UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A micro-analysis of collocation in the interlanguage of Pakistani adults learning English as a second… Mian, A. Hafeez 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 M52.pdf [ 3.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078311.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078311-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078311-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078311-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078311-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078311-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078311-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078311-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078311.ris

Full Text

A MICRO-ANALYSIS OF COLLOCATION IN THE INTERLANGUAGE OF PAKISTANI ADULTS LEARNING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE By A. HAFEEZ MIAN B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y of the Panjab, 1969 B . E d . , Un ivers i ty of the Panjab, 1970 B . G . S . , Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1979 E . S . D . , Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES f (Department of Language Education) We accept th i s thes is as conforming to the required standard Professor N. Mary Ashworth (UBC) Dr. H. Hammerly, Associate Professor (SFU) Dr. M. E a r l y , Ass i s tant Professor (UBC) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1988 0A. Hafeez Mian, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Education The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada D a t e August 1988 DE-6 (2/88) i i A B S T R A C T A micro-analysis of the interlanguage (IL) employed by Pakistanis learning English as a second language (ESL) is performed on ten subjects' speech samples in order to gain insights into t h e i r second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Only one aspect of ESL — c o l l o c a t i o n is studied. Collocation i s idiomatic in nature and has single-lexemic function; i t is assumed therefore to present some a c q u i s i t i v e and productive d i f f i c u l t i e s for second language learners, who would tend to f a i l to recognize collocations as "fixed" expressions and to view each word within them as independent and therefore replaceable. The objective of t h i s study i s to analyze the conversational c o l l o c a t i o n errors that Pakistani-Canadians make in ESL. This study addresses the following three hypotheses: i i i 1) that in the English v a r i a t i o n in c o l l o c a t i o n across discourse domains; speech of Pakistani subjects correctness w i l l be found 2) that a continuum w i l l be found for t h i s v a r i a t i o n , running between more Target-like collocations in the Work Talk Domain / Exposition A c t i v i t y and fewer Target-like collocations in the L i f e Story Domain / Narrative A c t i v i t y ; 3) that formally educated subjects w i l l show more Target-like use of collocations than informally educated subjects. The re s u l t s of t h i s study show that there exists an IL in Pakistani-Canadians* use of the English language. The IL of Pakistani-Canadians' English seems to indicate that: 1) IL collocations are domain s p e c i f i c ; 2) Non-target-like collocations occur most often when iv r e f e r r i n g to qu a n t i f i c a t i o n ; in T-unit i n i t i a l p osition; and adjacent to p a r a l l e l contextual and/or s t r u c t u r a l forms; and they often contain a r t i c l e e l l i p s i s ; 3) In addition, t h i s study shows that formally educated subjects produce more Target-like collocations than informally educated subjects. Furthermore, t h i s study has generated some questions and highlighted areas that merit further research. V T A B L E O F " C O N T E N T S ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i I. INTRODUCTION . 1 1.1 Rationale 1 1.2 Hypotheses . . . . . 5 1.3 Terminology 6 1.4 Glossary of Abbreviations 8 1.5 Symbols 9 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . 10 III. METHODOLOGY 37 3.1 Source of Data 37 3.2 Instrument and Procedure 39 IV. IL COLLOCATION DATA ANALYSIS 4 4 4.1 Results 44 4.2 Discussion 47 4.3 Results vs. I n i t i a l Hypotheses. . . . 59 4.4 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis 60 V. CONCLUSION 6 4 Questions/Implications 67 APPENDIX A E l i c i t a t i o n Instrument 69 APPENDIX B Description of the Subjects . . . . 71 FOOTNOTES 9 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 103 v i L I S T O F 1 T A B L E S 1. TABLE I : . . . . . 8 4 Collocation Frequency 2. TABLE II : 88 Total Collocations in Ranking Order 3. TABLE I I I : 89 Target Like vs. Non-Target Like Percentages in Ranking Order 4. TABLE IV: 90 Narrative A c t i v i t y vs. Exposition A c t i v i t y and Formally Educated vs. Informally Educated v i i L I S T OF* F I G U R E S 1. FIGURE I: 41 Algorithm for the Description of Target and Non-Target Like Collocations 2. HISTOGRAM I: . 91 Target Like and Non-Target Like Collocations by Category (Narrative A c t i v i t y + Exposition A c t i v i t y Combined) 3. HISTOGRAM I I : . .92 Target Like Collocations by Category 4. HISTOGRAM I I I : 93 Target Like Collocations by Subject and/or Domain 5. HISTOGRAM IV: 94 Total Number of Collocations (Narrative A c t i v i t y vs. Exposition A c t i v i t y ) 6. HISTOGRAM V: 9 5 Total Number of Collocations (Target Like vs. Non-Target Like) 7. HISTOGRAM VI: .96 Collocation Variation Across Discourse Domains ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T H A N K — Y O U Many very special and generous people whose contributions helped t h i s research which has f i n a l l y culminated in thi s t h e s i s . I am dedicating t h i s to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. A. Rashid Mian, who are always showering t h e i r uncountable blessings upon me. GOD MOST GRACIOUS, MOST MERCIFUL Rani, my wife, and chidren, Kashif, Noreen, and A s i f , who put up with a l o t , and did a l l the advantageous and heartening things they could, so that I could study in t r a n q u i l i t y . Ms. N. Mary Ashworth, my faculty Advisor and the best teacher ever, whose constant encouragement, munificience, diligence, forbearance, and, some times, a shoulder, made i t possible. -1-CHAPTER I I N T R O D U G T I O N 1.1: RATIONALE Any study of errors involving a language i s important for two reasons. The f i r s t reason involves the pedagogical aspect of language, that i s , to discover the structures and/or concepts that are troublesome for second language learners sharing a common language background. The second reason involves the th e o r e t i c a l aspect of language, that i s , to discover the cognitive strategies employed by second language learners in their attempts to learn and/or acquire the second or target language. Pakistani-Canadians comprise one of the largest groups of non-native speakers of English in Canada.I Among them are educators, doctors, tradesmen, accountants, businessmen and public servants working for various government agencies. They are also found in the 'blue-collar' labour force working for i n d u s t r i a l operations such as sawmills. In addition, v i s i t i n g Pakistani graduate students act as teaching assistants -2 -INTRODUCTION in the i n s t r u c t i o n of undergraduate courses. According to Professor Larry Selinker2 some of the foreign teaching ass i s tants are i n s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o f i c i e n t in o r a l Eng l i sh to carry out t h e i r duties adequately, and some of the Pakistanis f a l l in th i s same category and show lack of pro f i c i ency in the use of o r a l as wel l as writ ten E n g l i s h . The language they use, which is a unique system of communication apart from a native language and the target language, is described by Sel inker as interlanguage ( I L ) . Sel inker (1974:35) hypothesized . . . t h e existence of a separate l i n g u i s t i c system.3 based on the observable output which resu l t s from a l earner ' s attempted production of a TL norm. This l i n g u i s t i c system we w i l l c a l l ' interlanguage' (IL).4 Interlanguage is evident in a systematic pattern of language s tructures which has been created by the speaker. This pattern may or may not be native language or target language-l ike but rather s p e c i f i c to or created by the IL user. Furthermore, Tarone (1982, 1984) has suggested that d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c environments w i l l a f f ec t the IL of -3-INTRODUCTION an i n d i v i d u a l . Tarone (1982:82) suggests t h a t interlanguage i s a continuum of s t y l e s along which the l e a r n e r s h i f t s v a r i a b l y . She suggests t h a t the v e r n a c u l a r i s the most sy s t e m a t i c form of IL. A m i c r o - a n a l y s i s of the i n t e r l a n g u a g e ( s ) (IL) employed by some of these P a k i s t a n i s might provide v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e i r second language a c q u i s i t i o n s (SLA). However, i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s t o undertake, study, and present a l l a s p e c t s of IL employed by P a k i s t a n i - C a n a d i a n s . One area worthy of a n a l y s i s r e s t s i n the use of word a s s o c i a t i o n s , or " c o l l o c a t i o n s " * as they are u s u a l l y termed. C o l l o c a t i o n s , due to t h e i r i d i o m a t i c nature and s i n g l e - l e x e m i c f u n c t i o n , may present some a c q u i s i t i v e and p r o d u c t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r a SL l e a r n e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they c o n t a i n c u l t u r a l "markings"; i . e . , elements which are f e a t u r e s of a s p e c i f i c c u l t u r e or are c o n t e x t - s p e c i f i c and thus u t i l i z e d o n l y f o r c e r t a i n purposes w i t h i n c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s . The SL l e a r n e r may f a i l to recog n i z e a c o l l o c a t i o n as a " f i x e d " e x p r e s s i o n but - 4 -INTRODUCTION rather view each word within the chunk as independent and therefore replaceable. Some ESL teachers may have formed very valid, though s t a t i s t i c a l l y unfounded, opinions about the linguistic problems unique to the language group. No language analysis research, to my knowledge, based on a controlled systematic IL analysis has been conducted on any corpus of oral production of adult Pakistani learners of English as a second language (ESL). The objective of this study is to conduct an analysis of their English language or IL for the purpose of investigating the conversational production errors that Pakistani visitors and/or Pakistani-Canadians make in learning ESL. A research study of the use of collocations may show whether any systematic patterns in IL occur within and across domains,that i s . Work Talk Domain (WTD) and Life Story Domain (LSD). WTD deals with Exposition or Description Activity and LSD deals with Narrative Activity. It is important to note that while in the present study the correct use of collocations in Narrative Activity in WTD and Exposition Activity in LSD -5-INTRODUCTION in not investigated, i t would be desirable to consider this in further research. This study, however, is by no means an exhaustive one but only a pilot study. 1.2: HYPOTHESES This study attempts to examine the following three hypotheses: 1) It is hypothesized for the purpose of this study that in the use of collocations of Pakistani subjects variation w i l l be found across discourse domains. 2) It is further hypothesized that a continuum wi l l be found for this variation, running between more Target-like collocations in the Work Talk Domain (WTD) / Exposition Activity (Ea) and fewer Target-like collocations in the Life Story Domain (LSD) / Narrative Activity (Na) 3) In addition, i t is hypothesized a formally* educated group will show more Target-like collocations and an informally* educated group - 6 -INTRODUCTION wi l l show fewer Target-like collocations. 1.3: TERMINOLOGY CATAPHORIC: Referring to something following. COLLOCATION: Phrases made of words which usually occur together, such as, "for the time being", and including lexical words that are associated with certain structures, for example, "glass of". CONTENT WORD: Conceptually-loaded lexical items: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. ELLIPSIS: Omission of standard features. FORMALLY EDUCATED: For the purpose of this study i t means a person whose academic qualifications include at least a bachelor's degree or professional cer t i f i ca t ion , such as CGA, whether obtained in Pakistan or Canada. FORMULAIC: Non-productive or fixed expression; e .g . , "pardon me". -7-INTRODUCTION FUNCTION WORDS: A word whose role is primarily or wholly grammatical; e.g., prepositions, conjunctions and a r t i c l e s . INFORMALLY EDUCATED: For the purpose of t h i s study i t means a person whose academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s include neither a Bachelor's degree nor a professional c e r t i f i c a t i o n . LEXICAL SUBSTITUTION: Replacement of a content word by a synonymous but non-target l i k e word. REPETITION: Repeated grammatical, s t r a t e g i c or r h e t o r i c a l structure in i d e n t i c a l or p a r a l l e l form within the t r a n s c r i p t s . T-UNIT: Main clause plus a l l embedded subordinate clauses. TYPICALITY: Prominence of a p a r t i c u l a r feature within the transcripts (as determined by frequency of occurrences). -8-INTRODUCTION GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS a Alpha CA Contrast ive Analys is BA Bachelor of Arts BSc Bachelor of Science BEd Bachelor of Education d£ Degree of freedom EA Error Analys is Ea (EA) Expos i t ion A c t i v i t y ESL Engl i sh as a Second Language F Formally Educated FA Facul ty of Arts I Informally Educated IL Interlanguage ILC Interlanguage Co l loca t ion LLB Bachelor of Laws LSD L i f e Story Domain M Married MAS Master of Applied Science MSc Master of Science MT Mother Tongue nd No Date Na (NA) Narrat ive A c t i v i t y N/A Not Appl icable INTRODUCTION Native Language Non-Target Like Doctor of Philosophy-Second Language Second Language Acquisition Second Language Learning Second Language Teaching Tra n s i t i o n a l Interlanguage System Target Like Unmarried Work Talk Domain This symbol following a word indicates that the word i s defined in section 1 . 3 - -Termlnology. Less than More than Equal to -10-CHAPTER II R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E "Errors" and/or "mistakes" are an inescapable part of learning anything new and in learning a second language t h i s i s not an exception. They have been the cause of much concern to teachers of ESL for a long time and the concern is as old as language teaching i t s e l f . Selinker (1984:333) claims: ...the study of grammar is 2,500 years old at least, as is the thinking and tal k i n g about language pedagogy. The writers of ESL text books have exhibited this concern in the i r published materials.1 Research scholars have voiced t h e i r concern. A good example would be Corder's (1974) paper "The Significance of Learners' Errors". It is not a r a r i t y to find that language teachers have always been c o l l e c t i n g samples of errors made by SL learners in order to guide th e i r teaching emphasis. But what is an 'error'? What i s a 'mistake'? Is there a difference between the two? Second language learners' speech and writing r e f l e c t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of their language which don't -11-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE meet the TL conventions and norms — they are abnormal. and are not present in the performance of native speakers of the target language. Corder (1974:24) [ a r t i c l e f i r s t published in 1967] makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between 'error' and 'mistake'. 'Mistakes' are deviations due to performance such as s l i p s of the tongue or pen, memory li m i t a t i o n s , e.g., pronunciation, s p e l l i n g , anxiety, and chance circumstances. They are t y p i c a l l y random and are corrected by the learner when his attention i s drawn to them. 'Errors', according to Corder, are systematic and consistently deviant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the learner's l i n g u i s t i c system at any given stage of learning. They are due to incompetency. Corder's (1974:24) argument i s ...that the learner i s using a de f i n i t e system of language at every point in his development, although i t i s not...that of the second language .... The learner's errors are evidence of thi s system and are themselves systematic. Corder (1973:260) describes errors as those features of the learner's utterances which d i f f e r from those of any native speaker. Brown (1980:165) explains error as -12-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, r e f l e c t i n g the interlanguage competence of the learner. The need to describe and discuss what constitutes •error 1 with respect to the SL learner is very obvious in the l i t e r a t u r e as researchers, methodologists and SL teachers have discovered d i f f e r e n t types and causes of errors. It i s not necessary to discuss types and/or causes of errors; an abridged account i s provided by Hammerly (1982:173-74). For the purpose of t h i s study, the term 'error' w i l l refer to any systematic deviation from what native speakers of English would consider standard or non-foreign. In other words, any systematic deviant form, any erroneous expression not uttered by native speakers w i l l be considered an error. The next question i s — why should we study errors? We study errors for two very basic and important reasons: 1. From a t h e o r e t i c a l point of view, to map out the cognitive strategies used in acquiring2 the target language (TL). 2. From a pedagogical point of view, to discover the kinds of target language structures and concepts -13-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE that cause trouble for SL learners and impede the second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA) process. The major goal of studying the phenomenon of errors has always remained the same, that i s , an attempt to f a c i l i t a t e the process of SLA and second language teaching (SLT). However, in the 40's SL errors were considered something to be avoided and their eradication at any cost was the prime objective and in t h i s sense the teacher acted as an error eradicator and therefore inadequate teaching methodology was blamed to a large extent. This school of thought, that with perfect teaching methodology errors would never be committed, i s s t i l l around; and to devise a perfect teaching method that , w i l l work in every given teaching/learning s i t u a t i o n is nothing more that an " i l l u s i o n " (Ghadessy 1977). So language teachers have been using 'errors' for e n t i r e l y pragmatic purposes -- to evaluate student progress and to design pedagogical materials and st r a t e g i e s . The student himself and i n f l u e n t i a l factors} such as described by Hammerly (1982:173) were almost ignored. Our view today, in the l i g h t of recent advances, -14-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE has changed d r a s t i c a l l y . Today errors are looked upon with a more r e a l i s t i c view and approach, that i s , that errors are an unavoidable and inevitable part of the process of second language learning (Corder 1975). If rules have not yet been p e r f e c t l y learned or temporarily forgotten — which is normal — the SL learner w i l l make errors, despite our best e f f o r t s . Under the influence of cognitive psychology, SL errors are interpreted as manifestations of the learner's grammar and are not only useful but necessary for learning the language by means of testing hypotheses. Richards (1974:4) summarizes Strevens' (1969) views on errors as follows: . . . i f a regular pattern of errors could be observed in the performance of a l l the learners in a s i t u a t i o n , and i f a learner were seen to progress through th i s pattern, his errors should be taken as evidence not of f a i l u r e but of success and achievement in learning. Strevens' views seem to provide j u s t i f i c a t i o n that errors are quantifiable and thus can be used as one of -15-REVIBW OF THE LITERATURE the measures to evaluate the learner's l i n g u i s t i c competence. Just as our attitude towards the SL learner has changed, pedagogical emphasis regarding analysis of errors, techniques and theories has s h i f t e d as well. The wave of popularity that contrastive analysis (CA) once enjoyed diminished long ago. The confident pioneers of CA, Fries (1945) and Lado (1957), based th e i r theory on the assumption of negative transfer ( i . e . , interference). Fries very firmly established CA as an almost integral part of foreign language teaching. The most e f f e c t i v e materials (for foreign language teaching) are those based upon a s c i e n t i f i c description of the language to be learned, c a r e f u l l y compared with a p a r a l l e l description of the native language of the learner. (Fries 1945:9) Lado's 1957 work L i n g u i s t i c s Across Cultures, which became a c l a s s i c a l manual for contrastive studies, supported F r i e s . Fries and Lado, in equating language learning with habit formation, treated error as evidence of poor teaching methods. CA was t h e i r response to error; they sought to prevent error by predicting where -16-RBVIBW OF THE LITERATURE i t would occur through a comparison of the native language and TL systems because Contrastive Analysis (CA) involves comparison, prediction and explanation. The structures of the language of the learner (LI) are compared with those of the language which he attempts to learn (L2). On the basis of this comparison, predictions are made of d i f f i c u l t i e s which the learner w i l l experience in learning the L2.4 And by reference to thi s comparison, many of the errors made by the learner in speaking, writing, l i s t e n i n g to or reading the L2 w i l l be explained. (Hughes 1980) CA's "strong version" (predictive or a p r i o r i ) (Schachter 1974), proposes that students are prevented from learning a second language because of the interference of the mother tongue (MT) and the comparison of the TL and the mother language systems would predict those structures which would prove most d i f f i c u l t to learn. Based on the results of such comparisons, teaching materials could then be devised to deal with these d i f f i c u l t structures, thereby maximizing teaching time and minimizing the occurrence of error. CA's "weak version" (explanatory or a po s t e r i o r i ) u t i l i z e s the comparison of the two language systems as a -17-REVIBW OF THE LITERATURE tool for explaining learner errors a f t e r they have appeared (Wardhaugh 1974). This view i s supported by Duskova (1969) in his study of explanation of errors in terms of mother tongue interference, rather than as a predictor. The close association of the strong version of CA with s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s and the behaviourist view of learning gave r i s e to CA's weak version. CA theory enjoyed the swell of popularity for the next ten years or so. As a r e s u l t i t generated many contrastive materials, and many a r t i c l e s were published concerned with CA. However, several factors contributed to the demise of both versions. The d i s s o l u t i o n of CA took place because of the fact that CA predicted so many possible problems that teachers were s t i l l having to select which areas to teach. Furthermore, the discovery was made that many areas which were supposed to be irksome caused no inconvenience at a l l while errors were occurring in areas that CA had never predicted. There was also another question of whether a predicted error a c t u a l l y occurred for the reason predicted, or for some other reason which was not predicted. -18-REVIBW OF THE LITERATURE Many researchers questioned the v a l i d i t y of CA as a predictor of errors. It f a i l e d to l i v e up to i t s predictive claim. Researchers, during t h e i r analysis of student errors in the l i g h t of CA, found that CA did not predict a large proportion of those errors (Hakuta et a l 1977; Chau 1975). They questioned i t s value i f i t could only predict a portion of the errors a c t u a l l y committed by learners, a f t e r the colossal amount of work required for a complete CA of two languages. One can att r i b u t e the lack of accurate prediction of errors to the fact that CA had undervalued the contribution of the learner, had f a i l e d to recognize f u l l y the nature of what has to be learned (SL), and had not taken into account the way the SL is presented to the learner, i . e . , method used, order of presentation, the teacher and his/her teaching s t y l e , and the amount of practice. Whiteman and Jackson (1972) conducted controlled experiments in a school s e t t i n g and Briere (1966) carried out experiments i n a laboratory. The CA hypothesis tended to be f a l s i f i e d by the results of these studies. In addition, -19-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Comparing two or more languages in a l l th e i r aspects, the s c i e n t i f i c approach w i l l endeavour to find the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s between them and thus gain insight into language in general and the d i f f e r e n t forms under which thi s human means of communication occurs. The whole f i e l d would comprise the thousands of languages in the world, with t h e i r phonological, l e x i c a l , and grammatical systems. No single human being, or even a team of experts, could do that, and no single human brain could contain a l l the data. (Breitenstein 1978) Fowler (1984:169) shares the same view: No one has yet succeeded in describing any language with anything remotely approaching completeness. Linguists and language teachers a l i k e found i t d i f f i c u l t , time-consuming and impractical to put CA techniques for language comparison into practice. And even i f languages could be adequately described, there was a further problem which Rivers (1972:65) mentions: Since the l i n g u i s t ' s aim must be to make the description s c i e n t i f i c a l l y elegant rather than pedagogically applicable, the analysis w i l l not normally be d i r e c t l y transferable to teaching materials and si t u a t i o n s . -20-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Breitenstein (1978) c a l l s i t ...a waste of time and e f f o r t to t r y to make a complete survey of LI (the mother language). The q u a l i f i e d non-English course-writer or teacher is a sophisticated speaker of English and i s competent to decide whether a sound, word, or sentence pattern of the L2 is also found in LI. What we need is a survey of L2, and of i t s main elements only, for that and that only i s the teaching matter. If these elements correlate with those in the LI there is no teaching or learning problem. Where there is a difference, i t c a l l s for closer study and for recommendations as to how to grade and teach the strange new elements so as to overcome the pupils' natural i n c l i n a t i o n to follow the LI pattern. The problem of prediction and explanation gave r i s e to two schools of thought — supporters and opponents. Among supporters of CA were Rivers (1970), Ferguson (1965), DiPietro (1971), and Strevens (1965). Opponents of CA included Hamp (1968), Wolfe (1967), Gradman (1971), Ritchie (1967), and Richards (1974). But Catford (1968) suggested a more reasonable approach — a "sophisticated error analysis", one -21-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...which involves both t h e o r e t i c a l l y adequate l i n g u i s t i c categorization of errors and sophisticated s t a t i s t i c a l treatment, and could unveil the p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s that are encountered by SL learners. Once these data were available, CA could be applied p r e c i s e l y to these areas of d i f f i c u l t y and could provide information on why the errors occurred. A more p r a c t i c a l suggestion was put forward by Wilkins (1968:102). Why do a complete predictive contrastive analysis at a l l i f you have to v e r i f y the predictions anyway? Why not just look at errors students a c t u a l l y make, find the areas the error occurs i n , and contrast only those areas? Even the pioneer of CA, Lado (1957:27), himself said that c e r t a i n problems could not be f u l l y accounted for without actual observation of the speech of second language learners. Was t h i s merely a very r e a l i s t i c statement or was he d e l i b e r a t e l y t r y i n g to intimate the need for error analysis? No attempt w i l l be made here to find the answer to t h i s question. Under focus has the influence s h i f t e d from the of cognitive psychology, our view of the SL learner as an -22-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE error producer to that of someone capable of creative, i n t e l l i g e n t interaction with the new language. Attitudes about the nature, status and the use of errors also s h i f t e d . The status of errors changed from the negative connotation of the Lado camp to that of positive proof of the learner's interaction with the language environment. Errors are seen as manifestations of the learner's grammar and as not only useful but necessary for learning the language by means of testing hypotheses. Those who view errors as a sign of the learner's growth in the TL came to espouse another approach to the analysis of errors. This approach became known as Error Analysis (EA) and was brought out by Corder (1974). EA is seen by some as an outgrowth of Chomsky's innateness hypothesis regarding f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n by children, and i t i s thus extended by them to second language learning by adults. Just as errors in f i r s t language production provide evidence for the development of that language in the c h i l d , so also should such errors in the second language production of the adult. (Robinett and Schachter 1986:145) EA, according to Richards (1971:12), deals with the differences between the speech of second language -23-REVIBW OF THE LITERATURE learners and that of adult native speakers of the language. It attempts to bring into focus what errors occur, why and how, and t h i s knowledge is used to better understand and improve the SL a c q u i s i t i o n process which of course involves learning and teaching processes. Hughes (1980:1) describes EA as follows: Error Analysis (EA) involves the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , description, and explanation of the errors which the learner makes in the L2. It i s anticipated that the study of learners' errors w i l l lead to a better understanding of the processes by which languages are learned, and that t h i s in turn w i l l lead to the development of improved teaching methods, materials, syllabuses, etc. At a more mundane l e v e l , EA is seen as an a c t i v i t y akin to diagnostic testing, a means of ascertaining the extent of a learner's (or group of learners') control of various features of the L2. The h i s t o r i c o r i g i n of EA is not very clear, at least not as clear as i t is in the case of CA. It was d e f i n i t e l y as a r e s u l t of the reaction against the CA hypothesis that many theories grew, for example, the LI learning = L2 learning hypothesis (Dulay and Burt 1974) -24-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE and the Interlanguage hypothesis (Selinker 1974); and F r i t h (1975:327-32) provided a comparative account of two hypotheses. EA has a long t r a d i t i o n . Classroom teachers have been using i t for e n t i r e l y pragmatic purposes -- to evaluate student progress and to design pedagogical materials and strategies. It is f a i r l y well established that the f i r s t approach to EA was based on the notion of interference, negative transfer theory and CA, stemming from the work of CA pioneer, Lado (1957). George (1972) claimed and supported the well-agreed upon view that interference can account for approximately only one t h i r d of the errors for adult learners. However, EA was f i r s t proposed by Corder when he published his very i n f l u e n t i a l paper "The Significance of Learners' Errors" in 1967 in which he suggested a new way of looking at the errors made by SL learners. And that was the beginning of looking at errors in pedagogically i n s i g h t f u l ways to systematically account for the occurrence of errors in either l i n g u i s t i c or psycholinguistic terms. He said an 'error' i s seen t r a d i t i o n a l l y from the teacher-centered viewpoint of the learner's performance. But i f we look at i t from the perspective of the language learner, there are s i g n i f i c a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s between the strategies employed REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE by the infant learning his native language and those of the second language learner. As Corder (1974:22) puts i t : ...some at least of the strategies adopted by the learner of a second language are s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same as those by which a f i r s t language is acquired. Such a proposal does not imply that the course or sequence of learning i s the same in both cases. In t h i s view, the observed deviations are no more 'errors' than the f i r s t approximations of a c h i l d learning his mother tongue are errors. The SL learner i s struggling and trying out successive hypotheses about the nature of the SL just l i k e a c h i l d struggling to acquire his NL. Corder has set ...the stage for EA's emergence as a v a l i d area in l i n g u i s t i c research by showing that learner errors are worth studying in order to gain insight into the nature of the second language learning process. (Fischer 1982:117) At t h i s point researchers started to turn away from CA to an examination of the actual errors that the language learner makes. Psychologists and psycholinguists started to turn from beh a v i o r i s t i c -26-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE theory which says that language learning i s habit formation to cognitive theory which says that language learning, is the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of rules in a systematic order. Cognitive theory became the basis of (1) research into f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n and (2) the process of EA. EA presupposes that the learner processes and stores data in an organized manner. If data are not stored properly, errors occur. These errors, then, can be taken as a sign that language learning i s taking place. This is how EA evolved, absolutely d i f f e r e n t from CA. The only common thing between CA and EA is that they both compare errors. Corder (1971a:158) says that two objects of EA are: (1) "to elucidate what and how a learner learns when he studies language" and (2) to enable "the learner to learn more e f f i c i e n t l y by exploiting our knowledge of his d i a l e c t for pedagogical purposes". We want to i d e n t i f y the differences between the two sets of rules and discover what he (the learner) has s t i l l to learn, so that we may take appropriate remedial action, and, in a more general way, i d e n t i f y the p r i n c i p a l learning tasks of a given group of learners in order to incorporate this knowledge in -27-RBVIEW OF THE LITERATURE the designing of our syllabuses and teaching materials. (Corder 1973a:37) Prom the study of a learner's errors we can infer the nature of his knowledge of a SL at any p a r t i c u l a r point in his learning career. As Valdman (1975:219) puts i t , ...errors are not viewed as pathological manifestations to be eradicated, but constitute instead the most d i r e c t evidence of the learner's hypotheses and strategies. The assumption underlying EA i s that the errors discovered and described are evidence of a system which is neither the system of the NL nor of the TL, but the system of some other language. It is t h i s 'other' language or "language learner's language" (Corder 1981:66) which EA attempts to describe. This 'other' language whether i t is c a l l e d Idiosyncratic d i a l e c t or t r a n s i t i o n a l competence (Corder), 'interlingua' (James), Approximative system (Nemser), or Interlanguage (Selinker), is s t i l l a language — a natural language, so that ...the language learner at a l l points of his learning career 'has a language', in the sense that his behavior is rule -28-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE governed and therefore, in p r i n c i p l e , describable in l i n g u i s t i c terms. (Corder 1973a:36) Corder (1971a:204-19) puts forward a method of using EA to analyse a language system that has some rules p a r t i c u l a r to SL learners by c a l l i n g them •id i o s y n c r a t i c d i a l e c t s ' of SL learners. One wonders i f the SL learner has a d i a l e c t . In my opinion the SL learner d e f i n i t e l y has a functional language and i f the learner's language i s a d i a l e c t in i t s own r i g h t , then we are in no position to talk about errors in his functional language. However, Corder offers the following three steps: 1) RECOGNITION OF IDIOSYNCRATIC DIALECT: This step recognizes the language errors made by the SL learner and these errors f a l l under the broad heading of 'pedagogical' or ' l i n g u i s t i c ' category.5 2) DESCRIPTION OF IDIOSYNCRATIC DIALECT: This step is the accounting of error categorization and description of errors and f a l l s under the heading of 'pedagogical' or ' l i n g u i s t i c ' category, as well. -29-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 3) PSYCH0LINGUISTIC6 ANALYSIS: This step is responsible for the explanation of the errors made by the SL learner. Nemser's (1971:115-23) terminology is of course d i f f e r e n t from that of Corder's, but Nemser's theory, which seems very much sim i l a r to EA and 'i d i o s y n c r a t i c d i a l e c t ' , emphasizes the study of SL learners' errors as the learners' attempts to grasp the target language and move through what Nemser named 'approximative systems'. He stresses that some rules p a r t i c u l a r to individuals produce deviancy from TL norms. His claims are very similar and run p a r a l l e l to the claims made by others in the f i e l d s of CA and EA that the study of these 'approximative systems' w i l l be helpful in designing and planning ESL curriculum materials. Just as F r i e s , Lado and Corder influenced the f i e l d of second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA), Selinker brought a reformation in the f i e l d by unfolding his t h e o r e t i c a l l y based a r t i c l e as well as the concept of interlanguage by publishing his very revolutionary paper "Interlanguage" in 1974. Selinker's term for what EA should study is 'interlanguage' (IL). This i s a system s i m i l a r to the -30-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE two previously described. Selinker (1974:35) defined IL as a "separate l i n g u i s t i c system" based on the output of a SL learner. Maybe i t would be more useful, in the context of the second language learner in the classroom, to speak of a series of t r a n s i t i o n a l second language systems of additive and integrated r u l e s . . . . (Hammerly 1982:175) I support Hammerly's view and I am skeptical about the use of the word 'separate l i n g u i s t i c system'. It implies the 'completeness' of the system and therefore, presumably, that i t has no d e f i c i e n c i e s . It " i s not r e a l l y separate, for i t comes close to matching..." but " . . . s t i l l short of native speaker competence" (Hammerly 1982:176). A 'complete' system should need no improvement. And i f so, that i s , i f i t is a complete system in i t s own r i g h t , then, we are in no position to talk about the errors in this 'separate = complete l i n g u i s t i c system'. But i f the word 'separate' i s replaced by 'successive or progressive l i n g u i s t i c system' or ' t r a n s i t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c system', i t w i l l make more sense to look for errors in a l i n g u i s t i c system which is continuously changing and hopefully improving and consistently developing on i t s way to -31-RBVIEW OF THE LITERATURE becoming and being recognized as a complete language system in due time. By that I mean the learner has learned the SL and acquired a complete set of rules and pri n c i p l e s governing the TL, can communicate and sustain that conversation l i k e a native speaker of the language, and now can claim mastery in the use of the TL. In addition, as IL is made up of elements drawn pa r t l y from the NL and p a r t l y from the TL and some from neither, the •separate l i n g u i s t i c system' does not hold water since i t i s , in fact, a 'different' l i n g u i s t i c system, neither i d e n t i c a l to the native language nor to the target language and lacks 'completeness'. This i s because a given set of utterances in IL are not i d e n t i c a l to the ...corresponding set of utterances which would have produced by a native speaker of the TL had he attempted to express the same meaning as the learner. (Selinker 1974:35) As i t i s obvious that t h i s l i n g u i s t i c system i s constantly changing, for better or worse, over time, i t would have been better to c a l l i t "TRANSITIONAL  INTERLANGUAGE SYSTEM" (TILS) instead of IL. The term ' interlanguage'7 i s becoming established in the current l i t e r a t u r e on the subject for possibly -32-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE the following reasons: 1) It incorporates an element of n e u t r a l i t y in terms of or as to the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of attitude as compared to the other two terms ( that i s , 'idiosyncratic d i a l e c t ' and 'approximative systems') which imply a TL-centered perspective. 2) It takes into account the a t y p i c a l r a p i d i t y with which SL learner's language changes. 3) The prefix 'inter' captures the indeterminate status of a learning system which i s somewhere in between NL and TL. 4) The term 'language' implies that i t i s a rule-governed and adequately functional communication system. Selinker assumes that there are 'psychological structures' latent in the brain which are activated when one attempts to learn a second language. (Richards, ed. 1974:29) Selinker's concept of 'latent psychological structures' i s not similar but close to the concept of •latent language structures' of Lennenberg (1967) which, according to Lennenberg: 1) i s already a formulated arrangement in the brain, 2) is the b i o l o g i c a l counterpart -33-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE to universal grammar, and 3) is transformed by infants into the realized structure of a part i c u l a r grammar in accordance with cer t a i n maturational stages. (Selinker 1974:33) Any description of IL must account for the phenomenon of f o s s i l i z a t i o n of errors and according to Selinker (1974:36) F o s s i l i z a b l e l i n g u i s t i c phenomena are l i n g u i s t i c items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a par t i c u l a r NL w i l l tend to keep in their IL r e l a t i v e to a pa r t i c u l a r TL, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation or ins t r u c t i o n he receives in the TL. There are five central processes of 'latent psychological structure' which enables an error analyst to account for recurring error patterns. 1) LANGUAGE TRANSFER: Errors r e s u l t i n g from NL influence. 2) TRANSFER OF TRAINING: Errors r e s u l t i n g from i d e n t i f i a b l e items in tra i n i n g procedures; such as using 'he' or 'she' without any d i s t i n c t i o n since most practice d r i l l s in books use only •he' . -34-RBVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 3) STRATEGIES OF SL LEARNING: Errors r e s u l t from the cognitive a p p l i c a t i o n of inappropriate learning strategies to the materials to be learned. For example learners tend to reduce the TL to a simpler system, omitting p l u r a l markers and function words in the process. 4) STRATEGIES OF SL COMMUNICATION: Different communication approaches used by SL learners while communicating with TL speakers may also cause errors. There i s a tendency to stop learning the TL once the SL learner feels he/she has attained functional competence, thus ignoring c e r t a i n elements which may or may not be c r u c i a l for e f f e c t i v e communication. 5) OVERGENERALIZATION: F o s s i l i z a b l e errors as a r e s u l t of the overgeneralization of grammatical rules. In addition, there are some minor processes that are involved including hypercorrection, pronunciation and holophrase learning. According to Selinker (1974:37) each process ...forces f o s s i l i z a b l e material upon surface IL utterances, c o n t r o l l i n g to a -35-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE very large extent, the surface structures of the sentences. Richards (1971), extrapolating from the results of EA in various SL learning s i t u a t i o n s , shows that many of the deviant forms produced by learners can be accommodated for in terms of one or more of the processes posited by Selinker. Dickerson's (1974) study of the a c q u i s i t i o n of selected consonant sounds of English by a group of Japanese learners demonstrates that the learners* output at any given point over time is systematic and unstable ( i . e . , v a r i a b l e ) . It also provides an account of the so-called 'backsliding' to IL norm noted by Selinker and many others in the performance of language learners. CA i s primarily concerned with the differences between any two languages and that aspect of the learner's performance in the SL which can be correlated with s i m i l a r i t i e s in the learner's native language; IL considers NL interference as one of the explanatory tools used for language learning analysis. Secondly, both CA and EA f a i l to accommodate the learner himself (as an individual) and the other contributing variables such as methodology, environment, - 3 6 -REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE teaching style /8 teacher's personality, teacher's sex,9 learner's motivation and aptitude, his attitude towards the second language, the second culture and i t s people, and the learner's concept of school. 10 Most important of a l l is the 'attitude towards the learner's performance', e s p e c i a l l y towards the 'errors'. CA merely points out the differences and predicts possible areas of d i f f i c u l t y ; EA considers errors to be something unacceptable and seeks th e i r eradication; but IL treats errors as evidence of learning. From the above explanatory account of CA, EA and IL analysis i t is safe to conclude that IL embraces the assumptions of CA as well as EA. CA contrasts and compares NL and TL, and EA contrasts and compares the SL learner's performance with TL speaker's performance; but IL analysis incorporates a l l three language analysis systems into one system, e x p l i c i t l y incorporating the CA of the learner's IL with NL as well as SL. -37-CHAPTER I I I M E T H O D O L O G Y 3.1: Source of Data The IL data of t h i s study are based on taped and transcribed interviews of ten Pakistani-Canadian subjects. These subjects were chosen by employing a s t a t i s t i c a l technique c a l l e d systematic random sampling. This technique can be used i f a l l members in the defined population have already been placed on a l i s t in random order. (Borg and Gall 1983:248) For the purpose of thi s study, Pakistan Canada Association's d i r e c t o r y l was used to select a systematic random sample. I divided the population by the number needed for the sample, that i s , 542 / 15 = 36. Although only ten subjects were needed, f i f t e e n were selected keeping in view the r e a l i t y of a t t r i t i o n . Then I asked my twelve year old son, Kashif, a grade seven student, to think of or sele c t a number smaller than 36. He gave me the numeral 30. I added 15 to th i s number, i. e . , 30 + 15 = 45. The f o r t y - f i f t h person in the Pakistan Canada Association's dire c t o r y became the f i r s t name in my sample. Then, s t a r t i n g with t h i s number I selected every t h i r t y - s i x t h person from the same METHODOLOGY directory. The following numbers made up the l i s t : 45, 81, 117, 153, 189, 225, 261, 297, 333, 369, 405, 441, 477, 513, and 549. The l a s t number happened to be beyond the l i s t t o t a l , but then I didn't need i t anyway. There i s an exception that needs to be explained. This sample is an a l l male sample. I decided not to include women in t h i s sample due to the fact that they by and large were housewives and therefore didn't share equal opportunity to interact with target speakers of the language as compared to men who, in most cases, were submerged in the target language environment for at least eight hours a day, that i s , in the work environment. If a person representing a c e r t a i n number was not w i l l i n g to participate in the research, the next number on the population l i s t was automatically selected u n t i l a participant was found. However, th i s new participant had to be established before s e l e c t i n g the next number on the sample l i s t . For example, i f number 45 decided not to p a r t i c i p a t e , then the new participant was found between 45 and 81. -39-METHODOLOGY Due to the systematic random sampling i t was not possible to ensure that the sample group was homogeneous in attitude, aptitude, educational background, s o c i a l , and geographical background; however, l i n g u i s t i c a l l y they were homogeneous -- a l l of them were native speakers of Urdu3 which is important, because, as Hammerly (1982:172) points out, studies of errors made by l i n g u i s t i c a l l y heterogeneous groups are worse than useless --they are misleading. Another common and important factor was that a l l the subjects migrated from the same geographical region of Pakistan, namely, Lahore. Subjects, however, didn't come from any single ESL class or walk of l i f e . They represented d i f f e r e n t socio-economic backgrounds and a l l of them had varying degrees and types of exposure to the English language. And t h i s , indeed, provided a strong point in favour of a good cross section of the Pakistani-Canadian community in Greater Vancouver. Descriptions of the subjects' work, t r a i n i n g , and educational background are found in Appendix B. 3.2: Instrument and Procedure A sample of the e l i c i t a t i o n instrument i s found in -40-METHODOLOGY Appendix A. The interviews were conducted in a conversational manner in a f r i e n d l y atmosphere so as to approximate natural, r e l a t i v e l y unmonitored and unintimidated conversation. The interviewer t r i e d to prompt spontaneous speech • without giving away any predictable pattern of what came next. Five minutes of interview with each subject in each domain were tape recorded. The written transcriptions of the taped interviews were produced for the purpose of micro-analysis. They were rechecked and only after I f e l t that the transcriptions I was using accurately r e f l e c t e d what I heard on the tape, did I go over the transcriptions and mark every collocation,4 disregarding false s t a r t s and s l i p s of the tongue and, in case of s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n , consistently counting a subject's f i n a l attempt to say the c o l l o c a t i o n c o r r e c t l y , even i f a subject changed a correct c o l l o c a t i o n to an incorrect one. However, as Borg and Gall (1983:842) suggest, in scoring unstructured measures such as interview data, the measure should be scored independently by two or more ra t e r s . This w i l l reduce the l i k e l i h o o d that the biases of a single observer w i l l unduly influence the r e s u l t s , and i t also permits the determination of interrater r e l i a b i l i t y . -41-Does the normal plausible interpretation make sense in the context? = A I L C D A T A > > YES — > > NO — -1 > y > Are the grammatical rules of the target language applied correctly? = B >->• •-> YES •-> NO -— > y -—> METHODOLOGY 2 3 4 n n n n 1 = Ay + By = TL 2 = Ay + Bn = NTL (Rule d e f i c i e n t ILC) 3 = An + By = NTL (Context d e f i c i e n t ILC) 4 = An + Bn = NTL (Rule + Context d e f i c i e n t ILC) ABBREVIATIONS: y = Yes n = No ILC= Interlanguage Collocation TL = Target-like NTL= Non-Target-like ALGORITHM FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF TARGET and NON-TARGET-LIKE COLLOCATIONS FIGURE I METHODOLOGY Therefore, two educated speakers of the target language (one English major and one L i n g u i s t i c s major) were employed to do the same, i . e . , they independently marked each c o l l o c a t i o n using my guidelines. We then used the antecedent algorithm (independently) to select errors.S L i s t s of errors were compared and errors where disagreement occurred were marked. We agreed upon 502/549 or 91.44% and disagreed upon 47/549 or 8.56% of errors. Interrater r e l i a b i l i t i e s 6 should reach at least .70, and much higher r e l i a b i l i t i e s can be obtained i f t r a i n i n g is adequate and observations are of s p e c i f i c behavior (Borg and Gal l 1983:480) and ...70-80 percent agreement is usually considered s a t i s f a c t o r y . (Borg and G a l l 1983:479) In t h i s study I examined, f i r s t of a l l , the c o l l o c a t i o n usage which would be termed Non-Target-like where inter e s t i n g features would emerge. I then examined the subjects* Target-like usage of a related form to see i f any systematic discrepancies or p a r a l l e l s of a s t r u c t u r a l , semantic or r h e t o r i c a l nature occurred between the two. I also carried out an analysis of the frequency of - 4 3 -METHODOLOGY collocations including both raw frequencies and percentage of Target-like vs Non-Target-like usage, in order to assess t y p i c a l i t y * (Table I ) . -44-CHAPTER IV I L C D A T A . A N A L Y S I S 4.1: RESULTSl From an i n i t i a l examination of the tr a n s c r i p t s i t becomes apparent that the collocations can be categorized s t r u c t u r a l l y into three general types: 1) Preposition-leading phrasal c o l l o c a t i o n ; e.g., "by any means". 2) Preposition-following content word c o l l o c a t i o n which can be divided into three sub-categories: 2a) noun + preposition (N+P) -- "state of" 2b) verb + preposition (V+P) -- "varied i n " 2c) adjective + preposition (A+P) — "hard to" . 3) Non-prepositional c o l l o c a t i o n ; e.g., "whatever the circumstance", "supposed to be". Category 1 collocations (preposition leading phrases) occur 174 times throughout the t r a n s c r i p t s ; of these 61% (106) are TL and 39% (68) are NTL. Category 1 _45-ILC DATA ANALYSIS collocations are the second most used (174 occurrences) t r a i l i n g behind category 2a which is used more often than any other category ( i . e . , 214 occurrences). Furthermore, category 1 collocations are used more often in Exposition A c t i v i t y (Ea) than Narrative A c t i v i t y (Na), i . e . , 113 times vs. 61 times respectively. This category ranks number 4 among a l l the categories in terms of TL behaviour (61%). Category 2 collocations (preposition following content word collocation) take three s t r u c t u r a l forms. The category 2a occurs most frequently among the five categories. However, i t is almost at par with category 1 in terms of percentage, i . e . , 62% versus 61% TL behaviour and 38% versus 39% NTL behaviour. Furthermore, category 2a collocations are more often in Ea (148 occurrences) as compared to Na (66 occurrences). Category 2b is the second least used (45 occurrences) and category 3 i s the least used (21 occurrences). Collocations in category (2b) occur most often in Ea (28 times) versus Na (17 times). Category 2c shows the highest TL c o r r e l a t i o n (83%) and the lowest NTL co r r e l a t i o n of any category (17%) (see Histogram I ) . Collocations in th i s category, l i k e others, occur more -46-ILC DATA ANALYSIS often in Ea (50 times) in comparison with Na (45 times). Category 3 (non-prepositional) collocations comprise a m u l t i p l i c i t y of s t r u c t u r a l forms which are linked by the i r absence of prepositions. Sub-categories are not established here due to the infrequency of occurrence of the category. This category represents the least number of collocations (21 occurrences) and the least TL behaviour, i . e . , 52%. It seems to be the most problematic of a l l the collocations for the second language learner. Of the 21 collocations noted, 12 occurred in Ea and 9 occurred in Na. In a l l the categories more collocations are used in Ea than in Na except one, that i s , category 3. In addition, formally* educated subjects (numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9) show more TL collocations (Ea=80% and Na=58.16%)2 than informally* educated subjects (numbers 2, 4, 5, 10) who show fewer TL collocations (Ea=57.25% and Na=57%).3 Furthermore, both formally and informally educated groups show more TL collocations in Ea (that i s , 80% and 57.25% respectively) versus fewer TL collocations in Na -47-ILC DATA ANALYSIS (that i s 7 58.16% and 57% re s p e c t i v e l y ) . See Histogram III for individual performance. Once again, Ea is continuously showing better TL c o r r e l a t i o n than Na, i . e . , 80% vs. 58.16% (formally educated subjects) and 57.25% vs. 57% (informally educated subjects). The same is true in the case of the combined average of formally educated and informally educated subjects number 1 through 10 (Table I, page 4 of 4), i . e . , 66% (Ea) versus 64% (Na) TL c o r r e l a t i o n (see Histogram II under the heading 'average'). 4.2: DISCUSSION CATEGORY 1: The prepositional phrases within t h i s category (such as, " i n order to") are often acting as discourse-connectives. As such, they are l a r g e l y "frozen" ( i . e . not prone to morphological change l i k e , for example, phrasal verbs). Does the infrequency of thi s form suggest an i n a b i l i t y to connect discourse, a lack of knowledge of discourse-connecting structures, or are these structures r a r e l y used by native speakers also? The "frozen-ness" or formulaic* nature of these -48-ILC DATA ANALYSIS c o l l o c a t i o n s , one might speculate, should make them easier for the L2 learner to decipher than other collocations since their function and form is fixed. However, s i g n i f i c a n t l y t h e i r TL frequency of usage by percentage is much better in Ea, i . e . , 64% in Ea vs. 56% in Na. Of course, these changes may be a r e f l e c t i o n of varying lengths of transcripts per a c t i v i t y and time depending on the words spoken per minute, i . e . , some subjects spoke at a faster rate than others. The fact that 35% v (61/174) of category 1 collocations occurred in Na and 65% (113/174) occurred in Ea leads one to think that these collocations are somewhat domain-specific and a c t i v i t y t y p e - s p e c i f i c . It is a fact that in t h i s case 30% more collocations are used in Ea. It is also in Ea that more TL usage of collocations (64% vs. 56%) and TL language has occurred. Is there some inherent feature within t h i s a c t i v i t y type which is a f f e c t i n g L2 behaviour? An examination of s p e c i f i c NTL collocations in category 1 reveals a number of s i g n i f i c a n t features. Often (perhaps due to their discourse connecting function) the NTL category 1 collocations appear in ILC DATA ANALYSIS T-unit* i n i t i a l p osition: e.g., " i n usual case", " i n the. reverse case". What i s of interest here i s that t h e i r syntactic s i m i l a r i t y is supported by a l e x i c a l s i m i l a r i t y , that i s , the use of " i n case". In both situations the collocations are embedded in explanations, though th e i r r h e t o r i c a l functions are d i f f e r e n t . "In usual case" appears to express the sense of frequency or normality. "In the reverse case" is a contrastive device to c l a r i f y an explanation. Nonetheless, the s t r u c t u r a l s i m i l a r i t y between these two NTL collocations may indicate an IL pattern. Both these collocations would be interpreted as mixed c o l l o c a t i o n s : " i n usual case" may be a confusion of " i n the usual s i t u a t i o n " and " i n most cases"; " i n the reverse case" might be a combination of " i n the opposite case" and " in the reverse s i t u a t i o n " . A t h i r d NTL c o l l o c a t i o n , although not a mixed c o l l o c a t i o n , also relates to the pattern of the two previous examples: " i n case of" employs the key c o l l o c a t i o n of " i n " and "case" and is also found in T - u n i t - i n i t i a l p o s i t ion. However, in t h i s example, the c o l l o c a t i o n has a "cataphoric" 4 function; i t i d e n t i f i e s the topic of the explanation following. The d i f f e r e n t function might explain why the NTL behaviour i s not, as in the e a r l i e r examples, an -50-ILC DATA ANALYSIS occurrence of l e x i c a l substitution, but rather of a r t i c l e e l l i p s i s * . As w i l l be seen l a t e r , a r t i c l e e l l i p s i s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e ) is a regular feature within NTL co l l o c a t i o n s . Another category 1 error, " i n excess to" p a r a l l e l s the P+N+P form of " i n case of" as well as the TL co l l o c a t i o n " i n order to". Is " i n " a source of co l l o c a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y or is an IL phenomenon at play? Interestingly, " i n order to" appears with the structure "convert.... to the ri g h t in order to" which p a r a l l e l s " i n excess to .... convert to the l e f t side". While " i n order to" may have a d i f f e r e n t semantic function than " i n excess to" (purpose vs. quantity), the subject may equate form to context. That i s , both structures appear in explanations of s p e c i f i c locations. In addition, they both appear following a copula of the verb "to be". The syntactic, contextual and semantic p a r a l l e l s seem more than coincidences; some IL phenomenon, such as overgeneralization, seems to be functioning. One aspect of which holds promise quantity. Aside from the category is the link " i n excess to" 1 NTL collocations to the concept of and " i n usual case" -51-ILC DATA ANALYSIS (which in a sense is a quantitative u n i t ) , the two other NTL collocations "twice as much as many as" and "for long time" refer to quantitative information. SL research has shown for some time that expressions of quantity hold some d i f f i c u l t y for SL learners; t h i s data appears to provide additional support. "For long time", aside from i t s q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of time, shows the a r t i c l e e l l i p s i s feature previously discussed. Furthermore, i t s occurrence, l i k e the other NTL prepositional phrases in t h i s category, is within the context of an explanation. CATEGORY 2a (N+P): This category ranks the highest in number of occurrences (214). However, TL and NTL use of collocations in Na as well as in Ea follows category 1 very c l o s e l y : 66/214 or 31% occurred in the Na and 148/214 or 69% occurred in the Ea — 38% more collocations used in Ea. Once again more TL use of collocations occurred in Ea, i . e . , 64% (Ea) vs. 58% (Na). This rate of high s i m i l a r i t y between Ea and Na in both categories, 1 and 2a colloc a t i o n s , leads to an interesting speculation -- that the IL of subjects in -52-ILC DATA ANALYSIS t h i s study is very systematic. Will t h i s trend extend into other categories? And i f so, why? Is i t possible that the phenomenon of f o s s i l i z a t i o n has taken place? Let's look at the use of c o l l o c a t i o n 'say about 1 and 'talk about'. Is there a p o s s i b i l i t y that 'say about' i s equated to 'talk about'? Is t h i s a l e x i c a l substitution or is overgeneralization at work? Another question a r i s e s ; is 'say about' a feature of universal core IL, and is l e x i c a l substitution within a c o l l o c a t i o n a common IL feature? Additional data, involving subjects from d i f f e r e n t parts of the world, w i l l and can help answer these questions, a task which is beyond the scope of this study. However, in the case of these subjects i t c e r t a i n l y seems true. This study's investigation of the use of the v+p type of c o l l o c a t i o n suggests how d i f f i c u l t i t must be to achieve TL use. Subjects of this study, however, seem to show that they have overcome th i s d i f f i c u l t y by developing a l o g i c a l system of t h e i r own which is being modified as the need arises over time. Further data would no doubt help consolidate the findings. -53-ILC DATA ANALYSIS CATEGORY 2b (V+P): These collocations have the second most infrequent occurrences -- only 45. Just as before, better TL usage of collocations continues to occur in Ea. In t h i s category the trend continues: 17/45 or 38% collocations occurred in Na and 28/45 or 62% collocations occurred in Ea -- 24% more collocations are used in Ea. In this category, unlike the ones before, not more but equal TL use of collocations have occurred in Ea and Na, i . e . , 71% in both. A s t r i k i n g difference that appears here is that repetition* in t h i s category is much higher than in any other category. Upon close examination i t is discovered that some collocations are overgeneralized. For example, the use of 'relation to' extends the semantic range of the concept to encompass both •relationship' and ' r e l a t i o n ' . The same is true in case of 'change of', where the one c o l l o c a t i o n covers two contexts — 'change o f and 'change i n ' . CATEGORY 2c (A+P): This category ranks t h i r d in terms of t o t a l collocations used, i . e . , 95 in t o t a l . However, i t followed the same trend as category 1 and category 2a, -54-ILC DATA ANALYSIS that i s , (1) more collocations are used in Ea (50/95 or 53%) and in Na (45/95 or 47%); and (2) more TL use of collocations in Ea than Na (84% vs. 82%) has occurred. The interesting point to note i s that NTL collocations are mostly used in 'explaining' the same concept, the same context, and the same r h e t o r i c a l function. Perhaps the use of these collocations is more over-valued than i t should be and therefore, i t s use is overgeneralized. This is the category in which more than any other category the TL use of collocations has occurred and the subjects have achieved the highest TL c o r r e l a t i o n . i . e . , 83% (79/95) — Table I I I . The subjects have used A+P collocations r e l a t i v e l y c o r r e c t l y , such as, 'dependent on', 'depend on', 'that o f , 'lower than', 'amount o f , 'higher than'. However, there exists an exception sometimes: some subjects substitute one preposition for another. Do they think 'on' and 'at' are interchangeable? At least they have used them so. We must not overlook the possible confusion due to certain s i m i l a r i t i e s between NL and TL. In most cases subjects seem to be f a i r l y conscious ILC DATA ANALYSIS regarding their use of the language and they are monitoring t h e i r speech. This claim is supported by the fact that most subjects have immediately applied s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n mechanisms. On the other hand, based on correct usage of A+P collocations (83%), i t can be attributed to a simple s l i p of the tongue. Although i t seems obvious that Pakistani-Canadians' use of collocations is domain s p e c i f i c , more data involving subjects of d i f f e r e n t origins and native languages, i s required to generalize any f i n a l conclusion and to know whether IL i s affected. CATEGORY 3: It i s interesting to note that the least TL language occurs within the least used category. In t h i s case only 21 collocations are used: 12/21 (57%) in Ea and 9/21 (43%) in Na. Here TL usage i s at i t s lowest point, i . e . , 52%. This is one category in which higher TL use of collocations occurs in Na (67%) instead of Ea (42%). It does not follow the same trend as has been the case with a l l other categories. -56-ILC DATA ANALYSIS NTL collocations can be divided into two types s t r u c t u r a l l y : 1) Noun Phrases "quarter of", "two and a hal f " . 2) Verb + Object "to have a t r i p " , "got such a disease", "have a way for". What immediately s t r i k e s one at f i r s t glance is that the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e e l l i p s i s characterizing the NTL noun phrase c o l l o c a t i o n is not a feature of the verb + object NTL co l l o c a t i o n s . Is this representative of a systematic rel a t i o n s h i p involving the presence or absence of a collocated verb? A second observation about the noun phrases above i s that they both are s p e c i f i c a l l y quantitative. NTL col l o c a t i o n s , as in category 1, appear in expressions of quantity. Is the e l l i p s i s here, then, a feature of qu a n t i f i c a t i o n rather than structure? The verb + object NTL c o l l o c a t i o n lacks the obvious s i m i l a r i t y of the noun phrases. "To have a t r i p " may represent another l e x i c a l s u bstitution, where a native -57-ILC DATA ANALYSIS speaker would say "to take a t r i p " or "to go on a t r i p " . "Got such a disease" may simply represent a tense error, or i t may indicate a homophonic transfer from "caught such a disease". "Have a way for" is used where a native speaker might say "have any way to achieve". Although i t is unclear from these collocations i f any t h e o r e t i c a l system links them, two s t r u c t u r a l features are shared: their t r a n s i t i v e construction and their expression of action. Of course "got such a disease" is not r e a l l y an action, but perhaps the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of the verb "get", as action (from other contexts), has taken place. Of equal interest here i s the r e l a t i v e infrequency of collocations of t h i s type in the t r a n s c r i p t s . One would expect i n t u i t i v e l y more frequent appearances of idiomatic expressions, such as, "rough and tough" and "bury the hatchet". In t h i s data, however, the only expression of t h i s type which occurs is the use of "way of l i f e " . It seems probable that such idioms are simply not acquired by these subjects and therefore don't appear in t h e i r IL — no such expression is recorded. Perhaps such idioms are c u l t u r a l l y bound and therefore less susceptible to a c q u i s i t i o n than other lexemes. What is also s i g n i f i c a n t here is that the only strong idiom -58-ILC DATA ANALYSIS u t i l i z e d — "way of l i f e " i s completely TL. Perhaps TL usage occurs when the idiom assumes extreme l e x i c a l marking -- that i s , when the l i t e r a l meaning is so c l e a r l y impossible that the L2 learner can recognize the chunk must be an idiom. Therefore the learner w i l l be more l i k e l y to learn i t as a chunk or c o l l o c a t i o n . One would expect to have more NTL collocations in a more formal a c t i v i t y such as Ea since the subjects would probably be paying more attention to the contents they are t r y i n g to express in words than to the language or the words themselves. In addition, one might also expect more NTL collocations in t h i s a c t i v i t y (Ea) due to the fact that questions are not anticipated and therefore verbal responses are not rehearsed. However, i f these hypotheses were correct, one would expect a high proportion of TL collocations in Na. This, however, by and large, is not the case. In fact, more TL collocations occur in Ea and more NTL collocations occur in Na. Both, language and contents, are controlled by the speakers in both a c t i v i t i e s (Ea and Na). One might speculate that the speaker may not have had the opportunity to narrate his l i f e story to other people very often. On the other hand, however, the speaker may - 5 9 -ILC DATA ANALYSIS have well rehearsed the contents and the language concerning Ea through studying, l i s t e n i n g to lectures, and discussing the contents with colleagues in his f i e l d . This study shows that more col l o c a t i o n s , in general, are used in Ea. Equal TL usage of collocations have occurred in category 2b; and higher TL usage of collocations and TL language have occurred in category 1, 2a and 2c. The only exception is category 3 where higher TL usage of collocations has occurred in Na. 4.3: RESULTS VS. INITIAL HYPOTHESES Results very strongly support and validate my i n i t i a l hypotheses: 1) var i a t i o n across discourse domains i s present; 2) more ta r g e t - l i k e collocations are found in the Work Talk Domain ( i . e . , Ea) and fewer target-l i k e collocations are found in L i f e Story Domain ( i . e . , Na) (see Histogram I I ) ; and the n u l l hypothesis '-that there is no s t a t i s t i c a l difference is rejected (see section ( -60-ILC DATA ANALYSIS 4.4 for s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s ) ; 3) 100% of the formally educated subjects (numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9) show more t a r g e t - l i k e collocations and 50% of the informally educated subjects (numbers 4, 5,) show fewer t a r g e t - l i k e c o l l o c a t i o n s , however, the remaining 50% of the informally educated subjects (numbers 2, 10) show more t a r g e t - l i k e collocations (see Table I) ; and the n u l l hypothesis is rejected again (see section 4.4 for s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s ) . 4.4: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 2 The chi-square ( X ) test s t a t i s t i c can be used to determine whether the observed proportions d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a p r i o r i or t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected proportions (Glass and Hopkins 1984:282); 2 and t h i s is usually termed the "X goodness-of-fit t e s t " . There are d i f f e r e n t versions of the same formula; however, I have used the following one for the ca l c u l a t ions: 2 2 X = [ ( f o - f e ) / f e ] < -61-ILC DATA ANALYSIS OR 2 2 2 ( f o - f e ) ( f o - f e ) X = + f e f e The c r i t i c a l values of chi-square, using Table D (Glass and Hopkins 1984:531), are: 2 - at a = .05 and df = 1, i . e . , .95Xldf= 3.84 ; 2 - at a = .01 and df = 1, i . e . , .99Xldf= 6.64 ; 2 - at a = .001 and df = 1, i . e., .999Xldf = 10.83 . The n u l l hypothesis is rejected in 8 out of 18 cases ( i . e . , 44.44%) of TL and NTL proportions in Na and Ea. For more d e t a i l see Table I (page 4 of 4). HYPOTHESIS ff 1 The hypothesis that there is v a r i a t i o n in c o l l o c a t i o n correctness across discourse domains is confirmed by the differences found in the correctness of the subjects in the two discourse domains under study. Although the ranges (39% - 100% in Ea and 44% - 100% in Na) are s i m i l a r , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the scores is < -62-ILC DATA ANALYSIS d i f f e r e n t , as can be seen in Histogram VI and as confirmed s t a t i s t i c a l l y in the discussion of hypothesis number 2. HYPOTHESIS #2 The following data are taken from Table I (page 4 of 4) bottom row t i t l e d 'ST/ACT' in the column t i t l e d • AVERAGE1. 2 Na Ea Total TL Collocations 127 233 360 31.21 NTL Collocations 71 118 189 11.68 A l l three chi-square values are s i g n i f i c a n t at a = .001 and df = 1; thus, the n u l l hypothesis is rejected. HYPOTHESIS # 3 The following data are the sum of c o l l o c a t i o n frquencies (subjects 1 - 10) taken from Table I bottom row t i t l e d 'ST/ACT'. F I Total X TL Collocations 261 99 360 72.90 Average 43.50 24.75 68.25 5.15 NTL Collocations 96 93 189 00.04 Average 16.00 23.25 39 .25 1.33 The chi-square value i s s i g n i f i c a n t in case of TL ILC DATA ANALYSIS collocations at _a = .001 ( a = .05 when averages were used to calculate the chi-square) and df = 1; thus, the n u l l hypothesis is rejected. -64-CHAPTER V C O N C L U S I O N The results of t h i s study of Pakistani-Canadians' IL seem to i l l u s t r a t e that IL collocations tend to be: 1) Domain/Activity s p e c i f i c ; 2) NTL collocations occur most often when: a) r e f e r r i n g to q u a n t i f i c a t i o n b) in T-unit* i n i t i a l position c) adjacent to p a r a l l e l contextual and/or st r u c t u r a l forms; 3) NTL collocations often contain: a) a r t i c l e e l l i p s i s * . In addition, we can make a number of conjectures about IL c o l l o c a t i o n s . It would seem that a wider semantic range for c o l l o c a t i o n s , as compared to native speakers' usage, i s a feature of Pakistani-Canadians' interlanguage. One might expect t h i s , of course, since i t is l i k e l y that a SL learner would have gained access to only a few contexts and domains. Secondly, i t is l i k e l y that c o l l o c a t i o n in IL is -65-CONCLUSION more limited than in the TL: the learner may not view relationships as word associations, and hence substitute l e x i c a l items according to the context. These two points are linked in the sense that IL i s a form of simple language. The use of wide semantic ranges for each lexeme and infrequent word associations are by their very nature elements of simple languages. It seems important to study other data sources to test the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of these hypotheses. Furthermore, t h i s suggests the need to carry out a taxonomic analysis of the ranges for the c o l l o c a t i o n s . The NTL usage within the subjects' IL does not a f f e c t comprehension for the native speaker. Possibly t h i s is a function of the frequent repetition* of various c o l l o c a t i o n s . One might ask i f these repetitions are due to the nature of the speech act, the jargon of the domain, the r e s u l t of a limited vocabulary, or whether some other force i s at work. Just because comprehension is not affected and communication is not hampered (whether or not f o s s i l i z a t i o n has taken place), i t should be r e a l i z e d that these tendencies mark speakers as non-natives, pronunciation notwithstanding. -66-CONCLUSION The data from t h i s study suggests that collocations are domain s p e c i f i c , that i s , Work Talk Domain or Exposition A c t i v i t y in the sense that they are used more frequently, i . e . , 351/549 or 64% in Ea and 198/549 or 36% in Na (see Histogram IV). In addition, higher TL co l l o c a t i o n usage i s present in Ea, i . e . , 233/351 or 66% versus 127/198 or 64% in Na. Furthermore, t h i s i n i t i a l analysis indicates that NTL collocations do not occur randomly. They may be present as a re s u l t of the discourse function of the i r context (as in qu a n t i f i c a t i o n examples), the effects of language transfer, or the i r own inherent s t r u c t u r a l properties. F i n a l l y , the analysis of th i s data seems to support the notion of a core IL. What t h i s core IL a c t u a l l y is remains for future research to determine. One would need to study a more extensive data base before making any generalizations about core IL features. As far as a r t i c l e e l l i p s e s are concerned, t h i s study has shown that a r t i c l e s in conjunction with collocations are used in a TL manner more often in the Work Talk Domain or Exposition A c t i v i t y than in the L i f e Story Domain or Narrative A c t i v i t y . Also another - 6 7 -CONCLUSION interesting phenomenon that has been noted is that frequency of the use of a r t i c l e s across Narrative and Exposition a c t i v i t i e s or L i f e Story and Work Talk Domains changes f a i r l y dramatically. A r t i c l e e l l i p s e s have been noted in Na more often. This study has taken a short step into the world of adult Pakistani-Canadians' English as a second language. It has presented the evidence that there exists an IL in adult Pakistani-Canadians' English language. Furthermore, i t has highlighted areas that merit further research and study. For example, an investigation of psycholinguistic reasons behind TL and NTL use of collocations in a longitudinal study might provide an evidence of f o s s i l i z a t i o n . Any of these undertakings would be a challenge and of course Pakistani-Canadians' IL i s waiting for further research and exploration. QUESTIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 1. What are the psycholinguistic reasons behind higher TL usage in Ea? 2. Why i s there a greater occurrence of a r t i c l e e l l i p s i s in Na? 3. What are the ranges of collocations in terms of -68-CONCLUSION Taxonomic analysis? A p o s s i b i l i t y remains open that IL i s s p e c i f i c to domain/activity and i t may not be transferable — thus leaving opportunity for much further research in thi s area. In addition, i t would be desirable to consider and study Exposition A c t i v i t y in L i f e Story Domain and Narrative A c t i v i t y in Work Talk Domain. Furthermore, the prospect for a longitudinal study to provide evidence of f o s s i l i z a t i o n is there. -69-APPENDIX A E L I C I T A . T I O N I N S T R U M E N T STORY DOMAIN / NARRATIVE ACTIVITY (Na): T e l l me about your family. What kind of work are your brothers and s i s t e r s doing? T e l l me a r e a l story of your l i f e -- something that has happened to you, a surpri s i n g , h o r r i f y i n g or shocking event. It may be an incident that is funny or scary, or simply an interesting event that you would l i k e to share with me. TALK DOMAIN / EXPOSITION ACTIVITY (Ea): Did you go to school in the old country? What did you study there? What did you do to earn a l i v i n g in Pakistan? What was your trade or profession? Were you required to upgrade your previous studies, your trade or professional s k i l l s in order to secure employment here in Canada? T e l l me, what do you do now? -70-INSTRUMENT What exactly is involved in your l i n e of work? What are the demands of your trade or profession? Describe your job. -71-APPBNDIX B D E S C R I P T I O N O F T H E S U B J E C T S THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO ALL TEN SUBJECTS WHO ARE  DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES. 1) To protect the i d e n t i t i e s of the subjects, names and some other information have been changed. 2) F = Formally educated 3) I = Informally educated 4) M = Married 5) U = Unmarried 6) N/A = Not Applicable 7) A l l subjects were born in Pakistan. They are now naturalized Canadian c i t i z e n s . A l l of them, however, have dual c i t i z e n s h i p . 8) Their English language proficiency can be sub -divided into the following three categories: A) LEVEL 1: Either no English or a word here and there, subjects understand l i t t l e or no English at a l l . -72-SUBJECTS B) LEVEL 2: Subjects at this l e v e l are able to understand and produce some common conversational English words and phrases but they are unable to use English as a s i g n i f i c a n t conversational t o o l . They are at the receptive l e v e l . C) LEVEL 3: Subjects are at the su r v i v a l l e v e l . They can make themselves understood using a combination of words and gestures. They often tend to change language code — occasionally replacing English words with words from th e i r native language. They can communicate ideas, however, but with d i f f i c u l t y . D) LEVEL 4: Subjects have l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y communicating th e i r ideas in English, they use considerably fewer gestures and words from th e i r native language. Errors are made with more complex forms and structures. E) LEVEL 5: Subjects have a f a i r l y high - 7 3 -SUBJECTS degree of proficiency in English and approach native l i k e proficiency in the case of some subjects. Use of idioms and metaphors i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t for thi s group. Pronunciation is d e f i n i t e l y not native - 1ike. NOTE: A l l subjects in t h i s study are at l e v e l 4 and 5 (five subjects at l e v e l 4 and fiv e subjects at le v e l 5). -74-SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 1 (F) NAME Ahmad A l i AGE 38 YEARS IN CANADA 10 MARITAL STATUS. M CHILDREN 2 MALE 1 (9 yrs. ) FEMALE... 1 (4 yrs.) EDUCATION PAKISTAN. BA CANADA... Lumber Grading C e r t i f i c a t e JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Lumber Grader LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 4 COMMENTS: Ahmad was an insurance salesman in Pakistan. His only contact with the target language group i s in his place of employment where he works as a lumber grader. He would prefer a 'white-collar job' but under the circumstances accepted a 'blue-collar job' because of the language barrier at the time. He i s now quite content, but not very happy. His children speak English at home although he is t r y i n g hard to motivate them and create an interest for them to learn Urdu. He has no other r e l a t i v e s in Canada. -75-SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 2 (I) NAME Yousaf Kamran AGE 47 YEARS IN CANADA 18 MARITAL STATUS M CHILDREN 2 MALE 1 (18 yrs.) FEMALE... 1 (12 yrs.) EDUCATION PAKISTAN. Marine Engineer Diploma JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Marine Engineer II LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 5 COMMENTS: He was a marine engineer in Karachi, Pakistan. He now works for B.C. Ferries as 2nd. Engineer, very happy and s a t i s f i e d . His son is studying to be a criminologist. His wife has a part time job in a food processing plant. They want the i r children to learn Urdu as an additional language and have succeeded to some extent. They also f e e l very strongly about the r e l i g i o u s education of a l l Pakistani-Canadian children. Both Urdu and English are used at home. He has one s i s t e r l i v i n g in Canada. CANADA... N/A -76-SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 3 (F) NAME Mohammad Usman AGE 4 3 YEARS IN CANADA 4 MARITAL STATUS M CHILDREN 3 MALE 2 (6 and 3 yrs.) FEMALE...1(2 yrs.) EDUCATION PAKISTAN. MAS CANADA... Ph.D. (Pending) JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Student LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 4 COMMENTS: He is a Ph.D. (Economics) student. He has taught graduate students and supervised research projects. He has been in Canada for 4 yrs. and s t i l l hasn't overcome c u l t u r a l shock. He finds s o c i a l adjustment very d i f f i c u l t because his s o c i a l and r e l i g i o u s values are often in c o n f l i c t with Canadian c u l t u r a l values. However, these d i f f i c u l t i e s provide ample motivation for him to complete his studies at an accelerated rate so he can return to Pakistan as soon as possible. His wife i s here but his children are in Pakistan, SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 4 (I) NAME Zameer Sheikh AGE 43 YEARS IN CANADA 11 MARITAL STATUS M CHILDREN o MALE 0 FEMALE... 0 EDUCATION PAKISTAN. Grade 12 CANADA... N/A JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Bookkeeper LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 4 COMMENTS: He was a bank manager in Pakistan. He to l d me he had l i t t l e formal t r a i n i n g , i f any, in the f i e l d of accounting. After working as sec u r i t y guard and a i r l i n e t i c k e t sales clerk, he has se t t l e d for a bookkeeper's position with an accounting firm. He is not very s a t i s f i e d but has accommodated himself to r e a l i t y . His two brothers-in-law are l i v i n g in Canada. - 7 8 -SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 5 (I ) NAME Akbar Akhtar Shah AGE 32 YEARS IN CANADA 14 MARITAL STATUS U CHILDREN 0 MALE 0 FEMALE... 0 EDUCATION PAKISTAN. FA (Grade 12) CANADA... N/A JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Architectural Technician LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 4 COMMENTS: He had earned his grade 12 c e r t i f i c a t e in Pakistan before he came to Canada. He enrolled in the Architectural Drafting program but for undisclosed reasons couldn't complete the program. He worked at various kinds of jobs. He now, however, works for a health care agency looking after e l d e r l y c i t i z e n s . He intends to stay in Canada. Two brothers and two s i s t e r s l i v e in Vancouver. SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER NAME AGE 6 (F) Rashid Bhatti 47 YEARS IN CANADA 14 MARITAL STATUS M CHILDREN 2 MALE 1 FEMALE... 1 EDUCATION PAKISTAN. BSc CANADA... N/A JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Correctional O f f i c e r LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 5 COMMENTS: He earned a degree in science from Panjab University. He l i v e d in d i f f e r e n t countries in the Far East. He moved to Canada approximately 14 years ago. His daughter i s attending unive r s i t y and wants to become a doctor; his son i s in high school and intends to follow in his s i s t e r ' s footsteps. He has two s i s t e r s in Toronto. Urdu i s the dominant language at home. Both children, are 100% p r o f i c i e n t ( a l l four basic s k i l l s ) in Urdu. -80-SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 7 (F) NAME Majid Waseem AGE 4 4 YEARS IN CANADA 21 MARITAL STATUS M CHILDREN 5 MALE 2 (20, 5 yrs. ) FEMALE... 3 (17, 14, 11 yrs.) EDUCATION PAKISTAN. BA, LLB. CANADA... Dip. Admn. JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Industrial Relations Counsellor LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 5 COMMENTS: He practised as a lawyer in Pakistan. In Canada he is active in municipal l e v e l elections; however, he has never held any pos i t i o n . He has been in Canada for 21 years. His son is in his fourth year of a Business Administration program. His daughter is determined to become a doctor. His s o c i a l contact with native speakers of the TL is more than that of any other subject. English and Urdu are both practised at home. -81-SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 8 (F) NAME Anwar Choudhry AGE . 45 YEARS IN CANADA 22 MARITAL STATUS M CHILDREN 1 MALE 1 (26 yrs. ) FEMALE... 0 EDUCATION PAKISTAN. BSC, BEd. CANADA... N/A JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Import/Export Co. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 5 COMMENTS: He is a businessman. A few years back he had a radio show to meet the needs of the East Indian community. He owns and runs a laundry store. He is not very active now due to his a i l i n g health. He has an adopted son (his wife's nephew) and three grandchildren. He has two other r e l a t i v e s in Vancouver. He was happy to be part of t h i s research. -82-SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 9 (F) NAME Nawaz Din AGE 34 YEARS IN CANADA 2 MARITAL STATUS U CHILDREN 0 MALE 0 FEMALE... 0 EDUCATION PAKISTAN. MSc CANADA... Ph.D. (Pending) JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Student LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 4 COMMENTS: A graduate student of Chemistry. He d e f i n i t e l y plans to return to Pakistan. He has great d i f f i c u l t y adjusting himself to the Canadian culture. Lack of s o c i a l l i f e and his native food is a problem for him. Cultural differences make him homesick and is in a constant state of nostalgia. He has no re l a t i v e s in Canada. He i s not married. He had received some informal t r a i n i n g and practice in spoken English before he came to Canada. -83-SUBJECTS SUBJECT NUMBER 10 (I) NAME Mohammad L a t i f AGE 38 YEARS IN CANADA 15 MARITAL STATUS M CHILDREN 3 MALE 0 FEMALE... 3 (19, 18, 15 yrs.) EDUCATION PAKISTAN. FA (Grade 12) CANADA... N/A JOB STATUS IN CANADA... Accounting and Insurance Agency LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY... Level 5 COMMENTS: He was an elementary school teacher in Pakistan. He served in the armed forces as an o f f i c e r . He came to Canada 15 yrs. ago and worked as a l i f e insurance salesman. He now, however, manages his own insurance agency; in addition, he works as a bookkeeper and income tax consultant. One daughter is studying medicine and another one is in business administration school. His wife works in a supervisory capacity in a garment manufacturing company. Urdu and English are both practised at home although English i s the dominant language. - 8 4 -T A B L E S COLLOCATION FREQUENCY \ \ SUB. 1 2 3 \"\ if) (I) (t) CAT. \ ACT. N a E a 8 a E a H a E a \ 1 TL 60%( 3) 100M 3) 40M 4) 43t( 3) 39t( 7) 59\(10) HTL mi 21 S(H( 6) 57*1 4) 61*111) 41*1 71 ST 5 3 10 7 18 17_ 2a TL 50%< 3) 87%( 7) 100%( 7) HTL 50* I 31 13*1 11  ST 6 2b TL 100%( 1) 67*( 4) 100%{ 9) 100*1 1) HTL ; 33*1 21  ST 1 6 2c TL 100%( 3) 100*( 2) 1\%[U) 100*1 5) HTL ; 29*1 51  ST 3 2 17 5_ 3 TL 100%( 1) 100%( 1) HTL 100% ( II ST 1 1 ST/ACT TL HTL. TOTAL ACT. 691(11) 31*1 51 100\( 3) 531(10) 47*1 91 671(10) 33*1 51 16 19 15 691(36) 31*1161 52 701(16) 30*1 71 23 ABBREVIATIONS: TL = target l i ke HTL Ha = narrative a c t i v i t y ACT Ea = exposition a c t i v i t y SUB ST = sob-total CAT ? - foraal ly educated I non-target l i ke a c t i v i t y subject category infornal ly educated TABLE I (Page 1 of 4) -85-TABLBS \ \ SUB. 4 5 6 \"\ (M (I) (F) CAT. \ ACT. N a E a 8 a B a H a E a \ 1 TL 42.( 5) 48,| 2) 44%( 8) 160%( 8) 79.(23) HTL 58,1 7) 6Q.( 3) 56.(10) 21.( 6) 3? 12 5 18 !! 29_ 2a TL 3U( 5) 38,< 3) 45.(10) 64.( 9) 701(28) HTL 10Q.( 1) 69,(11) 62%l 5) 55.(12) 36.( 5) 30,(12)  ST 1 16 8 22 14 40 2b TL HTL. ST 100%{ 1) 50t( 2) 50H 21 4 33%, 1) S7.( 2) 71%{ 5) 29.1 2) 3 7 50,( 1) 50.1 1) 2 2c TL HTL. ST 100%( 2) 100H 11 1 100, | 2) 57.( 4) 43M 3) 7 100%{ 5) 861(12) »M 2) 14 TL HTL. ST 60.( 3) 40.( 2) 50%( 1) 5Q.( 1) 2 100.1 1) 1 33*( 1) 67.( 2) 3 ST/ACT TL HTL. TOTAL ACT. 75,( 3) 25.( 1) 4 39.(15) 61.(23) 38 44t( 8) 56,(10) 50.(28) 501(28) 18 56 79,(22) 21.( 6) 28 74.(65) 26.(23) ABBREVIATIONS: TL = target l i k e Ha = narrative a c t i v i t y Ba = exposition a c t i v i t y St = sab-total P = formally educated NTL = non-taiget l i k e ACT = a c t i v i t y SUB = subject CAT - category I = in f o r n a l l y educated TABLE I (Page 2 of 4) -86-TABLES \ \ SUB. 7 8 9 \--\ m m IF) CAT. \ ACT. Ha E a Ha E a H a B a TL 501(3) 671(10) 1001(2) 75,(6) 100,(1) HTL 50,( 31 mi 5) 25,1 2) 100,( 1)  ST 6 15 2 8 1 1 TL 67%( 6) 84,(16) 100\( 3) 58%( 7) 40,( 2) 68,(17) HTL 33,1 3) 16,( 3) 42,( 5) 60,( 3) 32,( 8) ST 9 19 3 12 5 25 2b TL HTL. ST 100M 1) 100,( 1) 100,( 1) 80l( 4) mi 1) 5 TL 67,( 4) 89l( 8) 100.1 1) 100,( 5) 100%( 2) 100l( 4) HTL 33.( 2) UM II  ST 6 9 1 5 2 4 TL HTL_ ST 80.( 4) 20%( 1) 100K 1) ST/ACT TL 671(18) 80,(35) 100,| 6) 731(19) 50,( 4) 721(26) HTL 33,< 9) 20,( 9) 27,( 7) 50,( 4) 281(10) TOTAL ACT. 27 44 6 26 8 3_L ABBREVIATION: TL = target like HTL = non-target like Ha = narrative activity ACT = activity Ea = exposition activity SUB = subject ST = sob-total CAT = category F = tonally educated I = infornally educated TABLE I (Page 3 of 4) -87-TABLBS \ \ SOB. \ - - \ CAT. \ ACT. 10 (I) H a E a AVERAGE SUB. 1-10 Ma E a ST/CAT. SUB. 1-10 (Ea t Ha) 2 X TL HTL. ST 83%( 5) mi i) 100*{ 3) 56*1 34) 44*1 27) 84*1 72) 36*( 41) 61* 39* (106) 1 68) 13.62 * * * 35*1 61) 65*1113) 32* <174> 15.54 * * * 2a TL HTL. ST 38%( 5) 62*1 8) 13 67*( 4) 33*( 2| 58*( 38) 42*1 28) 64*1 94) 36*1 54) 6 62* 38* (132) 1ML 31*1 66) 69*1148) 39* <214> 23.75 * * * 8.24 * * 31.42 * * * 2b TL HTL. ST 100*1 1) 100*1 2) 1 71*1 12) 29*1 5) 71*( 20) 29*1 8) 38*1 17) 62*1 28) 71* 29* 1 32) l i l L 8* < 45> 2c TL HTL. ST 80*( 4) 20*1 1) 5 80*( 4) 20*1 1) 82*( 37) 18*1 8) 84*1 42) 16*1 8) 47*1 45) 53*1 50) 83* 17* 1 79) 1 16) 17* < 95) TL HTL. ST 100*1 11 67*( 6) 42*1 5) 33*1 3) 58*1 71 1 43*1 91 57*1 121 52* { 11) 48* 1 101 4* < 21) ST/ACT TL HTL. TOTAL ACT. 56*114) 65*111) 64*1127) 66*(233) 661 (360) 44*111) 35*1 61 36*1 711 34*11181 34* 1189) 25 17 36*11981 64*13511 CT <549> 31.21 * * * 11.68 * * * 42.63 * * * ABBREVIATIONS: * = TL = target like Ha = narrative activity Ea = exposition activity ST = sab-total 6T = grand total p < .05 ; * * = HTL = non-target like ACT = activity SUB = subject CAT = category I = infoisally edncated p < .01 ; * * * = p <.001 TABLE I (Page 4 of 4) - 8 8 -TABLES TOTAL COLLOCATIONS  IN RANKING ORDER Rank No. Category Name Number of Collocations 1 2a (V + P) 214 2 1 (Prep. lead.) 174 3 2c (A + P) 95 . 4 2b (N + P) 45 5 3 (Non - Prep.) 21 T o t a l 549 TABLE II -89-TABLES TARGET LIKE vs. NON-TARGET LIKE  PERCENTAGES IN RANKING ORDER No. Catecrorv Name TL NTL 1 2c (A + P) .83 .17 2 2b (N + P) .71 .29 3 2a (V + P) .62 .38 4 1 (Prep. lead.) .61 .39 5 3 (Non - Prep.) .52 .48 TABLE III -90-TABLES NARRATIVE ACTIVITY vs . EXPOSITION ACTIVITY and FORMALLY EDUCATED vs . INFORMALLY EDUCATED A c t i v i t y Na vs . Ea TOTAL F vs . I 1 TL 34 72 ->106<- 76 30 NTL 27 41 -> 68<- 37 31 2a TL 38 94 ->132<- 98 34 NTL 28 54 -> 82<- 42 40 2b TL 12 20 -> 32<- 19 13 NTL 5 8 -> 13<- 2 11 2c TL 37 42 -> 79<- 61 18 NTL 8 8 -> 16<- 10 6 3 TL 6 5 -> 1 K - 7 4 NTL 3 7 -> 10<- 5 5 Tota l 198 351 549 357 192 TABLE IV -91-c A T E 6 0 R I E S H3T06RAH I 1 1 m H T L C 0 L L 0 C f t T I 0 K ? BV CATEGORY (HA • EA COMBINED) 2A 2C ST/ACT {fl=TL FJ=NTL THIS 6RAP! TABLE I LAST COLUMN REPRESENTS) (P. 4 OF 4) TITLED ST/CAT'. 26 46 66 PERCENTAGE 186 1988/86/61 H. MIAN -92-c A I E 6 0 R I E S ST/ACT TL COLLOCATIONS RV CATE60RV B=HA B=Eft THIS GRAPH TABLE I 2HD. LAST 'AUi: <P REPRESENTS 4 OF 4) CpLUHH TITLEq RASE'. 26 46 66 PERCENTAGE 166 1988/66/81 H. Ill AH - 9 3 -IH TL COLLOCATIONS BV SUBJECT AND/OR &OHAIN i 2 3 4 S } 8 • • • • • 1 • • • • • • wmmmmmmt/m wmmmmmmmm w t/mmmmmm/k E c 8 9 18 IftVRG mmm/m/mmm <mmm»mmmmm mmmmmmmm wim/mm W//////////////////////W ww/w/mmm wmm/mmmm. 77im THIS TABLE I ffl=NA 0=EA GlftPH REPRESENTS BpTTOH ROM T1TLEJ0 'ST/flCT'. 6 26 46 66 PERCENTA6E 88 188 1988/66/81 H. HIAN 5A5 -95-m « n II TOTAL NUMBER OF COLLOCATIONS TL US. HTL TOTAL 5 4 9 1988/88/81 H. HIAN -96-11X-28X s J 21X-38X R E 31X-48X & I S I 41X-58X R I B II 51X-68X T I N 61X-78X R A |j 71X-88X 81X-98X 91X-188X III :NA EA COLLOCATION VARIATION ACROSS DISCOURSE DOMAINS 4 6 SUBJECTS 8 18 1988/88/12 H. MIAN -97-P O O T N O T E S CHAPTER I 1. The following information is obtained from S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Vancouver, B.C. Canada, For reference information see ' S t a t i s t i c s Canada1 in bibliography. A R E A PSO* PMO** TPC*** PSO % Metro. Vancouver 2,285 650 1,380,729 0.16 B r i t i s h Columbia 2,615 830 2,883,367 0.09 Canada 24,880 6,775 25,309,331 0.09 Pakistanis of Single Origin Pakistanis of Multiple Origin Total Population of Canada ** *** 2. Professor Larry Michigan) referred graduate course Selinker (The University of to i t when he was teaching a ENED 543 / RESEARCH IN ESL ---98-FOOTNOTES during the summer session 1986 at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. 3. Notions of such a l i n g u i s t i c system have been developed independently by Jakobovits (1969) and Nemser (1971). 4. The notion 'interlanguage' is introduced in Selinker (1969). 5. A) 'Acquisition' and 'learning' are used inter -changeably in t h i s thesis. For further d e t a i l s see Krashen (1981). B) "The usefulness of the d i s t i n c t i o n between ac q u i s i t i o n and learning has been emphasised by Lambert (1966) and the p o s s i b i l i t y that the l a t t e r may benefit from a study of the former has been suggested by C a r r o l l (1966)." (Corder 1974:20) CHAPTER II 1. George Whitworth, Indian English: an examination of -99-FOOTNOTES the idiom made by Indians in writing English (n.d.). Also F.Q. French (1964), Common Errors in English, London. 2. See Stephen D. Krashen (1981), Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (Oxford: Pergamon Press), for his d i s t i n c t i o n between 'learning' and.'acquis i t ion 1. 3. Teaching method and s t y l e ; teacher's personality and sex; student's motivation and aptitude; their attitude towards TL, people and culture. What I would l i k e to point out is that Asian immigrants may prefer an authoritative teaching s t y l e instead of a North American democratic teaching s t y l e ; or students coming from a male dominated society may prefer a male teacher; and in some cultures and customs school is seen as a place in which to be •taught' and not necessarily one in which to 'learn•. 4. Hughes' footnote explains: "I s h a l l make the si m p l i f i e d assumption that the learner knows only one language and is learning only one language." -100-FOOTNOTES 5. Two broad categories of errors: l i n g u i s t i c and psycholinguistic. L i n g u i s t i c is also known as pedagogical because of i t s relevance to the design of curriculum and teaching materials and/or aids for regular or remedial SL courses and because i t provides feedback about the e f f i c a c y of pedagogical practice. The psycholinguistic category looks at d i f f e r e n t ways (how and why) languages are learned, and at the relationship between native language a c q u i s i t i o n and foreign language learning. Svartvik (1973) named i t 'performance analysis'. 6. See footnote number 5. 7. Selinker introduced the term in 1969. 8. See footnote number 3. 9. See footnote number 3. 10. See footnote number 3. -101-FOOTNOTES CHAPTER III 1. Published by Pakistan-Canada Association of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1986, v o l . 14. 2. A l l subjects share geographical background, i . e . , they are a l l from Greater Vancouver (in Canada) and from Lahore (in Pakistan). 3. National language of Pakistan. 4. See Terminology for d e f i n i t i o n -- section 1.3. 5. See Ch. I for d e f i n i t i o n of "error". 6. See Borg and Gal l (1983:464-522) for more d e t a i l s . CHAPTER IV 1. A) Consult Table I (4 pages) for a l l numerical data. B) In most cases decimal numbers and percentages have been rounded off to the nearest tenth. -102-FOOTNOTES It i s the average of the 'ST/ACT1 (Sub-total/ A c t i v i t y ) of the subjects number 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Consult TL collocations in Ea and Na --bottom row of Table I. It is the average of the 'ST/ACT1 (Sub-total/ A c t i v i t y ) of the subjects number 2, 4, 5, and 10. Refer to TL collocations in Ea and Na -- bottom row of Table I. -103-B I B L I O G R A P H Y ABBREVIATIONS BJLT B r i t i s h Journal of Language Teaching CIEFL Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India ELTJ English Language Teaching Journal ELT English Language Journal ERIC Educational Resources Information Centre ETF English Teaching Forum FdM Le Franca is dans le Monde GL General Linguistics HER Harvard Educational Review IL Interlanguage IRAL International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching JESL Journal of English as a Second Language L Language LL Language Learning LS Language Sciences LTL Language Teaching and Linguistics ULQ Utah Language Quarterly WPIL Working Papers in Linguistics -104-BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, J.P.B. and S. P i t Corder. 1974. Techniques in Applied L i n g u i s t i c s . Edinburgh Course in Applied  L i n g u i s t i c s 3. (London: Oxford University Press). Ausubel, David P. 1963. The Psychology of Meaningful  Verbal Learning (New York: Grune and Stratton). Banathy, Bela H. and Paul H. Madarasz. 1969. Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. JESL 4:77-92. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.). Borg, Walter R. and Meredith D. G a l l . 1983 (4th. e d i t i o n ) . Educational Research: An Introduction. (New York: Longman). Breitenstein, P.H. 1978. The Application of Contrastive L i n g u i s t i c s . In ELT 33(l):21-26. Briere, Eugene. 1966a. An Investigation of Phonological Interference. JL 42:768-96; 1966b. Quantity Before Quality in Second Language Composition. LL 16:141-51. Brown, Cheryl. 1976. Error Analysis: A Hard Look at Method in Madness. ULQ 6:14-26. Brown, Douglas. 1980. P r i n c i p l e s of Language Learning  and Teaching (Eaglewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.). Burt, Marina and Carol Kiparsky. 1974. Global and Local Mistakes. In J. Schumann and N. Stenson, (eds.). New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). C a r r o l l , J.B. 1966. Research on Language Learning and L i n g u i s t i c s . In Report of the Northeast Conference. (New York: Modern Language Association, Material Centre). Catford, J.C. 1968. Contrastive Analysis and Language Teaching. In James E. A l a t i s (ed.), Report on the  Nineteenth Annual Georgetown Round Table Meeting on  L i n g u i s t i c s and Language Studies, pp.159-73. (Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press). -105-BIBLIOGRAPHY Chau, Tran-Thi. 1975. Error Analysis, Contrastive Analysis, and Students' Perception: A Study of D i f f i c u l t y in Second Language Learning. In IRAL 13:119-143. Corder, S. P i t . 1971. Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis. IRAL 10:209-31. Corder, S. P i t . 1973. Introducing Applied L i n g u i s t i c s . (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Education). Corder, S. P i t . 1973a. The E l i c i t a t i o n of Interlanguage. In Errata, S. Svartvik (ed.). 1973. Corder, S. P i t . 1974. Error Analysis. In J.P.B. Allen and S.P. Corder, (eds.). 1974:122-54. Corder, S. P i t . 1974. The Significance of Learners Errors. In Jack C. Richards (ed.). 1974:24. (England: Longman). This a r t i c l e f i r s t published in 1967. IRAL 5:161-70. Corder, S. P i t . 1975. Error Analysis, Interlanguage and Second Language Acquisi t i o n . LTL 8:201-7. Corder, S. P i t . 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. (Oxford: Ofxord University Press). Crane, Ben L. et a l . 1981. An Introduction to  L i n g u i s t i c s . (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Co.). Davies, Alan, C. Criper and A.P.R. Howard (eds.). 1984. Interlanguage (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) . Dickerson, Lonna J. 1974. Internal and External  Patterning of Phonological Variability in the Speech of Japanese Learners of English: Toward a  Theory of Second Language Acquisition. (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of I l l i n o i s ) . Di Pietro, R.J. 1971. Language Structures in Contrast. (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Dulay, H.C. and M.K. Burt. 1974. You Can't Learn Without Goofing: An Analysis of Children's Second -106-BIBLIOGRAPHY Language Errors. In Richards (ed.). 1974:95-123. Duskova, Libuse. 1969. On Sources of Errors in Foreign Language Teaching. IRAL 7:11-36. Enkvist, N i l s E r i k . 1973. Should We Count Errors or Measure Success? In Jan Svartik (ed.) 1973. Ferguson, CA. 1965. General Introduction to the Contrastive Studies Series. In Stockwell et a l . , The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish. (Chicago: University of Chicago). Finocchiaro, Mary. 1974. English as a Second Language:  From Theory to Practice (New York: Regents). Fischer, Ruth Emily. 1982. An Error Analysis of the Oral  Production of Korean Adults Learning English (Master's Thesis, Georgetown Univ e r s i t y ) . Fowler, Dennis G. 1984. Contrastive Analysis and the Classroom Teacher. In BJLT 22:167-72. French F.Q. 1964. Common Errors in English (London: Oxford University Press). F r i e s , Charles C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as  a Foreign Language (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press) . F r i t h , M.B. 1975. Second Language Learning: An Examination of Two Hypotheses. IRAL 4:327-32. Fromkin, V i c t o r i a A. (ed.). 1974. Speech Errors as  Linguistic Evidence (The Hague: Mouton). George, H.V. 1972. Common Errors in Language Learning (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1977. Error Analysis: A C r i t e r i o n for the Development of Materials in Foreign Language Education. ELTJ 31:244-48. Glass, Gene V. and Kenneth D. Hopkins. 1984. S t a t i s t i c a l  Methods In Education And Psychology (Eaglewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.). -107-BIBLIOGRAPHY Gleason, H.A. J r . 1965. An Introduction to Descriptive  Linguistics (New York: Holt). Gradman, H.L. 1971. The Limitations of Contrastive Analysis Predictions. WPIL 3,4:11-15. Hakuta, K. and Herlinda Cancino. 1977. Trends in Second Language Acquisition Research. In HER 47:294-315. Ha l l , Robert. 1960. L i n g u i s t i c s and Your Language, 2nd. Edit i o n , revised (New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc.). Hammerly, Hector. 1982. Synthesis in Second Language  Teaching: An Introduction to Lanauistics (Burnaby, B.C.: Second Language Publications). Hamp, E.P. 1968. What a Contrastive Grammar is Not, If It Is. Report of the Nineteenth Annual Round Table  Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies,  Monograph series on Language and L i n g u i s t i c s . J.E. A l a t i s (ed.). pp. 137-47. (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Un i v e r s i t y ) . Hughes, Arthur. 1980. Problems in Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 192 573, p . l . James, C a r l . 1980. Contrastive Analysis (London: Longman). Jakobovits, Leon A. 1969. A Psycholinguistic Analysis  of Second Language Learning and Bilingualism. (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Krashen, Stephen D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition  and Second Language Learning (Oxford: Pergamon Press) . Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan). Lambert, Wallace E. 1966. Some Observations on F i r s t Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (Mimeograph), referred to by P i t Corder 1974:20. -108-BIBLIOGRAPHY Lennenberg, E. 1967. Foundations of Language. (New York: Longman). Nemser, william. 1971. Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. IRAL 9:115-23. Newmark, Leonard and David A. Reibel. 1968. Necessity and Sufficiency in Language Learning. IRAL 6:145-64. Richards, Jack C. 1971. Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies. LL 17:12-22. Richards J. 1971a. A Non-contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. ELT 25:204-19. Also in Richards (ed.). 1974. Richards, J. (ed.) 1974. Error Analysis: Perspectives on  Second Language Acquisition. (London: Longman). Ritchie, W.C. 1967. Implications of Generative Grammar for the Construction of Courses in English as a Foreign Language. LL 17:45-69 and 111-31. Rivers, Wilga M. 1970. Contrastive L i n g u i s t i c s in Textbook and Classroom. ETF 8:7-10. Rivers, Wilga M. 1972. Speaking in Many Tongues. (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Robinett, Betty Wallace and Jacquelyn Schachter. 1986 ( F i r s t publication 1983). Second Language Learning:  Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and Related  Aspects (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan). Rojas, Colette. 1971. L'analyse des fautes. FdM 81:58-63. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the  Study of Speech (New York: Harcourt). Schachter, Jacquelyn D. 1974. An Error in Error Analysis. LL 24:205-14. Selinker, Larry. 1969. Language Transfer. GL 9:67-92. Selinker, Larry. 1974. Interlanguage. In Richards -109-BIBLIOGRAPHY (ed.). 1974:31-54. Selinker, Larry. 1984. The Current State of IL Studies: An Attempted C r i t i c a l Summary. In Davies, et a l . (eds.). 1984. Selinker, L and Susan Gass. 1984. Workbook in Second  Language Acquisition (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Sinha, Anjani Kumar and Usha K. Sinha. 1977. Error Analysis as an Aid to Second Language Acquisition. CIEFL Bulletin 13:23-40. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1986. Census of Canada: Ethnic  Origin: Population by Ethnic Origin Showing Single  and Multiple Origins for Canada, Provinces, and  T e r r i t o r i e s and Census Metropolitan Areas. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1986. B r i t i s h Columbia P r o f i l e s of  Canada and B r i t i s h Columbia. Catalogue # 94119. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1986. Vancouver Part I P r o f i l e . Catalogue # 95167. Stockwell, Robert P., J. Donald Bowen, John W. Martin. 1965. The Grammatical Structures of English and  Spanish. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Strevens, Peter. 1965. Papers in Language and Language  Teaching. (London: Oxford University Press). Strevens, Peter. 1969. Two Ways of Looking at Error Analysis. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 037 714. Svartvik, J. (ed.). 1973. Errata: Papers in Error  Analysis (Lund: Gleerup). Tarone, E.E. 1982. Systematicity and Attention in Interlanguage. IL 32.1:69-83. Tarone, E.E. 1984. On the V a r i a b i l i t y of Interlanguage Systems. In Richards, et a l . (eds.). Universals  of Second Language Acquisition. (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). -110-BIBLIOGRAPHY Valdman, Albert. 1975. Learner System and Error Analysis. In Perspective: A New Freedom, G.A. Jarvis (Ed.). (Skokie, I l l i n o i s : National Textbook), pp. 219-258. Valdman, A. and Harry Gradman. 1979. A Selected Bibliography on Language Learners' Systems and Error Analysis. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 105 772 (1975). Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1974. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. In New Frontiers in Second Language  Learning, John Schumann and Nancy Stenson (eds.), pp. 11-19. (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Whitman, Randal L. and Kenneth L. Jackson. 1972. The Unp r e d i c t a b i l i t y of Contrastive Analysis. LL 22:29-41. Wilkins, D.A. 1968. Review of A. Valdman, Trends in  Language Teaching. IRAL 6:102. f Wolfe, D.L. 1967. Some Theoretical Aspects of Language Learning and Language Teaching. LL 17:173-88. 

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.831.1-0078311/manifest

Comment

Related Items