e s that made the l e a s t demand on them. T h i s may p a r t l y account f o r the f a c t that they wrote l e s s complex syntax and employed more n a r r a t i v e d e t a i l s i n t h e i r e x p o s i t i o n s . Again, such d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n the s y n t a c t i c s t r a t e g i e s e x h i b i t e d by the students at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s i n response to d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g assignments i s not p a r t i c u l a r to t h i s study. Even Grade 4 students have been found to show s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (see San Jose, 1972). However, the s t u d i e s by Crowhurst and Piche (1979) and Crowhurst (1980) i n d i c a t e d that at a h i g h e r grade l e v e l , such d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n was more marked than at a lower grade l e v e l . The c u r r e n t study c o r r o b o r a t e s t h i s f i n d i n g . There were a l s o s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the s y n t a c t i c s t r a t e g i e s that the students employed in d i f f e r e n t modes of w r i t i n g between the c u r r e n t study and the s t u d i e s by Crowhurst and Piche (1979) and Crowhurst (1980). These two s t u d i e s and the c u r r e n t study found students showing a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on 110 the s y n t a c t i c measures between two modes of w r i t i n g even at the lower grade l e v e l s . Crowhurst and Piche (1979) found i n c r e a s e s on a l l three s y n t a c t i c measures to be n o n s i g n i f i c a n t on the n a r r a t i v e assignment even with a four-year i n t e r v a l i n between, while the c u r r e n t study found a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n c l a u s e l e n g t h i n t h i s mode, though there was an i n c r e a s e i n the number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t . Although the two s t u d i e s are not in p e r f e c t agreement, the lack of growth i n c l a u s e l e n g t h i n the n a r r a t i v e mode with grade l e v e l s lends some support to the suggestion of Crowhurst and Piche (1979) that a g e - r e l a t e d i n c r e a s e s i n the s y n t a c t i c measures may stop at a c e r t a i n p o i n t i n the n a r r a t i v e mode. B. I m p l i c a t i o n s T h i s study i l l u s t r a t e s that at a more advanced l e v e l of second language l e a r n i n g , there i s growth i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y . Moreover, when t h i s growth i s compared to the s y n t a c t i c growth of n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers, the growth trends are very s i m i l a r . The study a l s o i n d i c a t e s that ESL students show d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n the s y n t a c t i c o p t i o n s they employ i n w r i t i n g i n d i f f e r e n t modes, with g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n t i o n i n the more advanced l e a r n e r s . Two i m p l i c a t i o n s can be drawn form t h i s study r e g a r d i n g the tea c h i n g of w r i t i n g to ESL students. 1. The s i m i l a r i t y i n the development of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y e x h i b i t e d by these students and n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students 111 i s perhaps caused by common c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s u n d e r l y i n g every language l e a r n i n g task. A f t e r an e x t e n s i v e examination of a c q u i s i t i o n a l data i n both f i r s t and second language and n o t i n g the s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s e x h i b i t e d by both f i r s t and second language l e a r n e r s , McLaughlin (1978) proposed that the s i m i l a r i t i e s are r e a l l y r e f l e c t i o n s of some common c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s that u n d e r l i e every language l e a r n i n g task. In the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s y n t a c t i c development, common developmental trends can be found a c r o s s the v a r i o u s s t u d i e s , i n c l u d i n g the present one. The s t u d i e s by Hunt (1977) and Reesink et a l . (1971) i n d i c a t e d that a growth i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i s a common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of n a t i v e speakers of languages besides E n g l i s h . The s t u d i e s by Cooper (1976) and Monroe (1975) a l s o i n d i c a t e d that l e a r n e r s of a second language other than E n g l i s h e x h i b i t s i m i l a r growth i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y . Kerek (1981) and Mellon (1979) e x p l a i n e d that the complex syntax was almost a necessary outcome of a person's growth i n h i s c o g n i t i v e and conc e p t u a l a b i l i t y . In the case of the second language l e a r n e r s , the use of complex syntax at a more advanced l e v e l of second language l e a r n i n g (c_f. , the F.7 students) seems to be a r e f l e c t i o n of the l e a r n e r s ' f l u e n c y i n the language that enables them to overcome the l i n g u i s t i c c o n s t r a i n t so that the mature c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s t h a t they a l r e a d y possess enable them to express s i m i l a r complex r e l a t i o n s between p r o p o s i t i o n s i n the second language as they would i n t h e i r n a t i v e languages. The s i m i l a r i t y i n the v a r i o u s s t u d i e s can not simply be e x p l a i n e d as a r e s u l t of common i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods f o r these s t u d i e s 1 12 i n v o l v e the tea c h i n g of a wide v a r i e t y of languages. To e x p l a i n t h i s as the outcome of common c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s seems more f e a s i b l e because such a growth trend transcends language b a r r i e r s . In the tea c h i n g of E n g l i s h w r i t i n g to ESL students, the above d i s c u s s i o n i m p l i e s that s i n c e f i r s t and second language l e a r n i n g i n v o l v e s the use of common c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , what has been found by res e a r c h to b e n e f i t w r i t i n g development i n n a t i v e speakers may a l s o b e n e f i t second language l e a r n e r s . Zamel (1976) summarized w r i t i n g r e s e a r c h done with n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaking students and concluded that an e r r o r - o r i e n t e d approach would not b e n e f i t the development of w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s . Such an approach, however, i s s t i l l used e x t e n s i v e l y i n second language w r i t i n g programs. The emphasis i n f i r s t language w r i t i n g programs has now been s h i f t e d to a process o r i e n t e d approach, i n s t e a d of the former product o r i e n t e d approach and res e a r c h (e.g., C l i f f o r d , 1981) has found such an approach b e n e f i c i a l to w r i t i n g performance. Perhaps the p r o c e s s - o r i e n t e d approach should a l s o be t r i e d i n a second language w r i t i n g program to f i n d out i t s e f f e c t on w r i t i n g . 2. The c u r r e n t study p r o v i d e d some in f o r m a t i o n concerning the s y n t a c t i c o p t i o n s employed by ESL l e a r n e r s at three l e v e l s of second language l e a r n i n g . A developmental trend i s c l e a r l y evident from the intermediate l e a r n e r s to the very advanced l e a r n e r s . The study a l s o i s o l a t e d c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s that were used more o f t e n by the very advanced l e a r n e r s . A p o s s i b l e 1 1 3 e x p l a n a t i o n i s that the more mature syntax i s r e l a t e d to the advanced l e a r n e r s ' f l u e n c y in the language. If the intermediate l e a r n e r s (the F.3 students) lack the f l u e n c y that the advanced l e a r n e r s have, one s p e c u l a t i o n that a r i s e s from t h i s study i s whether t h e i r f l u e n c y can be enhanced through some kind of intense p r a c t i c e i n w r i t i n g such as sentence combining. Sentence combining has been found i n n a t i v e language r e s e a r c h to enhance the development of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y though there i s c o n t r o v e r s y as to whether the i n c r e a s e i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y n e c e s s a r i l y b r i n g s about improved w r i t i n g q u a l i t y (see O'Hare, 1973, 1979/80; Mel l o n , 1979; Crowhurst, 1983). An argument f o r using sentence combining i n the second language w r i t i n g program (as was done by Cooper and Morain, 1980) i s that the students a l r e a d y possess the mature c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s to allow them to a p p r e c i a t e the complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s that can e x i s t between d i f f e r e n t p r o p o s i t i o n s , but that t h e i r l a c k of ease in s y n t a c t i c m anipulation prevents them from e x p r e s s i n g such r e l a t i o n s h i p s . What sentence combining can do i s give them intense p r a c t i c e i n w r i t i n g so that they can overcome t h e i r l a c k of f l u e n c y i n s y n t a c t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n . Another argument that can be drawn from t h i s study i s that many of the 'mature' s t r u c t u r e s are a l r e a d y employed by at l e a s t some of the youngest w r i t e r s . If the F.3 students can be induced to use more of the mature s t r u c t u r e s , they w i l l perhaps produce b e t t e r w r i t i n g . To implement sentence combining i n a second language program, however, cognizance must be taken of the semantic and 1 14 the r h e t o r i c a l aspect of w r i t i n g . As non-native speakers of E n g l i s h , these students do not have an inherent sense of grammar because of t h e i r l i m i t e d contact with the language. Therefore, they must be taught e x p l i c i t l y what combinations are p o s s i b l e , and how d i f f e r e n t combinations l e a d to d i f f e r e n t r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t s , and t h i s would make implementing the program not so easy as many sentence-combining r e s e a r c h e r s suggest. In any case, not enough seems to have been done with sentence combining i n a second language program, and t h i s may be a worthwhile r e s e a r c h t o p i c to pursue. 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, J.E. 1937. An e v a l u a t i o n of v a r i o u s i n d i c e s of l i n g u i s t i c development. C h i l d Development 8: 62-68. A f i f i , A.A., and Azen, S.P. 1979. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s : A computer o r i e n t e d approach. New York: Academic Press. Bateman, D.R., and Z i d o n i s , F . J . 1966. The e f f e c t of a study of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar on the w r i t i n g of n i n t h and t e n t h  g r a d e r s . Research Report No.6. Urbana, I11.:NCTE. Bear, M.V. 1939. C h i l d r e n ' s growth i n the use of w r i t t e n language. Elemantary E n g l i s h Review 16:7: 312-319. Belanger, J.F. 1978. C a l c u l a t i n g the s y n t a c t i c d e n s i t y score: A mathematical problem. Research i n the t e a c h i n g of  E n g l i s h 12: 149-154. B e r e i t e r , C. 1980. Development i n w r i t i n g . In Gregg, L.W., and S t e i n b e r g , E.R. (eds.) C o g n i t i v e processes i n w r i t i n g . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Berko, J . 1958. The c h i l d ' s l e a r n i n g of E n g l i s h morphology. Word 14: 150-177. Blount, N.S., Johnson, S.L., and F r e d r i c k , W.C. 1968. A comparison of the w r i t i n g of e i g h t h - and t w e l f t h - g r a d e  students ( T e c h n i c a l Report No.78). Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Research and Developmental Centre f o r C o g n i t i v e L e a r n i n g . (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 035 652) B o t e l , M. , and Granowsky, A. 1972. A formula f o r measuring s y n t a c t i c complexity: A d i r e c t i o n a l e f f o r t . Elementary  E n g l i s h 49: 513-516. Boyd, W. 1927. The development of sentence s t r u c t u r e i n c h i l d h o o d . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Psychology (General s e c t i o n ) 17: 181-191. Braun, C , and Klassen, B. 1973. A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of w r i t t e n s t r u c t u r e s of c h i l d r e n r e p r e s e n t i n g v a r y i n g e t h n o l i n g u i s t i c communities. Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i s h 7: 312-323. Brown, R. 1973. A f i r s t language: The e a r l y stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. C a r r o l l , J.B. 19S0. Language development. In H a r r i s , C.W. (ed.) E n c y c l o p e d i a of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . New York: The Macmillan Company. 1 16 Clemens, B., Linden, J . , and S h e r t z e r , B. 1970. Engineers' i n t e r e s t p a t t e r n s : Then and now. E d u c a t i o n a l and  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement 30: 675-685. C l i f f o r d , J . 1981. Composing i n stages: The e f f e c t s of a c o l l a b o r a t i v e pedagogy. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 15: 37-53. Combs, W.E. 1976. Furth e r e f f e c t s of sentence-combining p r a c t i c e on w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i s h 10: 137-149. Conway, W.D. 1971. A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of the w r i t t e n and o r a l syntax of f o u r t h , s i x t h and e i g h t h grade Omaha c h i l d r e n . Unpublished Ph.D t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska. Cooper, T.C. 1976. Measuring w r i t t e n s y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n s of second language l e a r n e r s of German. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research 69: 176-183. Cooper, T., and Morain, G. 1980. A study of sentence-combining techniques f o r developing w r i t t e n and o r a l f l u e n c y i n French. French Review 53: 411-423. Crowhurst, M. 1979. On the m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s y n t a c t i c complexity data. E n g l i s h Education 11: 91-97. Crowhurst, M. 1980. S y n t a c t i c complexity in n a r r a t i o n and argument at three grade l e v e l s . Canadian J o u r n a l of  Educat ion 5: 6-12. Crowhurst, M. 1983. Sentence combining: M a i n t a i n i n g r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s . C o l l e g e Composit ion and Communication 34: 62-72. Crowhurst, M., and Piche, G.L. 1979. Audience and mode of d i s c o u r s e e f f e c t s on s y n t a a c t i c complexity i n w r i t i n g at two grade l e v e l s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 13: 101-109. Crymes, R. 1971. The r e l a t i o n of study about language to language performance: With s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e s t o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y 5: 217-230. Davis, E.A. 1941. The l o c a t i o n of subordinate c l a u s e i n o r a l and w r i t t e n language. Chi Id Development 12:4: 333-338. d e V i l l i e r s , J.G., and d e V i l l i e r s , P.A. 1973. A c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l study of the development of grammatical morphemes i n c h i l d speech. J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research 2: 267-278. DiSt e f a n o , P., and Howie, S. 1979. Sentence weights: an a l t e r n a t i v e to the T - u n i t . E n g l i s h Education 11: 98-101. Dixon, W.J. 1981. (ed.) BMDP S t a t i s t i c a l Software. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Dulay, H.C., and Burt, M.K. 1974. N a t u r a l sequences i n c h i l d second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Language Learning 24: 37-53. Emig, J . 1971. The composing processes of t w e l f t h graders. Research Report No.13. Urbana, 111.: NCTE. E n d i c o t t , A.L. 1973. A proposed s c a l e f o r s y n t a c t i c d e n s i t y . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 7: 5-12. E r t l e , S. 1977. Where do the su b j e c t of sentences come from? In Rosenberg, S. (ed.) Sentence p r o d u c t i o n : developments  i n r e s e a r c h and theory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. E r v i n , S.L., and M i l l e r , W.R. 1963. Language development. In Stevenson, H.W. (ed.) Chi Id psychology. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. E r v i n - T r i p p , S.M. 1966. Language development. In Hoffman, L.W. and Hoffman, M.L. (eds.) Review of c h i I d development  re s e a r c h . New York: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation. Gaies, S.J. 1976. Sentence combining: A technique f o r a s s e s s i n g p r o f i c i e n c y i n a second language. Paper presented at the Conference on P e r s p e c t i v e s on Language. ( U n i v e r s i t y of L o u i s v i l l e , L o u i s v i l l e , Kentucky, May, 6-8, 1976) (ERIC Document'Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 1 30 512). Gaies, S.J. 1980. T - u n i t a n a l y s i s i n second language r e s e a r c h : A p p l i c a t i o n s , problems and l i m i t a t i o n s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y 14: 53-69. Gebhard, A.O. 1978. W r i t i n g q u a l i t y and syntax: a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of three prose samples. Research  i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 12: 211-231. G l a s s , G.V, and S t a n l e y , J.C. 1970. S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n  educat i o n a l and psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. Golub, L.S., and Kidder, C. 1974. S y n t a c t i c d e n s i t y and the computer. Elementary E n g l i s h 51: 1128-1131. Grimm, H. 1975. A n a l y s i s of short-term d i a l o g u e s i n 5-7 year o l d s : encoding of i n t e n t i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s of speech a c t s as a f u n c t i o n of negative feedbback. Paper presented at the T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l C h i l d Language Symposium, London, Sept. 1975. Hake, R., and W i l l i a m s , J.M. 1979. Sentence expanding: Not can, or how, but when. In Daiker, D.A., Kerek, A., and Morenberg, M. (eds.) Sentence combining and the teaching 118 of w r i t i n g . Arkon, Ohio: U n i v e r s i t y of Arkon. Heider, F.K. and Heider, G.M. 1940. A comparison of sentence s t r u c t u r e of deaf and hearing c h i l d r e n . P s y c h o l o i g i c a l  Monographs 52:1: 42-103. Hocker, M.E. 1963. Reading m a t e r i a l s f o r c h i l d r e n based on t h e i r language p a t t e r n s of syntax, vocabulary, and i n t e r e s t s . Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a . Huber, R.H. 1973. The syntax of the w r i t t e n language of urban ( T a l l a h a s s e ) black and white f o u r t h g r a d e r s . Unpublished Ph.D t h e s i s , F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y . Hunt, K,W. 1965. Grammatical s t r u c t u r e s w r i t t e n at three  grade l e v e l s . Research Report No.3. Urbana, 111.: NCTE. Hunt, K.W. 1970a. S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y in s c h o o l - c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s . Monographs of the S o c i e t y f o r Research in  C h i l d Development 35. Hunt, K.W. 1970b. Do sentences i n the second language grow l i k e those i n the f i r s t ? TESOL Q u a r t e r l y 4: 195-202. Hunt, K.W. 1977. E a r l y blooming and l a t e blooming s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s . In Cooper, C.R., and O d e l l , L. (eds.) : E v a l u a t ing w r i t i n g . Urbana, 111.: NCTE. Hunt, K.W., and O'Donnell, R.C. 1970. An elementary school  c u r r i c u l u m to develop b e t t e r w r i t i n g s k i l l s . USOE Grant No.4-9-08-903-0042-010. T a l l a h a s s e , F l a . : F l o r i d a S tate U n i v e r s i t y . Ingram, D. 1974. P h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s i n young-children and a d u l t s . Monographs of the Soc i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d  Development 35. Kerek, A. 1981 The combining p r o c e s s . In H a i r s t o n , M.C, and S e l f e , C L . (eds.) S e l e c t e d papers from the 1981  Texas W r i t i n g Research Conference ( A u s t i n , Texas, Aug. 1981) (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 208 417). K i r k , R.E. 1968. Experimental d e s i g n : Procedures f o r the  b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole P u b l i s h i n g Company. LaBrant, L.L. 1933. A study of c e r t a i n language developments of c h i l d r e n i n grades four to twelve, i n c l u s i v e . Genetic  Psychology Monographs 14: 387-491. Larsen-Freeman, D., and Strom, V. 1977. The c o n s t r u c t i o n of a second language a c q u i s i t i o n index of development. Language Learning 27: 123-134. 119 Leopold, W.F. 1947. Speech development of a b i l i n g u a l c h i l d : A l i n g u i s t ' s r e c o r d ( V o l T T ): Sound~learning i n the f i r s t  two years. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Loban, W.D. 1961. Language a b i l i t y i n the middle grade of  the elementary s c h o o l . Report to the U.S. O f f i c e of Education C o n t r a c t No. SAE 7287. Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . ' Loban, W.D. 1963. The language of elementary school c h i l d r e n . Research Report No.1. Urbana, 111.: NCTE. Loban, W.D. 1964. Language a b i l i t y : grade seven, e i g h t and  nine. Report to the U.S. O f f i c e of Education, Cooperative Research P r o j e c t No.1131. Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . Loban, W.D. 1966. Problems i n o r a l E n g l i s h , k i n d e r g a r t e n  through grade nine. Research Report No.5. Champaign, 111.: NCTE. Loban, W.D. 1976. Language development: Kindergarten through  grade twelve. Research Report No.18. Urbana, 111.: NCTE. McCarthy, D. 1954. Language development i n c h i l d r e n . In Carmichael, L. (ed.) Manual of c h i l d psychology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. McLaughlin, B. 1978. Second-language a c q u i s i t i o n i n c h i l d h o o d . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mellon, J.C. 1969. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l sentence combining: A method f o r enhancing the development of s y n t a c t i c  f l u e n c y i n E n g l i s h composition. Research Report No.10. Urbana, 111.: NCTE. Mellon, J.C. 1979. Issues i n the theory and p r a c t i c e of sentence combining: A twenty-year p e r s p e c t i v e . In D a i k e r , D.A., Kerek, A., and Morenberg, M. (eds.) Sentence  c ornb i n i n g and the teaching of w r i t i n g . Arkon, Ohio: U n i v e r s i t y of Arkon. Menyuk, P. 1971. The a c q u i s i t i o n a l and development of language. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . M i l o n , J.P. 1974. The development of negation in E n g l i s h by a second langauge l e a r n e r . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y 8: 137-143. Monroe, J.H. 1975. Measuring and enhancing s y n t a c t i c f l u e n c y in French. French Review 48: 1023-1031. Morenberg, M., Daiker, D., and Kerek, A. 1978. Sentence combining at the c o l l e g e l e v e l : An experimental study. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 12: 245-267. Ney, J.W., and F i l l e r u p , M. 1980. The e f f e c t s of sentence 120 combining on the w r i t i n g of ESL students at the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. Ed 193 961). O'Donnell, R.C. 1976. A c r i t i q u e of some i n d i c e s of s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 10: 31-38. O'Donnell, R . C , G r i f f i n , W.J., and N o r r i s , R.C 1967. Syntax of ki n d e r g a r t e n and elementary school c h i l d r e n . Research Report No.8. Urbana, 111.: NCTE. O'Hare, F. 1973. Sentence combining: Improving student  w r i t i n g without formal grammar i n s t r u c t i o n . Research Report No.15. Urbana, 111.: NCTE. O'Hare, F. 1979/80. In p r a i s e of sentence-combining, chunks, and messiness: Interview with Frank O'Hare. The E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y 12:4: 9 - 1 9 . Perron, J.D. 1976*. The impact of mode on w r i t t e n s y n t a c t i c complexity. Part I I I . F i f t h grade. S t u d i e s i n Language  Education, Report No.27. Department of Language Education, The U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 128 827). Pope, M. 1969. The syntax of the speech of urban ( T a l l a h a s s e ) Negro and white f o u r t h g r a d e r s . Unpublished Ph.D t h e s i s , F l o r i d a S tate U n i v e r s i t y . Pope, M. 1978. S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y of students' o r a l paraphrases. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 12: 29-36. Quirk, R., and Greenbaum, S. 1973. A u n i v e r s i t y grammar of  E n g l i s h . London: Longman Group L i m i t e d . Reesink, G.P., Holleman-van der Sleen, S.B., Stevens, K., and Kohnstumm, G.A. 1971. Development of syntax among school c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s : A r e p l i c a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l A b s t r a c t s 47: 10536. R i l i n g , M.E. 1965. O r a l and w r i t t e n language of c h i l d r e n i n  grades 4 and 6 compared with the language of t h e i r  textbook. Report to the U.S. O f f i c e of Education, Cooperative Research P r o j e c t No.2410. Durant, Oklahoma. Rosen, H. 1969. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w r i t i n g assignments on the performance i n E n g l i s h composition of a s e l e c t e d group of 15/16-year-old p u p i l s . Unpublished Ph.D t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of London. San Jose, C.P.M. 1972. Grammatical s t r u c t u r e s i n four modes of w r i t i n g at f o u r t h grade l e v e l . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y . S c o t t , M.S., and Tucker, G.R. 1974. E r r o r a n a l y s i s and E n g l i s h language s t r a t e g i e s of Arab students. Language  Learning 24: 69-97. Sharma, A. 1979. S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y : A s s e s s i n g w r i t i n g p r o f i c i e n c y i n a second langauge. Paper presented at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on F r o n t i e r s i n Language P r o f i c i e n c y and Dominance T e s t i n g (3rd Carbondale, 111. Sept. 26-28, 1979) (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 185 105). Stewart, M.F. 1978. S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y from high school to u n i v e r s i t y : A f i r s t look. Research in the Teaching  of E n g l i s h 12: 37-46. Stewart, M.F., and Grobe, C H . 1979. S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , mechanics of w r i t i n g , and t e a c h e r s ' q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 13: 207-215. Stormzand, M.J., and O'Shea, M.V. 1924. How much E n g l i s h  grammar? Ba l t i m o r e : Warwick and York. S t r i c k l a n d , R.G. 1962. The language, of elementary school c h i l d r e n : I t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the language of reading textbooks and the q u a l i t y of reading of s e l e c t e d c h i l d r e n . B u l l e t i n of the School of Educat io n , Indiana u n i v e r s i t y , 38:4. Bloomington: Indiana U n i v e r s i t y . Symonds, P.M., and Daringer, H.F. 1930. S t u d i e s i n l e a r n i n g of E n g l i s h e x p r e s s i o n s : IV- Sentence s t r c u t u r e s . Teachers  C o l l e g e Record 32: 50-64. T h o r n h i l l , D.E. 1969. A q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of s y n t a c t i c f l u e n c y of four young a d u l t speakers l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h . Unpublished Ph.D t h e s i s , F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y . Vann, R.J. 1978. A study of the o r a l and w r i t t e n E n g l i s h of A r a b i c speakers. Unpublished Ph.D t h e s i s , Indian U n i v e r s i t y . V e a l , L.R. 1974. S y n t a c t i c measures and r a t e d q u a l i t y i n the w r i t i n g of young c h i l d r e n . S t u d i e s i n Language Education Report No.8. Athens: U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 090 555). Watts, A.F. 1948. The language and mental development of  c h i l d r e n : An essay i n educat i o n a l psychology. Boston: D.C. H e a l t h and Company. Winterowd, W.R. 1983. Prolegomenon to pedagogical s t y l i s t i c s . C o l l e g e Comoposition and Communication 34: 80-90. Zamel, V. 1976. Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can l e a r n from r e s e a r c h i n the t e a c h i n g of E n g l i s h . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y 10:67-75. 122 APPENDIX A For the purpose of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , the seven q u e s t i o n s asked i n Chapter One were t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the f o l l o w i n g n u l l hypotheses: Ho 1a: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean T- u n i t l e n g t h i n the w r i t i n g of F.3, F.5 and F.7 students. 1b: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean c l a u s e l e n g t h i n the w r i t i n g of F.3, F.5 and F.7 students. 1c: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean number of c l a u s e s per T- u n i t i n the w r i t i n g of F.3, F.5 and F.7 students. Ho 2a: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n the number of occurrences of nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n the w r i t i n g of F.3, F.5 and F.7 stud e n t s . 2b: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n the number of occurrences of a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n the w r i t i n g of F.3, F.5 and F.7 stud e n t s . 2c: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n the number of occurrences of co o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n the w r i t i n g of F.3, F.5 and F.7 1 23 students. Ho 3a: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T - u n i t l e n g t h between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment. 3b: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean c l a u s e l e n g t h between the w r i t i n g done in response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment. 3c: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean number of c l a u s e s per T-uni t between the w r i t i n g done i n response t o a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done in response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment. Ho 4a: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number of occurrences of nominal c o n s t r u c t i o n s between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment. 4b: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number of occurrences of a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment. 4c: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number of occurrences of c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment. 124 Ho 5 a : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean T-unit l e n g t h i n the w r i t i n g done in response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment w r i t t e n by F . 3 , F . 5 and F . 7 s t u d e n t s . 5 b : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean c l a u s e l e n g t h i n the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment w r i t t e n by F . 3 , F . 5 and F . 7 s t u d e n t s . 5 c : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean number of c l a u s e s per T- u n i t i n the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment w r i t t e n by F . 3 , F . 5 and F . 7 students. Ho 6 a : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean T-uni t length i n the w r i t i n g done in response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by F . 3 , F . 5 and F . 7 students. 6 b : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean c l a u s e l e n g t h i n the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by F . 3 , F . 5 and F . 7 students. 6 c : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s i n mean number of c l a u s e s per T- u n i t i n the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by F . 3 , F . 5 and F . 7 students. Ho 7 a : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T- u n i t 125 le n g t h between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.3 students. 7b: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean c l a u s e l e n g t h between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.3 students. 7c: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done in response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.3 students. Ho 8a: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T- u n i t l e n g t h between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done in response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.5 students. 8b: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean c l a u s e l e n g t h between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.5 students. 8c: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.5 stu d e n t s . 126 Ho 9a: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean T- u n i t l e n g t h between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.7 students. 9b: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean c l a u s e length, between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done i n response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.7 students. 9c: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean number of c l a u s e s per T-uni t between the w r i t i n g done i n response to a n a r r a t i v e assignment and the w r i t i n g done in response to an e x p o s i t o r y assignment w r i t t e n by the F.7 students. These n u l l hypotheses were t e s t e d at a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . A p p e n d i x B C o m p o s i t i o n t o p i c s 128 I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s t u d e n t s C o m p o s i t i o n 1 E v e n t s t h a t make us f e e l most d e e p l y a r e e v e n t s t h a t we w i l l a l w a y s remember. I s t h e r e an event l i k e t h i s i n y o u r l i f e ? I t may be a t r a u m a t i c e v e n t , l i k e a f i r e t h a t b u r n t y o u r home o r t h e d e a t h o f someone d e a r t o y o u . I t may be an event t h a t you w i t n e s s e d : l i k e w a t c h i n g someone b e i n g caught i n t h e a c t o f s h o p - l i f t i n g . I f you have such an e x p e r i e n c e , d e s c r i b e i t i n t h i s c o m p o s i t i o n so t h a t o t h e r s may s h a r e w i t h you t h e h o r r o r , t h e s a d n e s s , o r t h e shock t h a t you f e l t because o f t h e e v e n t . I n y o u r w r i t i n g , c o n c e n t r a t e on b r i n g i n g out t h e f e e l i n g s you had a t t h a t t i m e so t h a t you may t u r n y o u r e x p e r i e n c e i n t o s o m e t h i n g w e l l w o r t h s h a r i n g w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e . 129 I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s t u d e n t s C o m p o s i t i o n 2 A r e you an i d e a l s t u d e n t , i . e . t h e b e s t k i n d o f s t u d e n t whom a l l t e a c h e r s l i k e t o have? B e f o r e a n s w e r i n g t h i s ques-t i o n , you must know how t e a c h e r s e x p e c t an i d e a l s t u d e n t t o be. D i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s may have d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s but t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s w h i c h a l l t e a c h e r s l i k e t h e i r s t u d e n t s t o p o s s e s s : b e i n g h o n e s t , h a r d - w o r k i n g , h e l p f u l and r e a d y t o t a k e i n i t i a t i v e . An i d e a l s t u d e n t i s someone who has t h e s e q u a l i t i e s p l u s o t h e r good q u a l i t i e s . I n t h i s c o m p o s i t i o n , s h a r e w i t h o t h e r s y o u r i d e a s o f an i d e a l p e r s o n . You, may w r i t e about an i d e a l f a t h e r , an i d e a l f r i e n d , an i d e a l t e a c h e r , an i d e a l s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l o r an i d e a l g o v e r n o r f o r Hong Kong. E x p l a i n what q u a l i t i e s you t h i n k t h e i d e a l p e r s o n you have i n mind s h o u l d p o s s e s s . T r y t o g i v e c o n c r e t e examples*, e.g. i n s t e a d o f j u s t commenting t h a t an i d e a l f r i e n d s h o u l d be h e l p f u l , s u g g e s t some o c c a s i o n s where he s h o u l d be r e a d y t o h e l p . A l s o e x p l a i n why you t h i n k y o u r i d e a l p e r s o n s h o u l d p o s s e s s t h e q u a l i t i e s t h a t you s u g g e s t . 130 Appendix C Prewriting procedures 131 P r e w r i t i n g sessions f o r composition 1 *(H) i n d i c a t e s that the students are to prepare the work at home. Session 1 (suggested durations 2 min.) a. D i s t r i b u t e the w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s to the students. b. (H) Ask students to read over the i n s t r u c t i o n s and be prepared to d i s c u s s i t f o r next day. Session 2 (suggested d u r a t i o n ! 7-10 min.) a. Discuss b r i e f l y with students that they are expected to write about an event i n which they were emotionally i n v o l v e d . b. Ask students to suggest examples of emotional involvement, (e.g. being angry, sad, shocked, f r i g h t e n e d , embarrassed, sur-p r i s e d , h o r r i f i e d , shameful, happy....) c. (H) Ask students to think about an emotional event which they have experienced and two other events ( r e a l or imaginative) that i n v o l v e one's emotions deeply. Ask them to b r i n g the l i s t to c l a s s the next day. (Some examples can be suggested to guide themi e.g. the death of a pet, being caught cheating i n exam, a f a m i l y member or a r e l a t i v e ' s escape from China to Hong Kong, a gang f i g h t i n g one has witnessed....) Session 3 (suggested d u r a t i o n i 10-15 min.) a. Divide students i n t o groups of 4. Ask them to share t h e i r l i s t with other group members. b. Ask each group to choose from t h e i r l i s t s the event that seems to be of the g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t and t e l l the c l a s s . c. Ask each student to decide f o r h i m s e l f which event he w i l l write on. He can choose any event suggested i f he f e e l s that he can w r i t e i t i n an i n t e r e s t i n g way whether he has experienced i t or not. d. (H) Ask each student to think of tne words or expressions which w i l l be u s e f u l i n w r i t i n g the event. (e.g. i f the event i s a f i r e i f i r e engines, s i r e n s w a i l i n g , people screaming, blackened, burnt to ashes, water j e t s , con-f u s i o n , houses c o l l a p s i n g , flooded with water, temporary s h e l t e r Ask students to b r i n g the l i s t to c l a s s the next day. Session 4 (suggested durations 10-15 min.). a. Divide students i n t o the same grouping as s e s s i o n 3-b. Each group member, i n t u r n , shares h i s l i s t of words with other members who should add more words and expressions to the l i s t . c. (H) Ask students to 'think over how they would use the words and expressions i n t h e i r compositions. Ask them to t h i n k over how they would organize the d e t a i l s . Session 5 (suggested d u r a t i o n : 15 min.) a. Ask students to write a rough d r a f t . The d r a f t may be an o u t l i n e the f i r s t paragraph, or j u s t rough notes on how they w i l l w rite. b. C o l l e c t the d r a f t s from students. T e l l them t h * they w i l l be given back the d r a f t s the next day. A c t u a l w r i t i n g s e s s i o n (kO min.) a. Give back the d r a f t s to students. b. Ask them to write the composition working from t h e i r d r a f t s . 132 Prewritiing sessions for composition 2 *(H) indicates that the students are to prepare the work at home. Session 1 (suggested duration* 2 min.) a. D i s t r i b u t e the w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s to students. b. (H) Ask students to read over the instr u c t i o n s and be prepared to discuss i t for next day. Session 2 (suggested duration: 7-10 min.) a. C l a r i f y with students the concept of ' i d e a l ' . b. Ask students to suggest more q u a l i t i e s that an idea l student should possess. c. (H) Ask students to think about which i d e a l person they are going to write. Ask them to think about a l l words that would describe the id e a l person. Ask them to bring the l i s t of words to class the next day. Session 3 (suggested duration: 10-15 min.) a. Divide students into groups of 4. b. Ask students to share t h e i r l i s t s with other group members who should contribute more words and expressions to the l i s t . c. (H) Ask students to think about 5 d e t a i l s that w i l l bring out or explain the q u a l i t i e s that the i d e a l person should possess, (e.g. An i d e a l father should be lo v i n g but not indulging. I f he indulges h i s children and allows them to do whatever they want, they may become s p o i l t . ) Session U (suggested duration: 10-15 min.) a. Divide students into the same grouping as session 3> b. Ask students to share t h e i r best three ideas with other group members. c. Ask each group to share the best d e t a i l with the c l a s s . d. (H) Ask students to think over how they would use the words and d e t a i l s i n t h e i r compositions. Session 5 (suggested duration: 15 min.) a. Ask students to write a rough d r a f t . Thedraft may be an outline the f i r s t paragraph, or just rough notes on how they w i l l write b. Collect the drafts from students. T e l l them that they w i l l be given back the drafts the next day. Actual w r i t i n g session (40 min.) a. Give back the drafts to students. b. Ask them to write the composition working from t h e i r d r a f t s . Appendix D Le t t e r to the teachers 13A October 27, 1 9 8 2 . To a l l t e a c h e r s concerned: Dear c o l l e a g u e , I am happy t h a t your h e l p can be e n l i s t e d i n t h i s p r o j e c t . The aim o f t h i s p r o j e c t i s t o c o l l e c t a sample o f student w r i t i n g which i s w r i t t e n i n two d i f f e r e n t modes, the n a r r a t i v e mode and the e x p o s i t o r y mode. I i n t e n d t o make c r o s s grade comparisons o f the s t u d e n t s ' s k i l l i n w r i t i n g . To t h i s end, we must ensure t h a t a l l the c o m p o s i t i o n s are w r i t t e n under s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s and t h a t t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a re conducive to p r o d u c i n g the bes t k i n d o f w r i t i n g from the s t u d e n t s . The most r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n w r i t i n g has i n d i c a t e d t h a t the b e s t way o f b r i n g i n g out s t u d e n t s ' s k i l l i n w r i t i n g i s t o immerse them i n the w r i t i n g t o p i c w e l l i n advance o f the w r i t i n g s e s s i o n so t h a t b e f o r e they a c t u a l l y w r i t e , they have a l r e a d y g e n e r a t e d the i d e a s about the c o m p o s i t i o n . Then they can c o n c e n t r a t e on how t o express t h e i r i d e a s i n s t e a d o f s t r u g -g l i n g t o f i n d something t o w r i t e about. A u s e f u l procedure t o immerse s t u d e n t s i n t h e i r t o p i c i s t o conduct s e v e r a l ' p r e w r i t i n g ' s e s s i o n s b e f o r e they a re asked t o w r i t e the c o m p o s i t i o n . These ' p r e w r i t i n g * s e s s i o n s are s h o r t s e s s i o n s ( f i v e t o f i f t e e n minutes i n d u r a t i o n ) where we h e l p the s t u d e n t s t o i d e n t i f y what they are g o i n g t o w r i t e , how the y a r e g o i n g t o approach the w r i t i n g t a s k , and t o probe deeper and expand f u r t h e r any i d e a s they have about the t o p i c . The essence o f these s e s s i o n s i s to engage s t u d e n t s i n t h i n k -i n g about t h e i r t o p i c w e l l b e f o r e t h e y do the w r i t i n g . I have d e v i s e d a l i s t o f p r o c e d u r e s t o f o l l o w i n the 'prewriting' s e s s i o n s f o r the two compositions-which are o u t l i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g two pages. S i m i l a r p r o c e d u r e s have been used i n s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia and have been proved t o be s u c c e s s f u l i n e l i c i t i n g good w r i t i n g from s t u d e n t s . I am sure t h a t t h e y w i l l be u s e f u l t o s t u d e n t s i n Hong Kong, t o o . In the a c t u a l w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s , s t u d e n t s a re g i v e n f o r t y minutes t o complete the t a s k . I have not s p e c i f i e d how many words t h e y s h o u l d w r i t e because f l u e n c y i n e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r i d e a s i s a l s o one a r e a I would i n v e s t i g a t e . P l e a s e encourage s t u d e n t s t o w r i t e as l o n g as the y can (but not l e s s than 200 words). Your p r o d d i n g may be e s s e n t i a l f o r the st u d e n t s t o produce t h e r e q u i r e d l e n g t h . To make the p r o j e c t s u c c e s s f u l , your c o o p e r a t i o n i n c a r r y -i n g out t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s as s p e c i f i e d i s i m p e r a t i v e so t h a t Appendix E A w r i t i n g l o g Composition 1 I n i t i a l o f t e a c h e r i C l a s s * . Session E v a l u a t i o n ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Please f i l l i n the date f o r each se s s i o n ! 2. Please i n d i c a t e duration of each session ( i n minutes)i 3. Please rate l e v e l of student p a r t i -c i p a t i o n on a scale of 1 5 (high low) 4. Please rate students' a t t i t u d e on a scale of 1 5 (favourable infavourable) 5. Please rate ease of implementing procedures on a scale of 1 5 (easy d i f f i c u l t ) 6. Please rate ease f o r students to f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s on a scale of 1 5 (easy d i f f i c u l t ) In the space below (and the blank page behind) please comment on p a r t i c u l a r success or f a i l u r e encountered (please s p e c i f y s e s s i o n ) " A w r i t i n g l o g Composition 2 I n i t i a l o f teacher t C l a s s i • Session E v a l u a t i o n ~~~ __ 1 2 3 k 5 6 1. Please f i l l i n the date f o r each s e s s i o n i 2. Please i n d i c a t e duration of each session ( i n minutes): 3. Please r a t e l e v e l of student p a r t i -c i p a t i o n on a scale of 1 5 (high low) 4. Please r a t e students' a t t i t u d e on a scale of 1 5 (favourable infavourable) 5. Please rate ease of implementing procedures on a scale of 1 5 (easy d i f f i c u l t ) 6. Please rate ease f o r students to f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s on a scale of 1 5 (easy d i f f i c u l t ) In the space below (and the blank page behind) please comment on p a r t i c u l a r success or f a i l u r e encountered (please s p e c i f y s e s s i o n ) i 1 38 APPENDIX F As Gaies (1980) p o i n t e d out, second language data may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the presence of abundant e r r o r s making segmentation i n t o T - u n i t s d i f f i c u l t . T h e r e f o r e , a d e t a i l e d treatment of what c o n s t i t u t e s g a r b l e s was warranted. Hunt (1965) d e f i n e d g a r b l e s as "any group of words that cannot be understood..." (p.6). He found t h a t except f o r a f o u r t h grade boy who committed f o u r t e e n g a r b l e s t o t a l i n g 68 words, there were j u s t i s o l a t e d i n s t a n c e s of students w r i t i n g g a r b l e s i n the three grades. O'Donnell et a l . (1967) d e f i n e d g a r b l e s as " f a l s e s t a r t s , abnormal redundancies, and word t a n g l e s " (p.39). They found that whereas i n speech these were f a i r l y common, i n w r i t i n g they were " f a i r l y r a r e " (p.40). In h i s 1970 study, Hunt simply wrote: the w r i t i n g s were screened to exclude extraneous, u n i n t e l l i g i b l e , or i n a c c u r a t e passages. Where such a passage was found, the whole sentence c o n t a i n i n g i t was d e l e t e d (p.13). By l o o k i n g at how these two r e s e a r c h e r s t r e a t e d g a r b l e s , i t was d i f f i c u l t to p i n down what a c t u a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s them. Loban (1976) seemed to have a b e t t e r treatment of g a r b l e s , which he c a l l e d "mazes," than e i t h e r Hunt or O'Donnell et a l . He d e f i n e d mazes as: a s e r i e s of words (or i n i t i a l p a r t s of words), or unattached fragments which do not c o n s t i t u t e a communication u n i t and are not necessary to the communication u n i t . . . . When a. maze i s removed from a communication u n i t , the remaining m a t e r i a l always c o n s t i t u t e s a s t r a i g h t forward, c l e a r l y r e c o g n i z a b l e u n i t of communication (p.10). 139 However, he s t i l l noted that "mazes continue to be one of the more c o n f u s i n g v a r i a b l e s encountered..." (p.10). It was c l e a r from Loban's a n a l y s i s of the speech sample ( i n h i s 1966 r e p o r t ) that non-standard usage would not be c o n s i d e r e d mazes. He d i d not i n c l u d e a maze count i n the w r i t i n g sample, nor d i d he analyze e r r o r i n s t a n c e s . But from the examples he p r o v i d e d i n Appendix D of h i s 1976 r e p o r t , i t was c l e a r that he i n c l u d e d every word ( i n c l u d i n g words i n a fragment or words t h a t were a c t u a l l y s p e l l i n g or l e x i c a l e r r o r s ) i n t o the communication u n i t s . Such a p r a c t i c e was echoed i n Hake and W i l l i a m s (1979) who argued that a l l fragments should be r e t a i n e d and a s s i g n e d to whatever sentence they l o g i c a l l y connected to, r e g a r d l e s s of p u n c t u a t i o n or e r r o r s , thus p r o v i d i n g a more acc u r a t e c o g n i t i v e c l o s u r e f o r the preceding T - u n i t - - a c l o s u r e that i s presumably more c o n s i s t e n t with the w r i t e r ' s semantic i n t e n t i o n s . However, the standard procedure i n most other s t u d i e s i s to d e l e t e u n i n t e l l i g i b l e g a r b l e s or mazes from the language sample as i s d e s c r i b e d below. Mellon (1969) d e l e t e d g a r b l e s but made no a n a l y s i s of e r r o r s though he noted frequent occurrences of such and d i d not seem to l e t e r r o r s a f f e c t the T - u n i t count. O'Hare (1973) made a d i s t i n c t i o n between " g a r b l e s " and "fragments." Gar b l e s which were " u n i n t e l l i g i b l e s t r i n g s of words" were d i s c a r d e d . "Fragments which r e s u l t e d from the omission of a word counted as a T - u n i t . The experimenter s u p p l i e d the m i s s i n g word" (p.48). He d i d not r e p o r t on how he 140 t r e a t e d other occurrences of e r r o r s . The s t u d i e s of Pope (1969) and Huber (1973) comparing the o r a l and w r i t t e n syntax of Negro and white fourth-grade students both l e d to the c o n c l u s i o n that the two groups were the same i n terms of s y n t a c t i c development as measured by T - u n i t l e n g t h , c l a u s e l e n g t h , number of c l a u s e s per T - u n i t and i n the kinds of s y n t a c t i c o p e r a t i o n s performed. But there were c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n s of the Negro group from standard phrase s t r u c t u r e r u l e s and from standard m o r p h o l o g i c a l r u l e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they d i d not conform to c o n v e n t i o n a l usage. From t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s , i t was c l e a r that the two r e s e a r c h e r s d i d not allow non-standard usage to a f f e c t the T - u n i t count. As reviewed i n Chapter Two, some re s e a r c h e r s i n v e s t i g a t i n g s y n t a c t i c development of second language l e a r n e r s i n t r o d u c e d an e r r o r count i n t o the T - u n i t a n a l y s i s , and the problems i n v o l v e d i n such a procedure were d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Two. Other second language r e s e a r c h e r s , on the other hand, e i t h e r completely ignored the i n s t a n c e s of g a r b l e s or e r r o r s when w r i t t e n samples were analyzed (e.g., Monroe, 1975; Cooper, 1976; Cooper and Morain, 1980) or they d e l e t e d g a r b l e s but allowed deviant usage of E n g l i s h to be i n c l u d e d i n the T - u n i t count (e.g., Crymes, 1971). Ney and F i l l e r u p (1980) pr o v i d e d a d e t a i l e d treatment of g a r b l e s with second language data. They s t a t e d that sentence fragments c o n t a i n i n g low l e v e l e r r o r s (e.g., omission of a r t i c l e s or misuse of p r e p o s i t i o n s , or misplaced adverbs) would be i n c l u d e d f o r ' T - u n i t a n a l y s i s , but sentence fragments that 141 r e q u i r e d major s y n t a c t i c c h a n g e s — u s u a l l y to a verb p h r a s e - - i n order to make them i n t e l l i g i b l e would be t r e a t e d as g a r b l e s . They omitted garbled segments, r a t h e r than e n t i r e sentences, from the a n a l y s i s whenever i t was p o s s i b l e and as long as i t d i d not a f f e c t the gr a m m a t i c a l i t y of the sentence i n which the g a r b l e s o c c u r r e d . 1 42 APPENDIX G Examples of g a r b l e d sentences or ga r b l e d segments that wer.e d e l e t e d (the g a r b l e s are co n t a i n e d w i t h i n square b r a c k e t s ) : Garbles committed by F.7 students: 1 . At that time, I f e l t [very sorrow and the pain deeper that f e l t ] as i f something were c u t t i n g me i n s i d e . 2. [Four years ago, a day that sun was high and there was h a r d l y a c l o u d i n the sky.] But i t was unusual f o r us. 3. At that a f t e r n o o n , my s i s t e r phoned back and gave us the worst news [th a t made our fa m i l y cover of sadness f i e l d ] , 4. I t was too dark that I c o u l d not see anything [even my f i n g e r s ] . Garbles committed by F.5 students: 1. [ I t i s d i f f i c u l t d r i v e a car s a f t i s d i f f i c u l t y . ] 2. [At that time, I d i d not know what my f e e l i n g of f e a r , s u s p i c i o n , p i t y or whatever.] 3. You should leave him at once. [And sure that c a r e f u l l y next time.] 4. He s h a l l s o l v e a l l the problems [gave a f a i r judge]. 5. But when you wanted to choose a good f r i e n d , you must thought about y o u r s e l f . [Are you c o u l d be a goodself f o r the o t h e r s . ] 6. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a f r i e n d i s to h e l p the ot h e r s to t r a c k l e the problems, console to the others when they [get something] f e e l sad or worry, c o n s i d e r a t e to the others and 1 43 share the happiness w i t h everyone. G a r b l e s committed by F . 3 s t u d e n t s : 1. How can we become i n d e a l s t u d ents? [I suggest are showing below. ] 2. Peter Cheung i s a monitor i n my c l a s s . [He always h e l p to d i f f i c u l t persons.] 3. He always h e l p the t e a c h e r s to get [very heavy] some e x e r c i s e books. 4. I hope she has good q u a l i t i e s and never makes a complaint [or l e t s hard work as w e l l ] . 5. [I t h i n k t h a t i t i s an i d e a l mother do something.] 6. She do not l i k e p l a y majoy because she hate that l o u l d sound. [Although my mother i s the kind of q u i e t . ] 7. I knew I ' l l very f r i g h t e n e d , [but no other way]. A p p e n d i x H A sample a n a l y s i s o f two p a r a g r a p h s : F . 7 N a r r a t i v e a s s i g n m e n t N+N b N+A CN 5 I t was a Sunday m o r n i n g , / 0 my e l d e r "brother and I 11 was s h o p p i n g i n Ts i m Sha T s u i . / We went i n t o a N+N A I N+P lk watch shop ( t o l o o k f o r some watches d e s i g n e d f o r SAp NG 22 d i v e r s . / So c o n c e n t r a t e d were we ( i n c h o o s i n g t h e AO N N+A watches [ t h a t we d i d n o t n o t i c e [ f i v e s o l i d l y -N+P 10 b u i l t men had t r e a d e d i n t o t h e shop./ They p u l l e d N+G CP N 3 out t h e i r p i s t o l s and s h o u t e d , ["Don£t move,/ we a r e N+Pp 7 r o b b e r s . " / Ever.\spne i n t h e shop was s h o c k e d . / The N+G CN A I N+G Ik r o b b e r s f o r c e d my b r o t h e r and I ( t o p l a c e our hands N+G AO 17 on our h e a d s . / I was n o t so s c a r e d [ a s t h e o t h e r N+A AO N+G N+N cu s t o m e r s d i d [ b e c a u s e my b r o t h e r was a p o l i c e m a n / 6 and I f e l t s a f e - w i t h h i m . / F . 7 E x p o s i t o r y a s s i g n m e n t A I N+A A I 17 (To be a good l e a d e r , one must be a b l e ( t o s e t a N+A 14 good example t o t h e members./ P u n c t u a l i t y i s a l w a y s N+Pp SAp i m p o r t a n t f o r everrame i n a g r o u p , ( e s p e c i a l l y f o r N+R 18 a l e a d e r . / A l e a d e r who i s a l w a y s l a t e f o r m e e t i n g s CN o r a c t i v i t i e s c an n e v e r w i n t h e l o v e o f t h e members./ a N o . o f words i n a T - u n i t . Types o f g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s . c B o u n d a r y o f a T - u n i t . Boundary o f a c l a u s e and i t s f u n c t i o n . *Word boundary A p p e n d i x I A t a b l e o f raw s c o r e s on number o f words, T - u n i t s and c l a u s e s ; and i n s t a n c e s o f n o m i n a l , a d v e r b i a l and c o o r d i n a t e s t r u c t u r e s 146 NARRATIVE ASSIGNMENT w tu c l nominal structures A 157 15 22 4 7 1 1 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 •> 0 152 2 0 2 1 2 8 8 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 2 9 31 1 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 16 1 17 2 3 4 8 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 2 6 4 0 0 6 8 1 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 6 7 24 3 2 5 9 14 1 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 179 19 2 8 4 9 4 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 2 2 148 2 0 26 0 6 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 5 3 0 6 3 O 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 191 18 21 2 1 1 14 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 188 26 28 6 1 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 5 2 9 3 9 1 0 1 5 1 1 1 5 0 0 22 1 22 2 5 7 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 7 24 36 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 S 2 1 2 5 3 5 1 0 o 5 0 2 5 0 0 0 2 3 0 22 3 0 6 5 1 1 0 2 o 3 6 2 0 0 2 14 24 27 8 6 2 0 0 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 19 3 0 3 3 2 5 7 0 0 1 1 0 3 4 2 0 201 2 9 36 0 12 8 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 2 8 19 27 12 4 1 1 0 6 0 2 1 1 0 0 Form 3 3 0 5 36 44 2 12 8 0 1 6 0 1 4 5 0 4 2 14 2 5 33 3 5 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 2 5 4 22 36 0 1 1 8 2 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 2 19 17 26 2 1 1 1 2 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 1 2 8 6 32 4 3 3 2 10 0 1 6 0 2 4 0 1 4 291 3 0 4 6 3 10 7 3 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 3 2 3 7 22 28 4 18 5 2 0 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 196 2 0 3 0 0 5 6 1 o 1 0 O 2 0 1 0 2 2 8 26 3 3 2 6 5 f 0 3 0 0 2 6 1 0 2 17 2 5 3 1 3 1 5 1 0 6 0 0 4 1 1 2 2 12 14 24 2 8 7 2 0 6 1 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 8 24 32 0 8 14 3 0 4 0 1 4 1 1 1 2 7 9 3 0 4 0 0 7 14 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 5 2 27 3 9 8 5 6 3 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 2 2 2 8 27 3 5 2 8 5 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 o 7 187 17 2 5 5 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 4 2 13 2 1 2 8 2 8 3 5 0 8 0 3 1 0 1 2 2 0 7 22 2 8 2 5 i 3 1 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 9 2 9 37 3 2 14 1 1 3 1 1 3. 0 1 3 2 0 7 2 0 2 7 0 G 9 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Form 5 334 . 3 0 42 4 16 2 4 0 10 0 3 6 1 1 1 230 19 26 0 7 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 0 0 1 2 5 7 2 3 3 3 6 9 8 1 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 2 2 4 3 22 28 3 19 2 0 0 5 0 2 3 1 0 1 2 0 4 14 2 4 6 6 3 O 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 2 3 3 18 2 9 3 6 4 0 2 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 2 0 1 22 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 6 3 26 3 6 3 14 1 1 1 2 8 2 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 8 18 27 3 1 1 16 0 2 1 o 0 3 0 o 0 4 2 8 34 4 9 9 19 15 5 2 15 0 2 4 1 1 4 3 12 24 3 8 13 7 14 0 0 7 0 5 6 0 0 2 182 2 1 3 0 2 3 13 1 0 2 0 1 4 1 0 1 1 4 5 14 21 1 3 5 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 201 21 32 5 10 7 1 1 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 193 17 3 0 0 5 6 0 0 2 0 1 7 1 0 0 2 0 7 16 28 1 3 1 1 0 6 0 1 7 0 1 1 2 2 8 2 3 3 3 4 12 10 1 0 3 0 2 7 0 0 2 2 3 7 15 31 3 6 8 4 1 4 0 1 5 2 1 0 2 6 6 31 38 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 2 1 9 6 15 22 4 1 9 0 0 7 0 1 3 0 0 0 Form 7 adverbial coordinate structures structure i •1 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 i 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 1 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 o 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 1 . 0 0 4 0 0 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 ' 0 3 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 8 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 3 0 1 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 3 1 1 4 0 o 8 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 4 4 0 0 2 1 0 2 4 1 5 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 1 3 4 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 1 5 4 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 5 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 n 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 a 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 6 2 8 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 5 0 6 0 1 5 5 1 0 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 2 1 3 2 3 0 2 1 2 1 5 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 3 2 4 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 5 1 2 3 0 0 5 1 1 5 1 0 1 4 4 2 0 5 1 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 5 2 1 0 0 O 0 0 3 3 O 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 1 0 7 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 147 EXPOSITORY ASSIGNMENT a d v e r b i a l c o o r d i n a t e w t u c l n o m i n a l s t r u c t u r e s s t r u c t u r e s s t r u c t u r e s 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 8 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 5 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 8 189 2 3 28 2 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 7 3 174 18 24 1 1 1 6 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 2 0 3 17 2 7 4 5 2 1 0 3 1 0 5 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 1 6 2 1 3 18 2 6 4 7 3 2 2 4 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 1 1 5 1 6 2 9 2 24 3 9 1 15 10 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 5 6 0 0 0 1 1 10 0 2 2 2 1 0 21 31 0 14 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 6 0 0 1 1 0 4 3 2 2 2 0 6 19 2 5 3 7 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 10 174 18 2 3 8 7 2 1 0 3 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 2 153 17 24 2 7 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 3 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 8 5 2 1 28 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 187 13 21 2 8 15 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 .4 1 0 5 164 15 19 0 7 2 0 0 3 0 0 i o 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 2 2 0 18 24 3 14 6 0 1 4 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 7 6 7 153 14 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 186 12 17 3 6 6 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 7 3 185 14 24 2 7 7 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 1 0 2 6 1 3 14 1 12 17 1 7 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 6 109 16 16 3 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 165 14 15 4 12 3 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 Q 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 3 0 4 2 Form 3 2 4 5 28 3 5 2 15 6 2 0 3 0 0 o 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 9 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 4 8 23 34 6 10 5 1 0 7 0 1 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 5 182 1 1 16 4 13 12 1 0 1 0 c 3 0 0 ^ 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 2 10 3 5 199 16 24 0 8 5 2 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 3 2 1 8 18 2 0 3 16 10 0 0 6 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 2 1 7 7 4 1 2 5 5 18 2 1 7 2 1 6 0 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 5 3 0 4 1 1 1 2 2 0 21 2 9 1 13 1 1 o 8 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 7 1 3 0 169 17 2 3 3 7 6 0 0 2 0 1 2 o 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 193 2 0 24 1 15 10 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 2 2 2 4 0 2 15 17 24 2 4 2 0 1 5 1 0 .1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 o 4 0 5 7 2 1 1 12 2 1 5 1 1 5 2 0 8 1 1 1 0 3 0 6 0 0 5 0 1 3 4 0 1 2 4 3 19 3 0 1 1 1 10 3 o 4 1 0 2 o 0 o 5 2 0 0 4 1 0 4 12 2 2 27 1 2 1 3 1 0 16 t 1 2 o 3 1 3 ^ T 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 c 4 3 3 1 2 2 4 14 27 1 5 8 3 c 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 c 0 0 2 0 3 10 ^ 5 2 9 5 19 4 1 0 1 1 9 7 1 5 1 0 5 1 0 9 3 5 0 0 2 1 1 4 6 0 4 2 15 19 2 5 0 10 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 5 0 - 0 6 1 0 3 3 0 4 157 1 1 12 5 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 3 1 3 18 1 16 27 0 7 9 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 *_ 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 2 19 16 2 3 4 14 8 1 •0 6 0 3 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 4 4 0 2 15 19 26 1 8 16 2 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 4 Form 5 3 3 7 27 36 2 16 7 3 1 8 1 0 2 2 0 5 12 2 3 1 9 2 1 0 6 0 0 4 2 4 3 13 19 1 24 1 1 3 2 8 2 3 0 2 18 2 0 22 3 19 13 0 0 8 2 0 1 154 6 16 0 6 7 2 0 6 1 0 4 2 3 6 13 18 4 14 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 2 201 14 19 7 10 5 1 1 6 1 2 1 0 2 0 4 12 16 1 12 13 1 1 2 0 0 195 14 17 0 10 6 0 1 4 2 O 0 2 0 7 15 21 10 19 5 3 0 3 0 2 1 2 7 4 2 0 3 0 3 17 3 3 0 6 0 3 3 2 1 2 14 21 0 13 14 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 4 6 22 31 2 5 9 2 0 4 0 1 2 2 4 4 2 3 33 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 198 16 2 3 0 19 3 1 0 6 0 2 2 3 0 8 17 2 5 3 19 1 1 3 0 17 1 5 2' 2 2 0 13 17 4 12 8 0 1 7 0 1 1 2 14 14 26 2 9 9 1 0 2 0 0 4 2 2 4 12 19 1 6 1 1 • 0 0 8 1 0 2 2 4 5 13 22 2 19 6 2 1 10 0 2 3 0 1 8 2 2 0 1 2 5 0 5 3 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 4 2 1 5 8 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 7 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 8 1 1 7 6 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 4 3 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 5 4 1 5 6 1 7 o 1 1 2 1 o 0 5 3 1 6 6 1 5 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 3 6 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 6 1 2 1 3 0 2 4 1 0 5 0 4 4 1 1 2 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 1 2 4 2 0 1 5 4 0 1 6 2 0 1 1 1 4 2 0 5 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 3 0 0 8 4 0 2 1 2 4 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 3 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 6 0 0 8 2 1 2 5 1 2 2 0 *> 1 5 0 0 4 0 1 . 6 0 2 4 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 3 1 1 3 4 1 n 7 A p p e n d i x J R e s u l t s o f d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on n o m i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a c r o s s t h r e e grade l e v e l s BMDP7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT MEANS GROUP = F0RM3 VARIABLE 28 NNTU 32 .64561 29 NATU 82 .87642 DO NGTU 54 .71536 3 1 NRTU 5 . 45946 32 APTU 2 .98054 33 PPTU 29 .08035 34 NF TU 2 .07443 35 PATU 6 . 13834 36 CLTU 18 .51756 37 IFTU 13 .80066 38 FSTU 2 .32704 39 GRTU 4 .531 19 COUNTS 20. STANDARD DEVIATIONS GROUP a F0RM3 VARIABLE 28 NNTU 20 76497 29 NATU 16 76663 30 NGTU 37 97038 31 NRTU 5 93900 32 APTU 5 26039 33 PPTU 17 1 1026 34 NFTU 2 72474 35 PATU 7 31936 36 CLTU 10 66242 37 IFTU 11 55266 38 FSTU 3 90421 39 GRTU 5 59266 COEFFICIENTS OF VARIAT GROUP B F0RM3 VARIABLE 28 NNTU 0. 63607 29 NATU 0. 20231 30 NGTU 0. 69396 31 NRTU 1 . 08784 32 APTU 1 . 76491 33 PPTU 0. 58838 34 NFTU 1 . 31349 35 PATU 1 . 19240 36 CLTU 0. 57580 37 IFTU 0. 8371 1 38 FSTU 1 . 67776 39 GRTU 1 . 23426 F0RM5 24.5 1881 96.37477 70.07491 16.38474 1.41877 41.58154 3.01115 11.89565 25.47 1 13 12.09517 2.85843 17.38528 20. F0RM7 32.66933 128.09131 90. 1028 1 16.35869 5 . 70630 63.05943 5.78916 16.22305 34.49036 9.33319 2.82806 23.13503 20. ALL G r s . 29.94460 10?.44749 7 1 .63103 12.73430 3 . 36854 44.57378 3.62491 I 1 41901 26.15968 II 74300 2 67 UR 15.017 17 60. F0RM5 F0RM7 ALL GPS. 17 .004 38 22 .57976 20 .21989 36 . 49817 42 .66228 33 82950 35 .34674 39 .40154 37 .61029 1 1 .89964 1 1 .89427 10 30121 2 .09246 6 .05689 4 78664 32 .34105 31 .93228 28 03790 4 .21751 6 87141 4 9 135 1 13 .96048 12 72784 1 1 G9706 12 .28893 20 63553 15 17 157 12 62604 13 38536 12 54387 2 92791 4 03830 3 657 10 16 96919 15 24941 13 56190 F0RM5 F0RM7 ALL GPS. 0 69352 0 691 16 0 67625 0 37871 0 33306 0 33021 0 5044 1 0 43730 O 52506 0 72626 0 72709 0 80893 1 47484 1 06 144 1 4 2099 0 77777 0 50638 0 62902 1 40063 1 18694 1 35548 1 17358 0. 78455 1 . 02435 0 48247 0 59830 0. 57996 1 04389 1 43417 1. 06820 1 02431 1 . 42794 1. 369 10 0 97607 0. 65915 0. 90309 BMDP7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT WITHIN CORRELATION MATRIX NNTU NATU NGTU NRTU 28 29 30 31 NNTU 28 1 .OOOOO NATU 29 0 .24627 1 .00000 NGTU 30 -0 .14885 0 . 17371 1 .OOOOO NRTU 31 0 . 17052 0 .09306 0 .14029 1 .OOOOO APTU 32 -o .11340 0 .11795 0 .14760 -0 .03299 PPTU 33 0 .41557 0 .35775 -0 .16900 0 .18091 NFTU 34 -0 .04550 0 .17788 0 .30267 0 .18973 PATU 35 0. .48247 0 .38219 -0 .23150 0 . 12224 CLTU 36 0 .01700 0 .06337 0 . 17614 0 .29413 IFTU 37 -0. .28809 -0 .22208 0 .22771 -0 . 15156 FSTU 38 -0. . 18349 -0 .01331 0 .05762 0 .23028 GRTU 39 0. .21939 0 .32546 0 .01386 0. .35048 IFTU FSTU GRTU 37 38 39 IFTU 37 1 . OOOOO FSTU 38 0. . 19511 1 . OOOOO GRTU 39 -0. . 14110 -0. . 14212 1 . OOOOO WITHIN COVARIANCE MATRIX -NNTU NATU NGTU NRTU 28 29 30 31 NNTU 28 410. 06012 NATU 29 168. 70919 1144 . 43677 NGTU 30 -113. 36452 221 . 01936 1414. 54290 NRTU 31 35. 56967 32. 43075 54. 35258 106. 1 1564 APTU 32 -10. 99141 19. 09910 26. 57211 - 1 . 62681 PPTU 33 235. 94393 339. 33142 -178. 21313 52. 25130 NFTU 34 -4 . 52743 29. 56712 55. 93268 9. 60323 PATU 35 114. 27958 151 . 23450 -101. 84564 14 . 72908 CLTU 36 5. 22385 32. 52533 100. 50682 45. 96880 IFTU 37 -73. 1794 1 -94 . 23876 107. 42832 - 19. 58487 FSTU 38 -13. 58827 - 1 . 64712 7. 92478 8. 67526 GRTU 39 60. ,25171 149. 32057 7. 06786 48. 96359 IFTU FSTU GRTU 37 38 39 IFTU 37 157. 34969 FSTU 38 8. 95037 13. 37449 GRTU 39 -24. 00464 -7. 04881 183. 92589 APTU PPTU NFTU PATU CLTU 32 33 34 35 36 1.OOOOO -0.10360 1 .00000 0.06427 0 .21960 1 .00000 -0.07002 0 .63586 0 .05637 1 .OOOOO -0.24567 0 .21468 0 .13528 -0 .00868 1.OOOOO -0.14451 -0 . 19864 -0 .05174 -o. .27741 -0.01833 0.20504 -0 .19862 -0 .00601 -0 .09818 -0.00895 -0.06832 0 .29670 0 .16751 0 . 18913 0.21868 APTU PPTU NFTU PATU CLTU 32 33 34 35 36 22.91205 -13.90405 786. 12584 1.51 153 30. 25257 24. 14267 -3.92040 208. 53928 3. 23967 136. 82212 -17.84070 91 . 31968 10. 08481 -1 . 54109 230.17737 -8.67680 -69. 86234 -3. 18874 -40. 70336 -3.48829 3.58929 -20. 36651 -o. 10807 -4 . 19996 -0.49677 -4.43527 112. 8201 1 1 1 . 16236 30. 00230 44.99466 BMDP7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT STEP NUMBER VARIABLE DF = F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL 2 58 TOLERANCE STEP NUMBER 1 VARIABLE ENTERED 39 GRTU VARIABLE F TO FORCE TOLERANCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 2 57 39 GRTU 9.866 1 I.OOOOOO VARIABLE 28 NNTU 29 NATU 30 NGTU 31 NRTU 32 APTU 33 PPTU 34 NFTU 35 PATU 36 CLTU 37 IFTU 38 FSTU 39 GRTU VARIABLE 28 NNTU 29 NATU 30 NGTU 31 NRTU 32 APTU 33 PPTU 34 NFTU 35 PATU 36 CLTU 37 IFTU 38 FSTU DF • DF = USTATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA 0.7428429 APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC 9.866 MATRIX F0RM5 F0RM7 F0RM3 8.98 18.82 DEGREES OF FREEDOM = F0RM5 1 .80 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 2 57 1 .077 9.4 15 4 .452 7 .481 4 . 110 7 .514 3.092 3.741 5.573 0.646 O. 133 9.866 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 2 56 1 .696 4.412 3.217 2.658 4 . 168 3. 164 1 .489 1 .393 2.374 O. 149 0.479 TOLERANCE 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1 .OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO TOLERANCE 0.951866 0.894073 0.999808 0.877165 0.995332 0.91 1969 0.971940 0.964231 0.952179 0.980090 0.979802 DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 57 1 2 2.00 57 57 OO BMDP7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP = FORM3 VARIABLE 39 GRTU 0.02464 CONSTANT -1.15443 STEP NUMBER 2 VARIABLE ENTERED 29 NATU F0RM5 0.09452 -1.92027 VARIABLE 29 NATU 39 GRTU F TO FORCE TOLERANCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 2 56 4.412 1 0.894074 4.797 1 0.894074 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA 0.6417335 APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC 6.953 MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM = F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM5 4.46 F0RM7 13.60 4.40 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP VARIABLE 29 NATU 39 GRTU F0RM3 0.07740 -0.03820 CONSTANT -4.21943 CLASSIFICATION MATRIX F0RM5 0.08039 0.02925 -5.22691 F0RM7 O. 12578 -2.55363 VARIABLE 28 NNTU 30 NGTU 31 NRTU 32 APTU 33 PPTU 34 NFTU 35 PATU 36 CLTU IFTU FSTU F TO ENTER DF = 37 38 F0RM7 O. 10683 0.03905 -8.39234 GROUP F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM7 PERCENT CORRECT 85.0 35.0 60.0 NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO GROUP F0RM3 17 8 4 F0RM5 3 7 4 F0RM7 O 5 12 FORCE LEVEL DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 56 2 55 1 .809 1 .905 2.625 2.738 1 .287 0.768 0.446 2 .080 0.001 0.398 2 2 4.00 TOLERANCE 0.917664 0.967787 0.876671 .973353 .835668 .954920 .849245 .952111 0.945384 0.978588 O. O. 0. O. O. 57 112.00 TOTAL 60.0 29 14 17 BMDP7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT INCORRECT MAHALANOBIS D-SQUARE FROM AND CLASSIFICATIONS POSTERIOR PROBABILITY FOR GROUP -GROUP FORM3 FORM3 F0RM5 FORM7 CASE 1 0. 0 0. 52 1 0. 9 0. 338 2 6 0. 14 1 2 0. 1 0. 617 1 . 7 0. 285 3 .8 0 098 3 F0RM5 1 . 6 0. 284 0. 4 0. 509 2 .2 0. 207 4 F0RM5 0. 4 0. 42 1 0. 4 0. 427 2 .5 0. 153 5 0. 4 0. 651 2 . 0 0. 286 5 . 1 0. 062 6 0. 3 0. 413 0. ,6 0. 357 t 4 0. 230 7 F0RM5 O. 9 0. 329 0. 8 0. 344 0 .9 0. 328 8 0. 3 0. 560 1 2 0. 350 3 . 9 0. 091 9 0. ,9 0. 669 2. ,6 0 285 6 . 2 o. 046 IO 0. 6 0. 553 2 .0 0 274 3 .0 0. 173 1 1 0. .3 0. 644 1 9 0 287 1 . 7 0. 069 12 0 .4 0. 568 1 .9 0 .278 3 0 0 154 13 0 .3 0. 473 0 .6 0 398 2 .9 0 130 ' 14 0 . 1 0. 479 0 .8 0 .338 2 .0 0, 183 15 0 .3 0 .426 0 .8 0 .342 1 .5 0. 232 16 0 .2 0 .489 0 .7 0 .389 3 .0 0. 122 17 0 . 1 0. .626 1 . 7 0 .286 4 . 1 0 .088 18 0 . 1 0 .626 1 .7 0 .286 4 . 1 0, .088 19 0 . 1 0 .618 1 .7 0 .286 3 .8 0. .097 20 0 .9 0 .538 2 . 2 0 .270 2 .9 0. . 192 GROUP FORM5 F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM7 CASE 21 1 . 7 0. 242 0. 3 0. 499 1 6 0. 259 22 F0RM3 0. 9 0. 446 1 . 0 0. 442 3 7 0 112 23 F0RM7 6. 4 0. 084 5. 0 0. 173 2 . 0 0. 743 24 1 . 0 0. 301 0. 6 0. 352 0. 7 0 . 347 25 1 . 0 0. 273 0. 0 0. 448 1 .0 0 . 279 26 F0RM7 6. 1 0. 047 2. .9 0. 235 0. .7 0. 718 27 F0RM7 3. 6 0. 303 4 . 1 0. 234 2 .7 0. 463 28 F0RM3 0. .3 0. 546 1 . 1 0. 361 3 9 0. 093 29 F0RM3 0. 2 0. 478 1 , .0 0. 328 2 .0 0. 194 30 F0RM3 3. 4 0. 573 4 . 1 0. 390 8 .9 0. 037 31 F0RM7 8 .0 0. 029 3 .8 0. 233 1 .5 0. 738 32 F0RM3 0. . 1 0. 514 1 .0 0. 326 2 . 4 0 160 33 F0RM3 0 .3 0. .419 0 .6 0. 356 1 .5 0 . 226 34 1 .9 0 .420 1 .6 0. 482 4 .8 0. 098 35 28 .3 0 .008 19 .9 0. 529 20 . 1 0 . 463 36 4 .2 0 . 190 1 .9 0. 596 4 . 0 0 214 37 F0RM7 2 .3 0 . 173 1 .O 0 326 0 . 1 0 500 38 F0RM3 0 .3 0 .643 1 .9 0 287 4 7 0 .070 39 1 . 8 0 .212 0 .2 0 .480 1 . 1 0 .307 40 FORMS 0 .2 0 .632 1 . 7 0 . 286 4 . 3 0 08 1 Cn Co BMDP7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT GROUP F0RM7 CASE F0RM3 FORM5 FORM7 4 1 4. .4 0. .090 1 . 3 0. 425 1 1 0. 4R6 42 F0RM5 0 .9 0. .289 0 4 0. 369 0 .6 0. .342 43 17 3 0. 013 14 . 8 0. 047 n. 8 0. 939 44 8. .8 0. , 1 12 8 .5 0. 135 5 0 0 753 45 1 1 .8 0. 015 6. .2 0. 246 .0 0 739 46 3 .7 0. 106 1 .7 0. 279 0. 2 0. ,615 47 F0RM3 O .0 0. 479 0 .6 0. 365 2 . 3 0. . 156 48 6. .7 0. 040 3 . 3 0. 218 O 9 0, 743 49 2 .2 0 .312 2 .5 0. 275 1 . . 7 0 413 50 22 .4 0. .002 14 .6 0. 091 10 .0 0. 907 51 F0RM5 1 .0 0 .285 0 .5 0. 360 0 .6 0 .354 52 F0RM5 1 .3 0. .228 0 . 1 0. 414 0. . 4 0 358 53 F0RM3 1 .9 0 .531 2 .4 0. 409 6 .2 0 061 54 F0RM3 0 .2 0. . 4 14 0 .4 0. 372 1 .5 0. 214 55 5 .7 0 .052 2. .7 0. ,244 0 .5 0. 703 56 4 . 2 0 .082 1 . 4 0. 330 0 2 0 588 57 5 .6 0 .054 2 .4 0. 261 0 .5 0. .685 58 FORMS 0 .4 0 .420 0 .8 0. 339 1 .5 0 242 59 F0RM5 3 .8 0. .288 2 .4 0. 586 5 . 5 0. 127 60 4, .8 0 .084 2 .8 0. ,229 0 .6 0 688 EIGENVALUES 0.48560 0.04893 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF TOTAL DISPERSION O.J'0847 1.OOOOO CANONICAL CORRELATIONS 0.57173 0.21597 VARIABLE \ COEFFICIENTS FOR CANONICAL VARIABLES 29 NATU 39 GRTU CONSTANT GROUP F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM7 -0.01766 -0.04650 2.50790 0.02579 -0.06260 -1 .70231 CANONICAL VARIABLES EVALUATED AT GROUP MEANS 0.83326 0.15166 -0.00284 -0.30489 -0.83043 0.15322 BMDP7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT POINTS TO BE PLOTTED GROUP FORM3 FORM5 FORM7 MEAN COORDINATES 0.83 -O.OO -0.83 GROUP F0RM3 CASE X O. 15 -O. 30 O. 15 SYMBOL FOR CASES A B C CASE SYMBOL FOR MEAN 1 2 3 1 0. .79 0. 19 1 1 1 34 0 .00 2 1 . 1 1 0. 34 12 0 .78 0 81 3 0 . 19 -0. 94 13 0 78 -0 36 4 0. .61 -0. 47 14 0 .58 0. .39 5 1 . 41 -0. 10 15 0 37 0. , 49 6 O. 35 0. 36 16 0 84 -O. 35 7 0 00 0. 58 17 1 18 0. 23 8 1 . .09 -o. 29 18 1 . . 18 0. 23 9 1 .61 -0. 39 19 1 1 1 0. 33 10 O .70 0. 94 20 0. 62 1 . 05 GROUP F0RM5 CASE CASE 21 -o .04 -o. 83 31 - 1 .95 -0. .32 22 0 .83 -0. 82 32 0. .70 0 .39 23 - 1 .31 1 50 33 0. 37 0 36 24 -o .08 0. .50 34 0. 87 -1 .21 25 -0 .01 -0. .38 35 -2 45 -4. .03 26 - 1 .64 0. 15 36 -0. 07 -1 . 69 27 -0 25 1 . 71 37 -0. 64 0. 46 28 1 .07 -0. 36 38 1 . 33 0. ,01 29 O. .54 0. 51 39 -0. 22 -0. 70 30 1 .65 -1 . 49 40 1 . 23 0. 16 GROUP F0RM7 CASE CASE 4 1 - 1 . 01 -0 .86 51 -0 13 0. 41 42 -O . 10 0 .33 52 -0 27 -0. 13 43 -2 .56 2 .56 53 1 31 -1 . 13 44 - 1 . 14 2 . 38 54 0 .40 O. 19 45 -2 .34 -1 . 15 55 - 1 .56 0. 16 46 - 1 .06 O .49 56 - 1 18 -0. 20 47 0 .67 0. .04 57 - 1 52 0. 04 48 - 1 . .76 0. . 18 58 O 33 0. 54 49 -o 17 1 . 27 59 0 49 -1 . 78 50 -3. 74 -1 . 07 60 - 1 . 26 0. 79 BM0P7M NOMINAL DISCRIMINANT OVERLAP Or DIFFERENT GROUPS IS INDICATED BY • 4 . •....+ . . . . « - . . . . + . . . . + . . . . + . . . . * . . . . * . . . . • . . . . * . . . • * 3.75 3.00 C A N t.SO 0 N I C .750 0.00 A C C R CB * • B C AB 3 AA C 1 B C • A A BA A A -.750 B A •1.50 -3.00 -3.75 ..•....*....*....+....*...•+....•.•..+....*.•••*••••••-•.*••••*.•••*••••*.•••*•••-*•••*-•••*•••* .*....•....*.. I 4 . 4 - 3 . 6 - 2 . 8 -2.0 -1.? -.10 .10 I.J 2.0 2.8 3-6 1-1 -4.0 -3.2 -2.1 -i.e. -.10 0.0 .80 I.S 2.1 3 ? 1 0 H U l ON A p p e n d i x K R e s u l t s o f d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a c r o s s t h r e e g r a d e l e v e l s BMDP7M ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT MEANS F0RM3 GROUP VARIABLE 20 CLTTU 2 1 CLOTU 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 24 SACTU 25 SAPTU 26 SAOTU 27 ANFTU COUNTS STANDARD DEVIATIONS FORM5 FORM7 ALL GPS. 17 . 19820 18. 17740 17 . 14731 17 . 50763 22 . 68649 23. 58884 31 . 9574 1 26 . 07758 O .0 0. 0 1 . 78299 O 59433 0. 0 1 . 75955 5. 68812 2 48256 6. .53758 25. .15285 36 .60464 22 . 76501 4 .28427 8 .36734 16 .44688 9 .69950 1 .32906 3 .13025 6 .75744 3 .73892 29 .21565 26 .92781 36 .21347 30 .70564 20. 20. 20. 60. GROUP = VARIABLE 20 CLTTU 21 CLOTU 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 24 SACTU 25 SAPTU 26 SAOTU 27 ANFTU F0RM3 1 1 .82889 16.04094 0.0 O.O 8.63409 6.82041 2.80180 12.42142 COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION GROUP VARIABLE 20 CLTTU 21 CLOTU 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 24 SACTU 25 SAPTU 26 SAOTU 27 ANFTU FORMS 0.68780 0.70707 0.0 0.0 1 .32069 1 .59197 2. 1081 1 0.42516 F0RM5 9.48684 17.65050 0.0 2.94033 16.13069 5 .99040 4 .53391 14.11524 F0RM5 0.52190 0.74826 0.0 1 .67107 0.64131 0.71593 1 .44842 0.52419 F0RM7 8.87429 17.04990 3.221 13 7 . 42935 21.37920 10.95952 6.30218 23.80600 F0RM7 0.51753 0.53352 1 .80659 1 . 306 12 0.58406 0.66636 0.93263 0.65738 ALL GPS. 10.14352 16.92677 1 .85972 4 .61305 16.24619 8.21612 4 .76529 17.51434 ALL GPS. 0.57938 0.64909 3. 12910 1 .85819 O. 71365 0.84707 1 .27451 0.56891 01 00 BMDP7M ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT WITHIN CORRELATION MATRIX CLTTU CLOTU SAITU SAATU SACTU 20 21 22 23 CLTTU 20 1 OOOOO CLOTU 21 -0 23138 1 OOOOO SAITU 22 -0 02301 0 01 154 1 OOOOO SAATU 23 -0 12752 0 29923 0 00266 1 OOOOO SACTU 24 -0 15396 0 12704 -0 19974 -0 16337 1 SAPTU 25 -o 02070 0 06546 -0 201 16 0 27467 0 SAOTU 26 -0 00223 0 37098 0 03229 0 47504 0 ANFTU 27 -o 00536 0 23894 -0 29423 O 29866 0 24 WITHIN COVARIANCE MATRIX CLTTU CLOTU SAITU SAATU SACTU 20 21 22 23 CLTTU 20 102 89203 CLOTU 21 -39 72757 286.51740 SAITU 22 -0 43414 0.36315 3 45857 SAATU 23 -5 96710 23.36528 0 02285 21 28029 SACTU 24 -25 37133 34.93514 -6 03480 - 12 24406 263 SAPTU 25 -1 72556 9.10427 -3 07368 10 41027 23 SAOTU 26 -O 10781 29.92346 0 28612 10 44258 17 ANFTU 27 -0 95247 70.83820 -9 58356 24 13043 89 STEP NUMBER 0 VARIABLE F TO FORCE TOLERANCE * VARIABLE F TO 24 DF = REMOVE LEVEL 2 58 20 CLTTU 21 CLOTU 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 24 SACTU 25 SAPTU 26 SAOTU 27 ANFTU 13593 FORCE ENTER LEVEL DF= 2 57 0.066 1 .824 6. 128 7.970 17.450 1 1 .351 6.733 1 .526 SAPTU 25 SAOTU 26 ANFTU 27 1 . OOOOO 0. 30667 0.26122 1 . OOOOO O. 34278 1.OOOOO SAPTU 25 SAOTU 26 ANFTU 67.50469 12.00668 37.59030 22.70805 28.60842 306.75335 TOLERANCE 1.000000 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO BMDP7M ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT STEP NUMBER 1 VARIABLE ENTERED VARIABLE 24 SACTU DF = 24 SACTU F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL 2 57 17.450 1 TOLERANCE 1.OOOOOO U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC 0.6202433 17.450 MATRIX FORMS F0RM5 13.13 F0RM7 34.25 4.97 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS DEGREES OF FREEDOM F0RM5 GROUP VARIABLE 24 SACTU CONSTANT F0RM3 0.02477 -1 .17958 F0RM5 O.09530 -2.29712 VARIABLE 20 CLTTU 21 CLOTU 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 25 SAPTU 26 SAOTU 27 ANFTU DF = DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 57 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 2 56 0.343 0.760 7.298 7.911 4 .998 2.210 1 .225 1 2 2.00 F0RM7 0. 13869 -3.63688 TOLERANCE 0.976297 0.983861 0.960104 0.973309 0.969958 0.949953 0.900295 57 57 .00 o BMDP7M ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT STEP NUMBER 2 VARIABLE ENTERED VARIABLE 23 SAATU 24 SACTU 23 SAATU F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 2 56 7.911 1 17.245 1 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC TOLERANCE 0.973309 0.973309 0.4836054 12.264 * VARIABLE F TO FORCE TOLERANCE * ENTER LEVEL * DF = 2 55 * ' 20 CLTTU 0.741 1 0.952349 * 2 1 CLOTU 0.336 1 0 878663 * 22 SAITU 6.045 1 0.959182 * 25 SAPTU 1.628 1 0.875641 26 SAOTU 0.194 1 0.681053 * 27 ANFTU 2.518 1 0.774255 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 2 57 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 4.00 112.00 MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 56 F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM5 8.08 F0RM7 28.72 7.16 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP = VARIABLE 23 SAATU 24 SACTU CONSTANT STEP NUMBER 3 VARIABLE ENTERED VARIABLE 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 24 SACTU DF' F0RM3 0.01464 0.02545 -1 .18180 22 SAITU F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL 2 55 6.045 1 6.628 1 18.776 1 F0RM5 O. 14129 O. 10185 -2.50385 TOLERANCE 0.959182 O.972374 0.933587 F0RM7 0.35661 O. 15523 -4.95387 VARIABLE 20 CLTTU 21 CLOTU 25 SAPTU 26 SAOTU 27 ANFTU DF = F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 2 54 0.831 0.353 2.390 0.229 2. 127 TOLERANCE 0.948785 0.876383 0.849873 0.672090 0.723624 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA O.3964562 DEGREES OF FREEDOM APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC 10.783 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 2 .00 57 110.00 MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM 55 F0RM5 F0RM7 F0RM3 5.49 25. 15 F0RM5 8.96 BMDP7M ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP VARIABLE 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 24 SACTU FORM3 0.04619 0.01522 0.02653 CONSTANT - 1. 18534 CLASSIFICATION MATRIX F0RM5 O. 18431 0. 14358 O. 10617 -2.56019 F0RM7 0.81739 0.36676 O.17439 -6.06210 INCORRECT CLASSIFICATIONS MAHALANOBIS D-SOUARE FROM AND POSTERIOR PROBABILITY FOR GROUP GROUP F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM7 TOTAL PERCENT CORRECT 95.0 50.0 65.0 70.0 NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO GROUP -F0RM3 19 7 O 26 F0RM5 1 10 7 18 F0RM7 O 3 13 16 GROUP F0RM3 CASE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 GROUP F0RM5 F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM5 o. 2 0. 793 2 . 9 0. 201 0. 0 0. 7 18 2 . 0 0. 270 0. 0 0. 743 2 . 2 0. 247 0. 0 0. 703 1 . 8 0. 284 0. 4 0. 489 0. .5 0. 467 o. 2 0. 793 2 . 9 0. 201 o. 0 0. 627 1 . .2 0. 352 0 2 0. 793 2. 9 0. 201 o. 4 0. 504 O. 6 0. 455 0 2 0. 793 2 ,9 0. 201 0. .0 0. 722 2 0 0. 267 0 0 0. 734 2 . 1 0. 255 0 .0 0. 726 2 O 0. 264 0 .3 0. 519 0 .6 0. 443 0. .2 0. 793 2 .9 0. 201 0 .2 0. 793 2 .9 0. 201 0 1 0. 601 1 0 0. 374 0 2 0. 793 2 .9 0 201 0. .2 0. 793 2 .9 0. 201 3 .0 0. 170 O . 4 0 637 F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM7 9 9 O . 0 0 6 8 3 0 . 0 1 1 8 . 8 0 . 0 0 9 8 . 0 0 . 0 1 3 5 . 2 0 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 0 6 . 8 0 . 0 2 1 . 9 0 . 0 0 6 0 O 4 1 0 . 0 0 6 O . O I 1 0 . 0 1 0 O . O 1 1 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 0 0 6 . 9 0 . 0 0 6 . 5 0 . 0 2 4 . 9 0 . 0 0 6 . 9 0 . 0 0 6 . 8 0 . 1 9 J F 0 R M 7 CASE 21 5. ,5 0. 074 1 . .3 0. .587 7 . 4 0 . 3 3 8 22 F0RHI3 0. 8 0. 5 19 1 . 2 0 426 5 . 3 0 055 23 F0RM7 17 4 0 001 8 .4 0. .072 3 r 3 0 927 24 0 6 0 453 0 .4 0 495 4 g 0 . .052 25 4 0 0. 104 O 8 0. 5 19 I 4 0 . 3 7 7 26 4 6 0. 080 0 9 0 492 1 . 2 0 428 27 3 . 9 O. 126 O . 7 0 630 2 . G i) .214 28 F0RM3 0 .4 0 487 0 5 0. 468 5 2 0 .04 4 29 F0RM7 8 1 0. 02 1 2 3 0 357 ! . 2 0 .623 30 1 . 8 0 , 265 0 .2 0 .612 3 . 4 0 . 123 31 F0RM7 1 1 1 o. .006 4 .3 0. , 193 1 . 4 o . 801 32 0 .9 0 396 0 .3 0. .536 4 . 4 0 .068 33 F0RM3 0 .0 0 722 2 .0 0 267 8 . 4 0 O i l 34 F0RM3 0 .0 0 739 2. . 2 0. . 251 8 . 7 0 010 35 F0RM3 0 2 o. 54 1 0 7 0. 425 5 .8 0 034 36 2 5 0. 202 O. 3 O. 633 3 .O 0 . 164 37 1 . .7 0. 274 0. 2 0. 608 3 . 4 0 . 1 18 38 F0RM3 O 3 0. 518 O. 6 0. 444 5 . 5 0 . 038 39 O. 6 0. 445 0. 4 0. 501 4 . 8 0 . 054 40 FORMS O. ,2 0. 793 2 . 9 0. 201 9 . 9 0 . 006 BMDP7M ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT POINTS TO BE PLOTTED GROUP FORM3 FORM5 FORM7 MEAN COORDINATES 1.33 0.19 0.13 -0.33 -1.47 0.14 SYMBOL FOR CASES A B C SYMBOL FOR MEAN 1 2 3 GROUP F0RM3 CASE CASE 1 1 .67 0. 40 11 1 ,42 0. 25 2 1 .41 0. 24 12 1 46 0 27 3 1 .49 0. 29 13 1 . .44 0. 26 4 1 .37 0. 21 14 0 .87 -0. 09 5 0. .80 -o. 14 15 1 . .67 0. 40 6 1 . .67 0. 40 16 1 .67 0. 40 7 1 . 15 O. 08 17 1 .08 0. ,04 8 1 .67 0. 40 18 1 .67 0 40 9 O .84 -0. 12 19 1 .67 0. .40 10 1 .67 0. 40 20 -0 . 10 -0 .69 GROUP F0RM5 CASE CASE 21 -o. 59 - 1 . ,00 31 -1 . 78 -0, .87 22 0. 73 0. 31 32 0. 57 -0 28 23 -2. 57 -1 . , 11 33 1 . 42 0. .25 24 0. 71 -0. 19 34 1 . 48 0 .28 25 -0. 52 -0. ,28 35 O. 93 -0 .06 26 -0. .66 -0 .36 36 0. .02 -0 .62 27 -0. .29 -o .81 37 0. 25 -0 .48 28 0 .80 -0 . 14 38 0. 87 -0 .09 29 - 1 .27 -o. .95 39 o. 69 -0 .20 30 0 22 -0 .50 40 1 67 0 .40 GROUP F0RM7 CASE CASE 41 -0. 30 1 . 48 51 -2 . 34 1 . 96 42 - 1 . 13 -0. 31 52 - 1 . 63 0. 10 43 -2 . 83 -1 . 85 53 0. 72 -0. 19 44 -o. 19 -0. 19 54 -0. 24 -0. 25 45 -3 .49 O. 98 55 -3 . 09 4 . 74 46 -2. . 13 -1 . 95 56 -0. 79 -1 . 12 47 0 .29 O, .65 57 0 .06 -0. 59 48 -2 .28 0 .56 58 -2 .01 -1 . 88 49 -1 .65 -1 .65 59 -0 .82 -o 74 50 -2 .85 0 .87 60 -2 .61 2 . 26 BMDP7M ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT GROUP FORM7 FORM3 FORM5 FORM7 CASE 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 EIGENVALUES 1.38107 0.05933 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF TOTAL DISPERSION 0.95881 I.OOOOO CANONICAL CORRELATIONS 0.76159 0.23667 COEFFICIENTS FOR CANONICAL VARIABLES 4. 4 0. 232 3. 6 0. 352 3. 3 0. 7 . 3 O. 032 2 . 6 0. 336 1 . 3 0. 21 . 7 0. 000 1 1 . 3 0. 068 6. 0 0. F0RM5 2 . 7 0. 178 0. 4 0. 570 2 . 0 0. 50. 0 0. 000 41 . 0 0. 006 30. 9 0. 17. 7 0. 002 8. 9 0. 189 6 . 0 0. F0RM5 3. 9 0. 395 3. 6 0. 461 5. 9 0. 14 3 0. 002 7 . 7 0. 052 1 . .9 0 13. .2 0. 008 5. .8 0. 301 4 .10 23 .9 0. 000 16 3 0. 019 8 .4 0 17 .8 O. 002 12 .6 0. 025 5 .2 O 13 .3 0. .010 7 .8 0. , 161 4 .6 0 F0RM5 0 .6 0. 457 0 .4 0 .492 4 .9 O F0RM5 2 .9 O . 162 O .3 0 .570 1 .8 O 45 .5 O OOO 41 .4 0 .002 29 .0 O F0RM5 6 .7 0 .051 1 .9 0 .543 2 .5 0 F0RM5 2 .4 0 .215 0 .2 0 .630 3 .0 0 16 .6 0 .003 8 . 1 0 .213 5 .5 .0 F0RM5 5 .5 0 .054 1 . 1 0 .489 1 .2 0 21 .0 0 .001 15 .4 0 .014 7 .0 0 VARIABLE 22 SAITU 23 SAATU 24 SACTU CONSTANT GROUP F0RM3 F0RM5 F0RM7 -0.28237 -O.12648 -O.05232 1 .67292 0.37973 0.04368 -0.03239 0.40314 155 CANONICAL VARIABLES EVALUATED AT GROUP MEANS 1.33087 0.19141 O.13433 -0.33460 -1.46520 0.14319 ON BMDP7H ADVERBIAL DISCRIMINANT OVERLAP OF DIFFERENT GROUPS IS INDICATED BY • C C B *A A 1 B A C B B C 2 B B BC C B A C B ..+....+....+....+....+....*.. . .*• ...+....•....•....•.. ...•.... + .. . . * - . • . * • - - . * . • -4.4 -3.G -2 8 -2.0 -1.2 -.40 .40 1.2 2.0 2.8 3.S A p p e n d i x L R e s u l t s o f d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on n o m i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n between two modes o f w r i t i n g BMDP7M NOMI.MODE DISCRIMINANT MEANS GROUP = NARRAT VARIABLE 4 1 NNGN 44.G3304 42 NAGN 99.64052 43 NGGN 88 12291 44 NRGN 16.27165 45 APGN 4.85550 46 PPGN 45.17574 47 NFGN 3.62854 48 PAGN 16.54985 49 CLGN 43.09517 50 IFGN 13.97403 51 FSGN 3.75800 52 GRGN 12.94663 COUNTS 20. STANDARD DEVIATIONS GROUP = NARRAT VARIABLE 41 NNGN 4 2 NAGN 4 3 NGGN 44 NRGN 45 APGN 46 PPGN 47 NFGN 48 PAGN 49 CLGN 50 IFGN 51 FSGN 52 GRGN COEFFICIENTS GROUP » NARRAT VARIABLE 41 NNGN 0. 48991 42 NAGN 0. 34822 4 3 NGGN 0. 31391 44 NRGN 0. 58473 45 APGN 1 . 10214 46 PPGN O. 55077 47 NFGN 1 . 22773 48 PAGN 0 81454 49 CLGN 0 .41393 50 IFGN 0 .79364 51 FSGN 1 .11695 52 GRGN 0 .62902 EXPOSI ALL GPS. 45 .20073 44 .91689 207 .70190 153 .67122 126 .77016 107 .44653 21 .93123 19 .10144 5 .25011 5 .05280 88 .54561 66. .86067 7 .24620 5. .43737 17 .70718 17. .12851 35 .38390 39 ,23953 21 .25497 17. ,61450 4 .25553 4. 00677 32 .10487 22. .52576 20. 40. EXPOSI ALL GPS. 24 .07884 22. 99915 54 .20468 45. 50842 56, .60591 44 . 55009 11 . 79059 10. 71314 5 .38928 5. 3704 1 44 .78316 36. 22577 6 .35197 5. 48604 17 .52156 15. 63214 17 .28937 17. 56590 19. .85928 16. 08395 4. .54778 4. 37614 20. .47563 15. 58158 EXPOSI ALL GPS. 0 53271 0. 51204 0 26097 0. 29614 0 ,44652 0. 41463 0. 53762 0. 56086 1 . 02651 1 . 06286 0. .50576 O. 54 181 0 .87659 1 . 00895 0 .98952 0. 91264 0 .48862 0. 44766 0 .93434 0. 91311 1 .06867 1 . 09219 0 .63777 0. 69172 21 .86624 34.69722 27.66235 9.51447 5.35147 24.88135 4.45486 13.48046 17.83818 11.09034 4.19750 8.14374 OF VARIATION NOMI.MODE DISCRIMINANT WITHIN CORRELATION MATRIX NNGN NAGN NGGN NRGN 41 42 43 44 NNGN 4 1 1 . OOOOO NAGN 42 0. 17736 1 . OOOOO NGGN 43 -o. 10761 0. 22781 1 . OOOOO NRGN 44 -o. 20327 0. 35952 0. 18864 1 . OOOOO APGN 45 -0. 02799 0. 17662 0. 16085 0. 10945 PPGN 46 O. 47996 0. 46862 0. 02346 0. 14453 NFGN 47 -O. 02633 0. 15376 0. 38589 0. 10897 PAGN 48 O. 52350 O. 39299 -0. 14320 -o. 074 14 CLGN 49 -0. 09546 -0. 12998 -0. 12198 0. 22314 IFGN 50 -0. 30364 -0. 12697 0. 45173 0. 19390 FSGN 51 -0. 18628 -0. 02441 0. 13395 0. 27487 GRGN 52 0. 04258 0. 39550 0. 02881 0. 36358 IFGN FSGN GRGN 50 51 52 IFGN 50 1 . OOOOO FSGN 51 0. 28104 1 . OOOOO GRGN 52 -o. 17781 -0. 14251 1 . OOOOO WITHIN COVARIANCE MATRIX NNGN NAGN NGGN NRGN 41 42 43 44 NNGN 41 528 .96275 NAGN 42 185 .63220 2071 .02481 NGGN 43 -1 10 .25792 461 .87290 1984 .71922 NRGN 44 -50 .08496 175 .27960 90 .03353 1 14 . 77168 APGN 45 -3 .45705 43 .16687 38 .48495 6 .29685 PPGN 46 399 .88179 772 .55798 37 .86029 56 .08938 NFGN 47 . -3 .32263 38 .38802 94 .31334 6 .40428 PAGN 48 188 .21286 279 .56976 -99 .72658 -12 .41685 CLGN 49 -38 .56614 -103 .90380 -95 .45869 4 1 .99134 IFGN 50 -112 .321 14 -92 .93625 323 .68668 33 .41085 FSGN 51 -18 .74882 -4 .86073 26 .11447 12 .88678 GRGN 52 15 .26076 280 .44988 19 .99880 60 .69207 IFGN FSGN GRGN 50 51 52 IFGN 50 258 .69427 FSGN 51 19 .78105 19 . 15071 GRGN 52 -44 .56207 -9 .71738 242 . 78655 APGN PPGN NFGN PAGN CLGN 45 46 47 48 49 1.OOOOO -0.16678 1 . OOOOO 0.16098 0. 04213 1 . OOOOO -0.15000 0. 55263 -O. 022 19 1 . OOOOO -0.14470 0. 01573 -0. 10497 -0. 18833 1 . OOOOO 0.01799 -0. 14096 0. 14585 -o. 25728 0. 15857 0.04424 -0. 14340 0. 14490 -0. 1 1929 0. 30142 0.12041 0. 28089 0. 06775 0. 32289 0. 24033 APGN PPGN NFGN PAGN CLGN 45 46 47 48 49 28.84135 -32.44597 1312 .30836 4.74295 8 .37310 30 .09676 -12.59234 312 .94493 -1 .90326 244 .36456 -13.65049 10 .00748 -10 .11525 -51 .71467 308 .56244 1 .55413 -82 .13169 12 .86922 -64 .68645 44 .80218 1.03981 -22 .73239 3 .47880 -8 .16054 23 .17047 10.07569 158 .55183 5 .79098 78 .64787 65 .78007 CO BMDP7M NOMI.MODE DISCRIMINANT STEP NUMBER VARIABLE O F TO FORCE TOLERANCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 1 39 STEP NUMBER 1 VARIABLE ENTERED 42 NAGN VARIABLE F TO FORCE TOLERANCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 1 38 42 NAGN 56.384 1 1.000000 VARIABLE 41 NNGN 42 NAGN 43 NGGN 44 NRGN 45 APGN 46 PPGN 47 NFGN 48 PAGN 49 CLGN 50 IFGN 51 FSGN 52 GRGN VARIABLE 41 NNGN 43 NGGN 44 NRGN 45 APGN 46 PPGN 47 NFGN 48 PAGN 49 CLGN 50 IFGN 51 FSGN 52 GRGN DF = DF = F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 1 38 O.006 56.384 7.526 2.791 0.054 14.333 4.348 0.055 1 .927 2.049 O. 129 15. 1 18 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 1 37 0.636 0.441 0.477 0.484 0.036 0.348 3.422 0.068 2.266 0. 1 16 0.392 TOLERANCE 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1 .OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO TOLERANCE 0.968545 0.948101 O.870747 O.968804 O.780396 0.976358 0.845561 0.983106 0.983879 0.999405 0.843577 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC 0.4026107 56.384 MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 38 1 1 1 .00 38 38.00 NARRAT EXPOSI 56.38 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP VARIABLE 42 NAGN CONSTANT NARRAT 0.04811 -3.09008 EXPOSI O.10029 11.10829 CLASSIFICATION MATRIX GROUP NARRAT EXPOSI PERCENT CORRECT 95.0 90.0 NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO GROUP NARRAT 19 2 EXPOSI 1 18 ON VO TOTAL 92.5 21 19 BMDP7M NOMI.MODE DISCRIMINANT INCORRECT CLASSIFICATIONS GROUP NARRAT CASE NARRAT MAHALANOBIS D-SOUARE FROM AND POSTERIOR PROBABILITY FOR GROUP EXPOSI EIGENVALUES 1.48379 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF TOTAL DISPERSION 1 0. 5 0. 743 2. 7 0 257 1 . 00000 2 0. 0 0. 951 5. 9 0. 049 3 ' O. 0 0. 922 5. 0 0 078 CANONICAL CORRELATIONS 4 EXPOSI 4 7 0. 090 0. 0 0 910 77291 5 O 4 0. 986 8 . 9 0 014 0 6 0 0 0 930 5. 2 0 070 7 0 9 0 638 2 0 0 362 VARIABLE COEFFICIENTS FOR CANONICAL VARIABLES 8 0 0 0 912 4 7 0 088 9 0 0 0. 953 6 0 0 047 4 2 NAGN -O 02197 10 0 2 0. 846 3 6 0 154 1 1 0 4 0 787 3 0 0 213 CONSTANT 3 .37676 12 1 3 0 1 0 975 7 4 0 025 0 4 0 986 8 9 0 014 GROUP CANONICAL VARIABLES EVALUATED AT GROUP MEANS 14 0 1 0 976 7 5 0 024 NARRAT 1 . 18727 15 0 1 0 976 7 5 0 024 EXPOSI -1 .18727 16 0 8 0 993 10 7 0 007 17 0 1 0 881 4 1 0 119 POINTS TO BE PLOTTED 18 0 2 0 980 7 9 0 020 19 1 1 0 995 1 1 8 0 005 GROUP MEAN SYMBOL SYMBOL 20 0 8 0 993 10 9 0 007 COORDINATES FOR CASES FOR MEAN GROUP EXPOSI NARRAT EXPOSI NARRAT 1 . 19 0.0 N 1 CASE EXPOSI 1 . 19 0.0 E 2 21 NARRAT 1 3 0 536 1 6 0 464 22 1 6 0 449 1 2 0 551 GROUP NARRAT GROUP EXPOSI 23 33 7 0 000 1 1 8 1 000 CASE CAN.V CASE CAN.V CASE CAN.V CASE CAN.V 24 2 7 0 253 0 5 0 747 25 7 9 0 020 0 2 0 980 1 0.45 11 0.55 21 0.06 31 - 1 .03 26 16 9 0 001 3 0 0 999 2 1 .25 12 1 .54 22 -0.09 32 -1 .29 27 4 9 0 082 0 0 0 918 3 1 .04 13 1 .79 23 -4.62 33 0. 18 28 3 0 0 219 0 4 0 781 4 -0.98 14 1 .56 24 -0.46 34 -0. 17 29 3 .5 0 161 0 2 0 839 5 1 .79 15 1 . 56 25 -1.63 35 -2.23 30 4 . 1 0 123 0 1 0 877 6 1 .09 16 2.08 26 -2.93 36 -1 .33 31 4 .9 0 .080 0 0 0 920 7 0.24 17 0.84 27 -1.02 37 -1 .75 32 6 . 1 o .045 0 0 0 955 8 0.98 18 1 .63 28 -0.54 38 -0.28 33 NARRAT 1 .0 0 604 1 9 0 .396 9 1 . 26 19 2.25 29 -0.70 39 -0.47 34 1 .8 0 .402 1 0 0 .598 IO' 0.72 20 2.11 30 -0.83 40 -2 .64 35 1 1 .7 0 .005 1 . 1 0 .995 H1 36 6 .4 0 .040 0 .0 0 .960 O 37 8 .6 0 .016 0 .3 0 .984 38 2 . 1 0 .340 0 .8 0 .660 39 2 .7 0 .247 0 .5 0 .753 40 14 .7 0 .002 2 . 1 0 .998 BMDP7M NOMI.MODE DISCRIMINANT HISTOGRAM OF CANONICAL VARIABLE E E E ..+....+....•....+....+....+... -3.85 -3.15 -2.45 -4.20 -3.50 -2.80 E E E N E E EE EN E E EE E EE E N N N N N NNN N .+..2.+....+....+\...+....+..••+••••+•1••*••• -1.75 -1.05 .350 .350 1.05 -1.40 -.700 0.00 .700 1.40 N N N NN N 1 .75 N N N .+....+... 2.45 2 . 10 . + -2. 10 A p p e n d i x M R e s u l t s o f d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on a d v e r b i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n between two modes o f w r i t i n g BMDP7M ADV.MODE DISCRIMINANT MEANS GROUP = NAHRAT EXPOSI ALL GPS. VARIABLE 29 GCLT 30.46304 22 . 05986 26. 26144 30 GCLO 23.07304 55. 15970 39. 11638 31 GSAI 1.78299 0. 0 0. .89150 32 GSAA 3.25821 4 . 18946 3. 72383 33 GSAC 15.61741 52. .67766 34 . , 14754 34 GSAP 8.41250 20 .68599 14 .54924 35 GSAO 3.78570 7. .43105 5 .60838 36 GANF 31.84639 60 .51056 46 . 17848 COUNTS 20. 20. 40. STANDARD DEVIATIONS GROUP = NARRAT EXPOSI ALL GPS. VARIABLE 29 GCLT 14.50654 11.58378 13. 12672 30 GCLO 14.46130 20.85333 17. 94421 31 GSAI 3.22113 0.0 2. 27769 32 GSAA 4.24458 6.07632 5. 24109 33 GSAC 16.23795 20.60706 18. 55156 34 GSAP 7.89910 11 .65519 9. 95588 35 GSAO 3.62722 7.56044 5. 92946 36 GANF 13.58285 25.33493 20. 32674 COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION GROUP » NARRAT EXPOSI ALL . GPS. VARIABLE 29 GCLT 0.47620 0.5251 1 0. 49985 30 GCLO 0.62676 0.37805 0. 45874 31 GSAI 1.80659 0.0 2. 55490 32 GSAA 1 .30273 1.45038 1 . 40744 33 GSAC 1 .03973 0.391 19 0. 54328 34 GSAP 0.93897 0.56343 0. 68429 35 GSAO 0.95814 1.01741 1 . 05725 36 GANF 0.42651 0.41869 0. 44018 —I BMDP7M ADV.MODE DISCRIMINANT WITHIN CORRELATION MATRIX GCLT GCLO GSAI 29 30 31 GCLT 29 1 00000 GCLO 30 -0 12949 1 OOOOO 1 .OOOOO GSAI 31 0 10707 0 05861 GSAA 32 -0 02310 0 54639 -0.02166 GSAC 33 -0 24186 0 14997 -0.08797 GSAP 34 0 10503 0 03899 -0.06560 GSAO 35 -0 23925 0 22225 0.06964 GANF 36 -o 06797 0 18222 0.14290 GSAA 32 1 .OOOOO O. 13852 0.08 159 0.56105 0.33348 GSAC 33 1 . OOOOO O. 16763 O. 29388 0.27764 GSAP 34 1 .OOOOO 0.30514 O. 16267 GSAO 35 1 . OOOOO 0. 34525 GANF 36 1.OOOOO WITHIN COVARIANCE MATRIX GCLT GCLT GCLO GSAI GSAA GSAC GSAP GSAO GANF 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 STEP NUMBER VARIABLE 29 172.31194 -30.50114 3.20135 -1 .58922 -58.89857 13.72594 -18.62226 -18.13616 GCLO 30 321 .99589 2.39557 51.38706 49.92331 6.96632 23.64684 66.46346 DF' F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL 1 39 TOLERANCE GSAI GSAA 31 32 5 18786 -0 25861 27 46912 -3 71719 13 46830 -1 48749 4 25731 0 94059 17 43557 6 61617 35 52687 GSAC 33 VARIABLE 29 GCLT 30 GCLO 31 GSAI 32 GSAA 33 GSAC 34 GSAP 35 GSAO 36 GANF 344.16192 30.96000 32.32703 104.69489 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL DF = 1 38 4 .098 31 .974 6. 128 0.316 39.907 15.198 3.780 19.886 GSAP 34 99.11967 18.01323 32.91941 TOLERANCE 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO GSAO GANF 35 36 3?.15854 41 61165 413. 17729 BMDP7M ADV.MODE DISCRIMINANT STEP NUMBER 1 VARIABLE ENTERED 33 GSAC VARIABLE 33 GSAC F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 1 38 39.907 1 TOLERANCE 1.000000 VARIABLE 29 GCLT 30 GCLO 31 GSAI 32 GSAA 34 GSAP 35 GSAO 36 GANF DF = F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 1 37 O. 124 10.765 1 .764 0.047 3.940 0.004 3.766 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC 0.4877581 39.907 F - MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM NARRAT EXPOSI 39.91 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP = VARIABLE 33 GSAC NARRAT 0.04538 -1.04749 CONSTANT STEP NUMBER 2 VARIABLE ENTERED 30 GCLO VARIABLE 30 GCLO 33 GSAC F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL DF« 1 37 10.765 1 16.181 1 0.977510 0.977510 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC . 3778279 30.464 DEGREES OF DEGREES OF 38 FREEDOM FREEDOM EXPOSI O.15306 -4.72459 TOLERANCE * VARIABLE DF = 29 31 32 34 35 36 GCLT GSAI GSAA GSAP GSAO GANF TOLERANCE 0.94 1504 0.977510 0.992261 0.980813 0.971902 0.913635 0.922918 1 1 1 .OO 38 38.00 MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 37 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 1 36 0.001 1 .861 4. 148 2 .832 0.241 1 .632 2 1 2.00 TOLERANCE 932614 986986 698179 971705 881 159 0.902701 38 37 .00 EXPOSI NARRAT 30.46 BMDP7M ADV.MODE DISCRIMINANT CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP = NARRAT VARIABLE 30 GCLO 0.06611 33 GSAC O.03579 CONSTANT -1.73526 STEP NUMBER 3 VARIABLE ENTERED 32 GSAA VARIABLE 30 GCLO 32 GSAA 33 GSAC F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 1 36 15.762 1 4.148 1 15.058 1 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC EXPOSI O. 15097 O. 131 16 -8.31151 TOLERANCE 0.695828 0.698179 0.972947 0.3387950 23.420 F - MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM NARRAT EXPOSI 23.42 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP VARIABLE 30 GCLO 32 GSAA 33 GSAC NARRAT 0.071 19 -O.03237 0.03632 CONSTANT -1.74531 CLASSIFICATION MATRIX EXPOSI O. 19466 -0.27818 O. 13571 -9.05354 VARIABLE 0F = 29 GCLT 31 GSAI 34 GSAP 35 GSAO 36 GANF DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 36 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 1 35 0.013 1 .922 2.863 0.461 3. 196 3 1 3.00 GROUP NARRAT EXPOSI PERCENT CORRECT 90.0 85.0 NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO GROUP NARRAT 18 3 EXPOSI 2 17 TOLERANCE 0.927367 0.983674 0.967992 0.623020 0.833738 38 36 .00 TOTAL 87.5 21 19 BM0P7M ADV.MODE DISCRIMINANT INCORRECT MAHALANOBIS D-SOUARE FROM AND CLASSIFICATIONS POSTERIOR PROBABILITY FOR GROUP -GROUP NARRAT NARRAT EXPOSI CASE 1 0.7 0.992 10.2 0.008 EIGENVALUES 2 1.O 0.998 13.2 0.002 3 EXPOSI 3.7 0.181 0.7 0.819 1 9 g l c d 4 0.6 0.993 10.5 0.007 6 O.t 0.987 'I'.l o i o U CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF TOTAL DISPERSION 7 1.5 0.977 9.0 0.023 8 0.3 0.978 7.9 0.022 w u w 9 EXPOSI 9.0 0.142 5.4 0.858 10 1.2 0.893 5.5 O.107 11 2.9 0.994 13.2 0.006 12 1.3 0.998 13.9 0.002 13 1.1 0.998 13.1 0.002 14 0.6 0.981 8.4 0.019 ,15 0.8 0.987 9.4 0.013 16 5.2 0.822 8.3 O.178 17 0.7 0.995 11.3 0.005 18 1.2 0.816 4.2 0.184 19 1.8 0.999 15.9 0.001 20 1.2 0.930 6.4 O 070 GROUP EXPOSI NARRAT EXPOSI CASE 21 NARRAT 1 . 7 0. 812 4 . 6 0. 188 22 3. 4 0. 333 2 . 0 0. 667 23 20 9 0. 002 8 . 2 0. 998 24 3 8 0. 254 1 7 0. 746 25 18 1 0 046 12 1 0 954 26 17 4 0 001 4 3 0 999 27 NARRAT 2 1 0 587 2 8 0 4 13 28 9 7 0 Ol 1 0 8 0 989 29 5 6 O 250 3 4 0 750 30 5 2 O 160 1 8 0 840 31 15 5 O OOI 2 3 0 999 32 14 0 O 009 4 6 0 991 33 NARRAT 2 2 O 634 3 3 0 366 34 10 9 0 013 2 3 0 987 35 15 4 O 015 7 0 0 985 36 19 5 0 000 3 5 1 000 37 21 0 O OOO 4 3 1 000 38 19 .4 0 OOO 3 6 1 000 39 10 .O 0 010 O 8 0 990 40 6 .7 O 051 0 8 O 949 BMDP7M ADV.MODE DISCRIMINANT CANONICAL CORRELATIONS O.81315 VARIABLE COEFFICIENTS FOR CANONICAL VARIABLES 30 GCLO -0.04534 32 GSAA 0.09026 33 GSAC -0.03650 CONSTANT 2.68362 GROUP CANONICAL VARIABLES EVALUATED AT GROUP MEANS NARRAT 1.36164 EXPOSI -1.36164 POINTS TO BE PLOTTED GROUP MEAN SYMBOL SYMBOL COORDINATES FOR CASES FOR MEAN NARRAT 1 .36 0.0 EXPOSI -1 .36 0.0 GROUP NARRAT CASE CAN.V CASE CAN.V 1 1 .75 11 1.91 2 2.24 12 2.32 3 -0.55 13 2.22 4 1 .82 14 1 .44 5 1 .42 15 1 .58 6 1 .60 16 0.56 7 1 .38 17 1 .95 8 1 .40 18 0.55 9 -0.66 19 2.58 IO 0.78 20 0.95 GROUP EXPOSI CASE CAN.V CASE CAN.V 21 0.54 31 -2.43 22 -0.26 32 - 1 .73 23 -2.33 33 0.20 24 -0.40 34 -1 .59 25 -1.12 35 -1 .54 26 -2.41 36 = 2.94 27 O. 13 37 -3.07 28 -1 .64 38 -2.90 29 -0.40 39 -1 .67 30 -0.61 40 -1 .07 N E oo BMDP7M ADV.MODE DISCRIMINANT HISTOGRAM OF CANONICAL VARIABLE E E E N NN N N E EE EEE EEEE EE NEN E E EE N N N NN NN NN N N N N .. + .... + .... + .... + .... + ... . + .2. . + . . . . + . . . . + . . . . + . . . . + . . . . - K . . . - K . . . - K . . . + ..1.+ . ... + .... + .... + + -3.0 -2,4 -1.8 -1.2 -.60 0.0 .60 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 -2.7 -2 1 -1.5 -.90 - 3 0 .30 .90 1.5 2.1 2.7 Appendix N R e s u l t s o f d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on c o o r d i n a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n between two modes o f w r i t i n g BMDP7M COOR.MODE DISCRIMINANT MEANS GROUP = VARIABLE 14 GNOM 15 GMOD 16 GPRD NARRAT 28.65784 11.27023 35.64291 EXPOSI 61.23805 39.95483 61.12250 COUNTS 20. STANDARD DEVIATIONS 20. GROUP VARIABLE 14 GNOM 15 GMOD 16 GPRD NA'JRAT 24.32831 9 . 12740 12.75763 EXPOSI 31.55190 18.93385 24.93700 COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION GROUP = VARIABLE 14 GNOM 15 GMOD 16 GPRD STEP NUMBER VARIABLE NARRAT 0.84892 0.80987 0.35793 EXPOSI 0.51523 0.47388 0.40798 DF = F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL 1 39 TOLERANCE ALL GPS. 44.94794 25.61253 48.38271 40. ALL GPS. 28.17258 14.86271 19.80670 ALL GPS. 0.62678 0.58029 0.40938 VARIABLE 14 GNOM 15 GMOD 16 GPRD DF -F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 1 38 13.374 1 37.248 1 16.548 1 TOLERANCE 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO 1.OOOOOO BMDP7M COOR.MODE DISCRIMINANT STEP NUMBER 1 VARIABLE ENTERED 15 GMOD VARIABLE 15 GMOD F TO FORCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 1 38 37.248 1 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC TOLERANCE 1.OOOOOO 0.5049984 37.248 F - MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM = NARRAT EXPOSI 37.25 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP = VARIABLE 15 GMOD CONSTANT STEP NUMBER 2 VARIABLE ENTERED NARRAT 0.05102 -0.98065 16 GPRD EXPOSI O. 18087 -4.30651 VARIABLE 15 GMOD 16 GPRD F TO FORCE TOLERANCE REMOVE LEVEL DF= 1 37 20.278 1 0.968470 4.522 1 0.968470 U-STATISTIC OR WILKS' LAMBDA APPROXIMATE F-STATISTIC 0.4500046 22.611 MATRIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM = NARRAT EXPOSI 22.61 CLASSIFICATION FUNCTIONS GROUP VARIABLE 15 GMOD 16 GPRD CONSTANT NARRAT 0.03048 0.08679 -2.41169 EXPOSI O. 14869 0. 13599 -7.81966 VARIABLE 14 GNOM 16 GPRD PF DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 38 F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL I 37 1.156 1 4.522 1 1 1 1 .00 TOLERANCE 0.866526 0.968470 38 38 .00 VARIABLE 14 GNOM DF • F TO FORCE ENTER LEVEL 1 36 0.422 1 TOLERANCE 0.837493 DEGREES OF FREEDOM DEGREES OF FREEDOM 37 2 1 2.00 38 37 .00 CLASSIFICATION MATRIX GROUP NARRAT EXPOSI TOTAL PERCENT CORRECT 100.0 80.0 90.0 NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO GROUP NARRAT 20 4 24 EXPOSI O 16 16 co K3 BMDP7M COOR.MODE DISCRIMINANT INCORRECT CLASSIFICATIONS MAHALANOBIS D-SQUARE FROM AND POSTERIOR PROBABILITY FOR GROUP GROUP NARRAT CASE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 GROUP EXPOSI CASE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NARRAT NARRAT NARRAT NARRAT NARRAT 0.7 0.981 0.8 0.916 1.7 0.824 0.8 0.593 0.6 0.937 0.2 0.803 0.2 0.951 3.2 0.781 1.40.904 2.0 0.503 0.6 O. 0.6 O. 0.6 O. 0.6 O. 0.9 0.760 0.3 0.931 0.0 0.934 0.3 0.973 0.3 0.967 O.1 0.906 NARRAT EXPOSI EIGENVALUES .979 .934 .982 .815 8 6 0 019 1 .22220 5 6 0 084 4 8 0 176 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF TOTAL DISPERSION 1 6 0 407 6 1 0 063 1.OOOOO 3 1 0 197 6 1 0 049 \ CANONICAL CORRELATIONS 5 8 0 219 5 9 0 096 O. 74162 2 1 0 497 8 3 0 021 VARIABLE COEFFICIENTS FOR CANONICAL VARIABLES 5 9 0 066 8 6 0 018 15 GMOD -0.05485 3 5 0 185 16 GPRD -0.02283 3 2 0 240 5 5 0 069 CONSTANT 2.50941 5 3 0 066 7 5 0 027 GROUP CANONICAL VARIABLES EVALUATED AT GROUP 7 0 0 033 NARRAT 1.07754 4 6 0 094 EXPOSI - 1.07754 EXPOSI POINTS TO BE PLOTTED 0 5 0 825 3 6 0 175 GROUP MEAN 3 6 0 292 1 8 0 708 COORDINATES 7 3 0 030 0 3 0 970 2 5 0 269 0 5 0 731 NARRAT 1 08 0.0 23 7 0 000 7 4 1 000 EXPOSI -1 08 0.0 0 7 0 805 3 5 0 195 8 2 0 091 3 6 0 909 GROUP NARRAT 17 2 0 017 9 1 0 983 CASE CAN.V CASE CAN.V 4 8 0 1 12 0 7 0 888 9 0 0 019 1 0 0 98 1 1 1 .83 1 1 1 .78 0 0 0 915 4 8 0 085 2 1.11 12 1 . 23 6 8 0 046 0 7 0 954 3 0.72 13 1 .85 7 5 0 146 4 0 0 854 4 0. 18 14 0.69 22 0 0 000 6 4 1 000 5 1 [25 15 0.53 1 4 0 572 2 0 0 428 6 0.65 16 1.21 16 7 0 002 4 1 0 998 7 1 .37 17 1 .23 6 9 0 153 3 5 0 847 8 0.59 18 1 .66 3 8 0 142 O 2 0 858 9 1 .04 19 1 .57 4 4 o 239 2 1 0 761 10 0.01 20 1 .05 5 8 o 068 0 6 0 932 SYMBOL N E SYMBOL GROUP EXPOSI CASE CAN.V CASE CAN.V 21 0 72 31 1 10 22 -0 41 32 - 1 4 1 23 -1 61 33 -0 82 24 -0 46 34 -3 62 25 -3 79 35 0 14 26 0 66 36 -2 92 27 -1 07 37 -0 79 28 -1 87 38 -0 84 29 -0 96 39 -0 54 30 -1 84 40 - 1 22 oo BMDP7M COOR.MODE DISCRIMINANT HISTOGRAM OF CANONICAL VARIABLE E E E NE NE NN N P p p E E E E E E EE EEE N EN NNNN NN NN N N N NN ; . . . . . . . . + . . . . + . . . . • . . . . • . . . . + . . . . • . . . . + . 2 . . + . . . . • . . . . * . . . . • . . . . + . . . . • . . . . + . . I - + • • • • + • • -3 3 - 2 . 7 -2.1 - 1 5 - 9 0 -.30 30 .90 1.5 2- 1 -3.6 -3.0 - 2 . 4 -1.8 -1.2 - 6 0 0.0 60 1.2 1.8 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078306/manifest

Comment

Related Items