Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The acquisition of the English system of pronominalization by adult second language learners Takagaki, Bob 1985-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 T34.pdf [ 7.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078319.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078319-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078319-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078319-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078319-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078319-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078319-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078319-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078319.ris

Full Text

THE ACQUISITION OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF PRONOMINALIZATION BY ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS  by BOB TAKAGAKI A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES LANGUAGE EDUCATION  We a c c e p t t h i s  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  THE  standard  UNIVERSITY ;OF BRITISH APRIL  ©  BOB  26,  COLUMBIA  1985  TAKAGAKI,  1985  z  In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s 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 t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  Language Education  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T  1Y3  Date  DE-6  (3/81)  April 26, 1985  ABSTRACT The  study presented  i n t h i s paper i s a second  s t u d y of'""the a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e E n g l i s h pronominalization partial  by a d u l t  language  system of  l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h . I t i s a  r e p l i c a t i o n o f I n g r a m a n d Shaw's ( 1 9 8 1 )  first  l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d y on t h e same t o p i c . One h u n d r e d 'and e i g h t y subjects  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  four  subjects  and twenty c o n t r o l  a w r i t t e n task  that  involved  making a n a p h o r i c assignments t o pronouns i n t h i r t y sentences, representing construction  five  test  seven d i f f e r e n t s e n t e n c e  types.  Analysis  of t h e d a t a  indicated that  t h e two s y n t a c t i c  c o n s t r a i n t s of p r e c e d e n c e and dominance p l a y e d  major  roles  i n t h e a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s made by a l l s u b j e c t s . I n addition,  t h e s e two s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s were  instrumental  in d e l i n e a t i n g developmental stages i n the a c q u i s i t i o n process.  A comparison of the response p a t t e r n s  the  present  study's subjects  and  Shaw's s u b j e c t s  revealed  d i f f e r e n c e s suggested that i n v a r i a n t and h i g h l y  of  the processing  and t h o s e d i s p l a y e d  by  by Ingram,  a number o f d i f f e r e n c e s . T h e s e  t h e a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s was n o t  sequential  highly creative, allowing  displayed  i n nature,  a great  deal  s t r a t e g i e s employed.  but dynamic and  of l a t i t u d e i n terms  Table of Contents ABSTRACT  i i  L I S T OF TABLES  v  L I S T OF FIGURES  v i i  L I S T OF CHARTS  X  I . THE PROBLEM II.  1  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  ..4  A. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS  III.  4  B. PREVIOUS RESEARCH  13  RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY  27  A. SUBJECTS  27  B. TEST ITEMS  29  C. EXPERIMENTAL TASK  32  D. SCORING  34  E. NULL HYPOTHESES  35  F. S T A T I S T I C A L ANALYSIS  36  G. NON-STATISTICAL A N A L Y S I S  37  I V . RESEARCH  FINDINGS  38  A. GENERAL COMMENTS  38  B. S T A T I S T I C A L FINDINGS  40  C. NON-STATISTICAL A N A L Y S I S : COMMON PATTERNS OF RESPONSE  57  V. DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH  FINDINGS  A. DISCUSSION OF S T A T I S T I C A L ANALYSIS B. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMON PATTERNS  65 65 OF RESPONSE .83  C. COMPARISONS WITH THE INGRAM AND SHAW STUDY ...101 V I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. SUMMARY  109 109  B. CONCLUSIONS  114  C. LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY  119  D. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH  125  BIBLIOGRAPHY  127  QUIZ  134  IX. FIGURES  136  VII. VIII.  X. APPENDIX I  1 58  iv  L I S T OF  Table  1.  T a b l e ' 2.  Table  Table  Table  3.  4.  5.  TABLES  T h i r t y - f i v e Test S e n t e n c e s and Q u e s t i o n s F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n s U s e d i n t h e I n g r a m and Shaw S t u d y  17  T o t a l P r o p o r t i o n of C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e s F o r Twenty A d u l t S u b j e c t s For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types I n the I n g r a m a n d Shaw S t u d y  20  Mean Number o f C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e s F o r One H u n d r e d C h i l d S u b j e c t s F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types In t h e I n g r a m and Shaw S t u d y  21  P r o p o r t i o n of C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e F o r E i g h t y - S i x C h i l d r e n i n t h e I n g r a m and Shaw S t u d y , D i s t r i b u t e d A c r o s s F i v e P a t t e r n s of Response F o r Seven Const ruct ions  22  T e s t I t e m s and C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s Employed i n the Present Study  31  Tables  6a-6g.  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1-7 APPENDIX I  Tables  7a~7g.  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1-7 APPENDIX I  Tables  8a-8g.  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1-7 APPENDIX I  Table  9.  Table  Table  Table  10a.  10b.  10c.  H o t e l l i n g s T e s t of S i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the Dependent V a r i a b l e E f f e c t  40  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type  49  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type  50  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type  51  v  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table Table  11a.  11b.  11c.  12a.  12b.  12c.  13. 14.  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e N a t i v e Language B a c k g r o u n d E f f e c t on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type  52  C o n t r a s t s f o r the N a t i v e B a c k g r o u n d E f f e c t on t h e Response T y p e . . .  53  Language Coreferential  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e N a t i v e Language B a c k g r o u n d E f f e c t on t h e O p t i o n a l Response Type  54  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l E f f e c t on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type  55  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l E f f e c t on t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type  56  C o n t r a s t s f o r t h e E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l E f f e c t on t h e O p t i o n a l Response Type  57  Ten P a t t e r n s of R e s p o n s e R e v e a l e d By the P r e s e n t S t u d y  58  C o m p a r i s o n of P r e s e n t S t u d y ' s D a t a Ingram and Shaw's D a t a on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type  vi  with 102  L I S T OF FIGURES  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  1.  2.  3  4a,  4b.  4c  5a,  P e r c e n t a g e s o f I n g r a m a n d Shaw's S u b j e c t s Using F i v e P a t t e r n s Grouped A c c o r d i n g t o : (1) Use o f C o r e f e r e n c e , (2) Use o f P r e c e d e n c e s , ( 3 ) Use o f Dominance  1 36  Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l , C o r e f e r e n t i a l and O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By C o n t r o l G r o u p  1 37  Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l , C o r e f e r e n t i a l and O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p ,  1 38  Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By B e g i n n i n g L e v e l P o l i s h , C a n t o n e s e , V i e t n a m e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups ,  1 39  Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e , Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups ,  1 40  Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By A d v a n c e d L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e , Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups  141  Percentage of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r S e v e n C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Beginning Level P o l i s h , Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups  1 42  vii  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  5b.  5c  6a  6b,  6c  7a.  7b,  7c.  8a.  Percentage of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Intermediate Level P o l i s h , Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e , J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups ,  1 43  Percentage of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Advanced L e v e l P o l i s h , C a n t o n e s e , V i e t n a m e s e , J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups ,  1 44  P e r c e n t a g e of O p t i o n a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Beginning Level P o l i s h , Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups  1 45  P e r c e n t a g e of O p t i o n a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Intermediate Level P o l i s h , Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e , J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups ,  1 46  P e r c e n t a g e of O p t i o n a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Advanced L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e , J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups  1 47  Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups  1 48  Percentage of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups  1 49  Percentage of O p t i o n a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups ,  1 50  Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Control, Beginning Level, Intermediate L e v e l and Advanced L e v e l Groups ,  151  vi i i  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  8b,  8c  9,  10.  11.  12.  P e r c e n t a g e o f C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Control, Beginning Level, Intermediate L e v e l and A d v a n c e d L e v e l G r o u p s  1  52  P e r c e n t a g e o f O p t i o n a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s By Control, Beginning Level, Intermediate L e v e l and A d v a n c e d L e v e l G r o u p s ,  1  53  Percentage of Experimental Subjects D i s p l a y i n g Ten Common P a t t e r n s o f Response A t E a c h E n g l i s h Language Proficiency Level  1  54  P e r c e n t a g e o f P o l i s h and C a n t o n e s e S u b j e c t s D i s p l a y i n g Ten Common P a t t e r n s o f Response A t E a c h E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y Level  1  55  Percentage of Experimental Subjects D i s p l a y i n g Four Major P a t t e r n s At E a c h E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y Level  1  56  P e r c e n t a g e of P o l i s h and Cantonese Subjects D i s p l a y i n g Four Major P a t t e r n s At E a c h E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y Level  ix  57  L I S T OF CHARTS  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  1a.  1b.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6a.  6b.  7a.  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 1a S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  84  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 1b S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  84  Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 2 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  85  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 3 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  86  Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 4 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  88  Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 5 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  90  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n o f P a t t e r n 6a S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  91  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n o f P a t t e r n 6b S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  91  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n o f P a t t e r n 7a S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  94  x  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  Chart  7b.  8.  9a.  9b.  10.  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 7b S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  94  Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 8 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  95  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n o f P a t t e r n 9a S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  98  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n o f P a t t e r n 9b S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  98  R e s p o n s e P a t t e r n o f P a t t e r n 10 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response  99  xi  I. Pronominal  THE  reference  refers  referent  t o a pronoun.  isolated  s e n t e n c e , "Mickey  went o u t " , one  would  one  would,  other  pronoun  the s u b j e c t  has  been  i s the l i k e l y  deal  in f i r s t  language  f o r them and  effort  has  language  been  acquisition  these pages  referent  r e a s o n , or f o r the has  for linguists.  of p r o n o m i n a l  reference  studies,  body of r e s e a r c h d a t a  linguistic  the p o s s i b l e  expended  a  i n the l a t t e r ,  inquiry  the c o n s i d e r a b l e  process that  the  acquisition.  f a r o b t a i n e d , the v a r i o u s  acquisition  The  of a number of r e s e a r c h  Notwithstanding  account  of  p r o c e s s of a s y s t e m  the topic  "Mickey  Mouse went o u t " ,  referent  s e n t e n c e , but not  of a g r e a t  b e f o r e he  However, upon h e a r i n g b e f o r e Mickey  of a  the  the r e f e r e n t  circumstances, assign  Mouse  i n the former  acquisition  the  Mouse a t e b r e a k f a s t  "he".  normal  Mickey  The  thus  upon h e a r i n g  " M i c k e y Mouse" t o t h e p r o n o u n .  why  primarily  F o r example,  ate breakfast  under  than  reasons,  been  "He  t o the assignment  normally assign  Mouse" t o t h e pronoun sentence,  PROBLEM  developmental  have been  to u t i l i z e  r e s e a r c h . The  represents a f i r s t  theories  proposed,  this  s t e p towards  to  stages in little  knowledge  research  used  i n second  contained in remedying  this  situation. The and  present study  Shaw's  pronominal the  effects  is a partial  (1981) f i r s t reference. o f two  language  acquisition  Specifically,  syntactic  replication  1  Ingram  s t u d y of  i t attempts  constraints,  of  to determine  precedence  and  2 dominance,  on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n  p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e by a d u l t  of t h e E n g l i s h  l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h a s a  second language  (hereafter  This study w i l l  address the f o l l o w i n g three  (1)  system of  r e f e r r e d t o a s ESL  t h e n a t u r e of the a c q u i s i t i o n  learners).  problems:  p r o c e s s of t h e E n g l i s h  s y s t e m o f p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n by a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s , (2)  the s i m i l a r i t i e s and/or d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s  first (3)  and second language a c q u i s i t i o n  the role  between t h e  p r o c e s s e s , and  of language t r a n s f e r and/or  interference  i n the  second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s . First  language a c q u i s i t i o n  impetus f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t acquisition  s t u d i e s have p r o v i d e d t h e  body o f s e c o n d  r e s e a r c h . For example,  language  t h e l a r g e number o f  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e s t u d i e s on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n morphemes  (at least  Krashen,1974;  24, i n c l u d i n g B a i l e y , Madden a n d  Dulay and B u r t ,  1973, 1974a,  1975; F a t h m a n , 1975, 1979; L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , s p a r k e d m a i n l y by t h e f i r s t Berko  of grammatical  1974b,* 1974c, 1975, 1976) was  language a c q u i s i t i o n  s t u d i e s of  ( 1 9 5 8 ) , Brown ( 1 9 7 3 ) a n d d e V i l l i e r s a n d d e V i l l i e r s  ( 1 973) . S i m i l a r l y , K l i m a and B e l l u g i acquisition  (1966)'S  s t u d y on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  first  of t h e E n g l i s h n e g a t i o n  system s t i m u l a t e d the second language a c q u i s i t i o n Cancino, Rosansky (1976), M i l o n Sheldon  a n d Schumann ( 1 9 7 8 ) , G i l l i s  (1974) a n d Ravem (1974)'S  s t u d i e s of  a n d Weber  (1968).  s t u d y on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s by f i r s t  language  of E n g l i s h  language l e a r n e r s p l a y e d a  3  dominant r o l e  i n at l e a s t  two  second language  (Ervin-Tripp,  1974; G a s s and A r d ,  In a l m o s t a l l a r e a s o f s e c o n d r e s e a r c h - i n phonology in  discourse analysis  (Burling,  p r o c e s s e s and  1975; H a k u t a , Hatch,  relied  1975),  Y o s h i d a , 1976), i n  (Allwright,  1975;  upon f o r c h o i c e o f r e s e a r c h d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and  interpretation  Felix, and  research  has  topic,  analysis  l a n g u a g e and  language  o f r e s u l t s , and so on.  present study a l s o  language a c q u i s i t i o n This  1959; C e l c e - M a r i a ,  language a c q u i s i t i o n  procedures, theories regarding  The  acquisition  1976; Wagner-Gough, 1978; Wagner-Gough  r e s e a r c h methodology,  learning,  language  1978;  strategies  1976), e t c . - f i r s t  been h e a v i l y  1980).  ( H a t c h , 1978; Wagner-Gough, 1 9 7 4 ) , i n  r e a d i n g and v o c a b u l a r y ( C z i k o , learning  studies  data,  draws h e a v i l y  upon  r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and  i s because of the l a r g e l y e x p l o r a t o r y  first methodology.  n a t u r e of the  s t u d y . To t h e a u t h o r ' s k n o w l e d g e ,  no o t h e r s e c o n d  acquisition  t h e same a p p r o a c h t o t h e  topic  under  s t u d y has t a k e n q u i t e inquiry.  language  II.  REVIEW OF THE  LITERATURE  A. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS The l a d y l a u g h e d a t t h i s f a i r y b e c a u s e she (who?) o n l y h a d one b o y . The l a d y h a d t w e l v e s o n s and t w e l v e d a u g h t e r s . One day she (who?) l a u g h e d a t h e r ( a t whom?). She (who?) was a n g r y a n d s h e (who?) f a s t e n e d h e r (whom?) b e s i d e a s t r e a m . ( P i a g e t , 1926, p. 121. From I n g r a m a n d Shaw, 1981) The p r e c e d i n g q u o t e  illustrates  the issue c e n t r a l t o  t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . When d o e s a p r o n o u n  refer  a definite  syntactic  noun p h r a s e ? U s i n g a p u r e l y (1969)  Langacker  c o n d i t i o n s under  w h i c h p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n o f one noun  or b l o c k e d . Langacker  (definite  noun p h r a s e ) was  restricted  two c o n d i t i o n s were met: ( 1 )  noun p h r a s e  ("a node A  'commands'  a n o t h e r node B i f ( a ) n e i t h e r A n o r B d o m i n a t e s ( b ) t h e S-node t h a t most  dominates definite  immediately dominates  noun p h r a s e may p r o n o m i n a l i z e a p r o n o u n  A also  (note here  t h a t p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e , when a l l o w e d , i s  obligatory). To i l l u s t r a t e  (ii)  the other,  B." L a n g a c k e r , p. 1 6 7 ) . I n a l l o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , a  the i m p l i c a t i o n  (i)  He  was  p r e c e d e s d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e , a n d ( 2 ) p r o n o u n  "commands" t h e d e f i n i t e  not  phrase  suggested that p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  b l o c k e d when t h e f o l l o w i n g  and  analysis,  o f f e r e d a s o l u t i o n by p r o p o s i n g a s e t o f  ( p r o n o u n ) by a n o t h e r  pronoun  or not r e f e r t o  killed  Algernon  the  t h i s p o i n t , c o n s i d e r two mosquito  killed  the  which mosquito  bit which  ( L a n g a c k e r , p. 168)  4  examples:  Algernon. bit  him.  5. In sentence pronoun  ( i ) pronominalization  "he" cannot  r e f e r t o t h e d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e  " A l g e r n o n " , whereas i n s e n t e n c e and  i s b l o c k e d . The  ( i i ) i t may. S e n t e n c e s ( i )  ( i i ) c a n be r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g  (i)  tree  diagrams:  .S. PRONOUN .  .  .S  .  . D E F I N I T E NP .  (ii)  .S. . D E F I N I T E NP  S . PRONOUN  (ie.  .  In s e n t e n c e  ( i ) t h e pronoun  b o t h p r e c e d e s a n d commands  i s "higher"  i n t h e t r e e ) t h a n t h e d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e ,  hence c o r e f e r e n c e i s b l o c k e d . I n s e n t e n c e the  c a s e , hence c o r e f e r e n c e i s p o s s i b l e . C o n s i d e r two more  (iii) (iv)  Before Before  In definite  he went Mickey  sentence  examples:  out,  Mouse  (iii)  noun p h r a s e  Mickey went  Mouse  out,  t h e pronoun  ate  breakfast.  he ate  breakfast.  "he" p r e c e d e s t h e  " M i c k e y Mouse", b u t d o e s n o t command,  hence p r o n o m i n a l c o r e f e r e n c e i s p o s s i b l e . " M i c k e y Mouse". I n s e n t e n c e the  ( i i ) such i s not  d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e  "He" c a n r e f e r t o  ( i v ) t h e pronoun  " h e " commands  " M i c k e y Mouse", b u t d o e s n o t  6 p r e c e d e , hence p r o n o m i n a l c o r e f e r e n c e i s a g a i n p o s s i b l e . I n sentences if  ( i ) and ( i i i )  any t a k e s p l a c e ,  i s backwards.  goes from t h e d e f i n i t e Sentence  (iii)  That  i s , pronominalization  noun p h r a s e back  t o t h e pronoun.  Sentences  (ii)  Backwards  ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d Backwards  Pro).  and ( i v ) a r e i n s t a n c e s o f Good  Pronominalization  ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d Forwards  the d i r e c t i o n of p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  down t h e s e n t e n c e  Forwards P r o ) . That i s ,  i s f o r w a r d s , from  noun p h r a s e t o t h e p r o n o u n ,  Other  Backwards  (hereafter c a l l e d Blocked Backwards).  i s an i n s t a n c e o f Good  Pronominalization  definite  of p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ,  ( i ) i s an i n s t a n c e o f B l o c k e d  Pronominalization Sentence  the d i r e c t i o n  which appears  further  string.  l i n g u i s t s have s i m i l a r l y a t t e m p t e d t o e x p l a i n  p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e i n terms of c o n d i t i o n s under is blocked (Lasnik,  1976; R e i n h a r t ,  1981; R o s s ,  which i t 1969).  Though t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n as t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e pronoun  must be " h i g h e r up" i n t h e t r e e f o r  c o r e f e r e n c e t o be b l o c k e d , by a n d l a r g e , t h e s e concur  studies  i n t h e i n t e r p l a y of precedence and dominance as  constraining The  factors.  one n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s  interpretation.  i s Reinhart's  She o f f e r s a r e s t r i c t i o n  p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n based command r e l a t i o n ,  on  s o l e l y on a p a r t i c u l a r  kind of  " c ( c o n s t i t u e n t ) - c o m m a n d " . Her r e s t r i c t i o n  i s as f o l l o w s : a g i v e n NP c a n n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h a d i s t i n c t n o n p r o n o u n i n i t s c-command domain  7  (a node A c-commands node B i f t h e b r a n c h i n g node most i m m e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t i n g A a l s o d o m i n a t e s B. The d o m a i n o f a node A c o n s i s t s o f a l l a n d o n l y t h e n o d e s c-commanded by A ) . ( R e i n h a r t , 1 9 8 1 ) . Of  a l l the explanations  offered, Reinhart's  version  seems t o be t h e more v i a b l e s i n c e i t c a n a c c o u n t of B l o c k e d not.  Forwards P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , whereas t h e o t h e r s  R e c a l l that sentences  sentence ( v ) :  ( v ) Near  snake.  Dan,  Using  he  (Reinhart,  Langacker's r e s t r i c t i o n s  intuitions  circumstances,  an  a  tell  i s blocked.  r e f e r s to a referent other  called  Blocked  Reinhart's operation The  That i s , t h e pronoun  t h a n "Dan". S e n t e n c e  I urge t h e reader  (v)i s  (hereafter  to consult  f o r a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the  o f h e r c-command foregoing  normal  Forwards P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  Forwards).  article  However, o u r n a t i v e  us t h a t , a t l e a s t u n d e r  coreference  i n s t a n c e of Blocked  1 9 8 1 , p. 608)  on p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  a n d "he" c a n be c o r e f e r e n t i a l .  speaker  "he"  saw  do  ( i i ) and ( i v ) a r e examples of  Forwards P r o . Consider  "Dan"  f o r cases  restriction.  discussion dealt with  oriented theories regarding  the l i n g u i s t i c  pronominal reference. Although  the present  syntactically f a c t s of study  i s also  c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s on p r o n o m i n a l reference, constraint,  i t d o e s seem c l e a r t h a t  syntax  i s not the only  nor can i t account f o r a l l the l i n g u i s t i c  a v a i l a b l e , whether they speech of others  data  a r e i n o n e ' s own s p e e c h o r i n t h e  (Lust, Loveland  and K o r n e t ,  1980; L u s t ,  1 9 8 1 ) . To p u t t h e p r e s e n t  study  i n proper p e r s p e c t i v e , i t  may be h e l p f u l t o b r i e f l y  o u t l i n e some n o n - s y n t a c t i c  factors  8 w h i c h may  determine pronominal  McCray  (1979) p r e s e n t s t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t a n a p h o r i c  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of a pronoun the pronoun within  reference.  depend c r i t i c a l l y  on  o c c u r s i n what she t e r m s a " s e m a n t i c  t h e s e n t e n c e o r d i s c o u r s e . The  s e n t e n c e i s n o t d e t e r m i n e d so much by a s i t i s by d i s c o u r s e  peak"  s e m a n t i c peak o f a intonational  peaks can cause v i o l a t i o n s of s y n t a c t i c  Reinhart,  1981)  In t h i s  and C a r d e n  r e c o g n i z e the p o t e n t i a l semantic-pragmatic  features  f e a t u r e s , s u c h as t o p i c a l i z a t i o n  f o r e g r o u n d i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n . McCray c l a i m s t h a t  pronominalization.  whether  she  semantic  constraints  on  i s s u p p o r t e d by Kuno ( i n  ( p e r s o n a l communication)  i n f l u e n c e of d i s c o u r s e  factors  and  who  also  and  in determining anaphoric  assignments. Murphy and G u n d e r s o n  (1985) u n d e r t o o k a s t u d y  f o c u s s e d on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a n a p h o r i c and a u d i e n c e a w a r e n e s s , whom a c o m m u n i c a t i o n  that  i s , awareness  that  judgements  of t h e p e r s o n f o r  i s i n t e n d e d . They a n a l y z e d t h e  writing  a s s i g n m e n t s o f s t u d e n t s f r o m g r a d e s 2 t o 11 and c o n c l u d e d that  the degree  of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n  made i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f t h e i r degree who  of a u d i e n c e awareness  of a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s  s u b j e c t s was  related  i n t h e w r i t e r . Those  showed a h i g h e r s e n s e o f a u d i e n c e a w a r e n e s s  produce  more a p p r o p r i a t e and c o m p l e x  assignments  in their  to the subjects  tended to  f o r m s of a n a p h o r i c  writings.  M a r s l e n - W i l s o n and T y l e r e x p e r i m e n t s on a n a p h o r a ,  (1980) c o n d u c t e d a s e r i e s o f  taking a psycholinguistic  approach.  9 They c o n c l u d e d  that "pragmatic  role  i n anaphoric  that  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  i n f l u e n c e " p l a y s t h e dominant  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Their basic premise i s of messages i s t h e fundamental  of t h e speech p r o c e s s i n g a c t . I n o r d e r to  be made, t h r e e  simultaneously semantic  sources  processed  source,  by t h e h e a r e r :  i n t e r p r e t a t i v e or pragmatic  given  sentence,  for interpretations  o f i n f o r m a t i o n must be  a structural  i n f o r m a t i o n may f a v o u r  goal  a l e x i c a l or  or s y n t a c t i c source,  source.  a different  Though e a c h s o u r c e o f anaphoric  assignment  t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s b a s e d on  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The a u t h o r s  a n d an  in a  pragmatic  state,  ... t h e l i s t e n e r c a n i n d e e d c a r r y a l o n g m u l t i p l e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e h y p o t h e s e s , a n d may d e l a y commitment t o a n y s i n g l e one o f them u n t i l pragmatic i n f e r e n c i n g , r e l a t i v e t o t h e d i s c o u r s e and t h e w o r l d , c o n f i r m s one p a r t i c u l a r a s s i g n m e n t a n d r u l e s o u t a n y o t h e r s , ( p . 34) ) T h e r e a r e two p o i n t s t o be made a b o u t t h e Marslen-Wilson anaphoric  and T y l e r study.  First,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c a n be h e l d  the notions  i n a b e y a n c e and t h a t  s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c a n be " c a r r i e d along", without an  utterance  by o t h e r  contrasts sharply with the semantic-pragmatic  (Caramazza, Grober, Garvey and Yates, Gupta,  simultaneously  c o m m i t m e n t s t o a n y s i n g l e one w h i l e  i s being heard,  c o n c l u s i o n s reached  that  1979). Second, t h e sentences  studies  1977; C a r a m a z z a a n d  and t a s k s employed i n  the M a r s l e n - W i l s o n  and T y l e r study  were somewhat odd i n  nature,  the p o s s i b i l i t y  that the responses of the  suggesting  s u b j e c t s were somehow b i a s e d  i n the desired  direction.  10 Caramazza,. G r o b e r , Caramazza and Gupta which  Garvey  (1979) c o n d u c t e d  they measured t h e time  anaphoric  and Yates  (1977) and  a number o f s t u d i e s i n  i t took t h e i r  s u b j e c t s t o make  judgements of pronouns i n a v a r i e t y  of t e s t  s e n t e n c e s . The t h r u s t b e h i n d t h e s e s t u d i e s was t o e x p l o r e the i n f l u e n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r "implicit  causality",  assignments  i n determining  t o pronouns.  Implicit  f e a t u r e of c e r t a i n verbs t h a t as t h e p o s s i b l e events"  instigator  (Caramazza,  semantic  Jane  racquet  .  (vii)  Jane  angered  hit  (Caramazza,  Mary  " s e l e c t s one noun o r t h e o t h e r  Garvey  because  because  Grober, Garvey  she  she  had  a n d Y a t e s , 19, p. 6 0 1 ) . two s e n t e n c e s : had  sentence.  a  tennis  tennis  racquet.  i n o n l y one r e s p e c t , anaphoric  of the pronoun i n sentence  "Jane", whereas t h e p r e f e r r e d  instigator  a  a n d Y a t e s , 1977)  t h e main v e r b s e m p l o y e d , t h e p r e f e r r e d  ( v i i ) would  stolen  stolen  A l t h o u g h t h e two s e n t e n c e s d i f f e r  interpretation  refers to a  o r c a u s a l source f o r a s e r i e s of  Grober,  Mary  coreferential  causality  For example, c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g (vi)  f e a t u r e of v e r b s ,  ( v i ) would  interpretation  be "Mary". I n s e n t e n c e  be  i n sentence  ( v i ) "Jane"  i s the  of the s e r i e s of events d e s c r i b e d i n the In sentence  (vii)  "Mary" i s t h e i n s t i g a t o r .  Note  t h a t , u n l i k e M a r s l e n - W i l s o n and T y l e r ' s c l a i m s t h a t anaphoric  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c a n be h e l d i n a b e y a n c e ,  causality  r e q u i r e s p r e f e r r e d a n a p h o r i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o be  made e a r l y , a s e a r l y a s t h e s e c o n d  implicit  word i n t h e s e n t e n c e .  11  The  "implicit  of main v e r b s , to the f i r s t and  causality" studies  those that biased  such as sentence ( v i ) ,  c o r e f e r e n t i a l assignments t o the  s e c o n d NP i n t h e main c l a u s e , a s i n s e n t e n c e for  each verb,  on two k i n d s  c o r e f e r e n t i a l assignments  NP i n t h e m a i n c l a u s e ,  those that biased  focussed  (vii).  Then,  p a i r s o f s e n t e n c e s were c o n s t r u c t e d . One  sentence would c o n t a i n  a subordinate  clause  t h a t was  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the n a t u r a l b i a s o f the main v e r b , sentence  (viii),  which apparently  "telephoned", that biases first  NP i n t h e main John  (viii) i n forma  telephoned  Bill  because  he  John  infor  mati  some  lion.  telephoned  a subordinate  clause  that  t h e n a t u r a l b i a s o f t h e same m a i n  Bill  because  he  withheld  were t h e n e x p o s e d t o a number o f s e n t e n c e  p a i r s a n d were a s k e d t o make a n a p h o r i c pronouns i n each sentence. S u b j e c t s ' recorded.  some  on.  Subjects  The r e s u l t s showed  sentences that contained  with  wanted  such as sentence ( i x ) .  (ix)  of  verb,  clause.  inconsistent with  verb,  a main  c o r e f e r e n t i a l assignments t o the  The s e c o n d s e n t e n c e c o n t a i n e d was  contains  such as  assignments t o the r e a c t i o n times  that anaphoric subordinate  were  interpretations  clauses  consistent  t h e n a t u r a l b i a s o f t h e main v e r b were made f a s t e r t h a n  anaphoric subordinate  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of sentences that clauses  the main v e r b .  inconsistent with  contained  the n a t u r a l bias of  The a u t h o r s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e s e m a n t i c  12  f e a t u r e of i m p l i c i t  causality  determining coreferential  was an i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e i n  assignments.  However, l e a v i n g a s i d e t h e c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n o f how t h e "natural bias" an  o f t h e main v e r b s were d e t e r m i n e d , t h e r e i s  important point to consider i n regards to these  The  sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n s employed  subordinate rather  "because"  s m a l l subset of the t o t a l  to pragmatic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,  range  of sentence  involve obligatory  recourse  i n order f o r  t o be made.  f o r e g o i n g s t u d i e s have e x p l o r e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of  f a c t o r s other than precede  a n d command r e l a t i o n s  for anaphoric i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  Specifically,  l o o k e d a t semantic and p r a g m a t i c discourse  possible  such as c a u s a l i t y ,  k i n d of anaphoric assignment The  exclusively  c l a u s e s , which not only comprise a  c o n s t r u c t i o n types, but p o s s i b l y  any  involved  studies.  f a c t o r s and semantic  t o account  they  have  f a c t o r s , as w e l l as o v e r a l l  f e a t u r e s of v e r b s . W h i l e  some  of t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e n o t w i t h o u t c e r t a i n m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and d e s i g n problems of t h e i r  own, i t d o e s seem c l e a r  c o n s t r a i n t s on a s y s t e m o f p r o n o m i n a l  r e f e r e n c e a r e complex  and m a n i f o l d . I t i s n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e t o s u g g e s t c o n s t r a i n t s on p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n syntactic that  that  that  i n v o l v e a c o m b i n a t i o n of  and n o n - s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s  that  interact  i n a way  i s , a s y e t , u n c l e a r . H o w e v e r , no m a t t e r how d e s i r a b l e a  g l o b a l approach  t o t h e a n a l y s i s may b e , i t i s n o t c l e a r a s  t o w h e t h e r s u c h an a p p r o a c h  i s indeed p o s s i b l e . Needless to  s a y , s u c h an u n d e r t a k i n g i s b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r e s e n t study.  13 B.  PREVIOUS RESEARCH A number o f f i r s t  been u n d e r t a k e n on p r o n o m i n a l One  t o determine reference  of t h e f i r s t  (1969).  language a c q u i s i t i o n  non-coreference  how t h e s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s  i n E n g l i s h a r e a c q u i r e d by c h i l d r e n .  of these  In t e s t i n g  s t u d i e s have  s t u d i e s was c o n d u c t e d  by Chomsky  t h e degree of awareness of  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r o n o u n a n d d e f i n i t e  noun p h r a s e i n 40 c h i l d r e n , a g e d 5 t o 10 y e a r s , s h e concluded did  t h a t t h e two c o n d i t i o n s , p r e c e d e n c e a n d d o m i n a n c e ,  indeed  that,  play c r u c i a l  i n general, children  system a t a r e l a t i v e l y Lust, Loveland experiments also in  roles  found  seemed t o a c q u i r e t h e a d u l t  uniform age.  and Kornet  w i t h 80 c h i l d r e n ,  (1980) c o n d u c t e d  a g e d 3;5 t o 7;5 y e a r s , a n d  c o n s t r a i n i n g c o r e f e r e n c e . The a u t h o r s  (ie.  the pragmatics  the context) could determine  the d e f i n i t e  a l s o made two of a given  sentence  whether t h e pronoun and  t o each o t h e r . Secondly,  their  a preference  f o r Forwards P r o over  words, t h e i r  s u b j e c t s made more a n a p h o r i c  constructions  This last  s u b j e c t s showed  Backwards Pro.  In other  interpretations in  i n v o l v i n g Forwards P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n s than i n  involving  undertaken  roles  noun p h r a s e c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n i t , r e f e r r e d o r  not r e f e r  those  a s e r i e s of  t h a t precedence and dominance p l a y e d v i t a l  additional points. First,  did  i n b l o c k i n g c o r e f e r e n c e and  Backwards P r o . p o i n t was f u r t h e r c o r r o b o r a t e d by a  by S o l a n  (1981). H i s study  study  again confirmed the  i n f l u e n c e o f p r e c e d e n c e a n d d o m i n a n c e f o r a g r o u p o f 36  14 c h i l d r e n , aged  5 t o 7 y e a r s . I n a d d i t i o n , Solan found  that  c l a u s e m a t e d n e s s was a f a c t o r  i n determining coreferential  responses. Pronominalization  i n s e n t e n c e s where p r o n o u n a n d  definite  noun p h r a s e a p p e a r e d  i n t h e same c l a u s e t e n d e d t o  be b l o c k e d more o f t e n t h a n i n s e n t e n c e s where p r o n o u n a n d definite  noun p h r a s e a p p e a r e d  example,  the following  (  x ) Bill  (xi)  watched  Bill  Solan  two s e n t e n c e s :  hi m during  watched  hi m while  suggests that  "John's" appear  within  i n s e p a r a t e c l a u s e s . Take, f o r  John's John  in different  Flynn  ran.  i n sentence  ( x ) , where " h i m " a n d  t h e same c l a u s e , c o r e f e r e n c e t e n d s t o  be b l o c k e d , w h e r e a s i n s e n t e n c e appear  run.  (xi),  where " h i m " a n d " J o h n "  clauses, coreference i s not blocked.  ( 1 9 8 0 ) a n d L u s t (1981 ) c o n d u c t e d  syntactic  a n a l y s e s o f p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n w h i c h were l a n g u a g e They a r g u e d particular  that the P r i n c i p a l  (PBD) o f  languages determines p r e f e r e n c e s f o r e i t h e r  forwards o r backwards the major  Branching D i r e c t i o n  specific.  p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . The PBD i n v o l v e s  r e c u r s i v e d e v i c e s of a language, such as r e l a t i v e  clauses, adverbial  subordinate clauses,  sentential  c o m p l e m e n t a t i o n s , e t c . I n a l a n g u a g e where t h e PBD i s r i g h t - b r a n c h i n g , as i n E n g l i s h , each of these devices  recursive  i s right-branching.  I n a s t u d y o f 69 c h i l d r e n , a g e d  2;5 t o 5;5 y e a r s , L u s t  (1981) c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e PBD o f t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e explain Forwards  could  t h e o b s e r v e d p r e f e r e n c e s t h a t c h i l d r e n have f o r P r o . I n a second language  s t u d y on a n a p h o r a , F l y n n  15 (1980) a d m i n i s t e r e d  an i m i t a t i o n t a s k  t o groups of n a t i v e  J a p a n e s e s p e a k i n g and S p a n i s h s p e a k i n g s u b j e c t s . clear  differences  undertaking that  pattern  i n t h e r e s p o n s e s made by e a c h g r o u p .  an e r r o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a ,  significant  She f o u n d  differences existed  she c o n c l u d e d  i n b o t h t h e r a t e and  o f a c q u i s i t i o n o f a n a p h o r a b e t w e e n t h e two l a n g u a g e  g r o u p s . She a t t r i b u t e d t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s t o t h e f a c t the  After  that  PBD i n S p a n i s h more c l o s e l y p a r a l l e d t h e PBD i n E n g l i s h ,  w h e r e a s t h e PBD i n J a p a n e s e d i d n o t . In a n o t h e r reference,  first  Goodluck  language study of pronominal  (1981) f o u n d , a s p r e v i o u s  t h a t p r e c e d e n c e a n d d o m i n a n c e were c r u c i a l determining as L u s t ,  Goodluck  conclusions,  that  (1981) h a d  more t h a n F o r w a r d s P r o o n e s . I n  she h y p o t h e s i z e d  pronominal reference and  (1980) a n d S o l a n  just  found t h a t c h i l d r e n tended t o block  Backwards P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n s her  factors in  the c h i l d ' s c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses. Also,  L o v e l a n d and K o r n e t  reported,  studies d i d ,  that  the c h i l d ' s  system i s a d u l t - l i k e from t h e o u t s e t  non-adult-like  responses involved p r i m a r i l y cases  of Backwards P r o , s u g g e s t i n g  something unique about  those  construct ions. Thus f a r a g r e a t child's  deal  of d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n  pronominal reference  influence was l i t t l e  system and t h e f a c t o r s  i t s a c q u i s i t i o n h a d been o b t a i n e d . information  t h a t was e x p l a n a t o r y  a t t e m p t t o s h e d more l i g h t non-adult-like  on t h e that  However, i n nature.  there I n an  on why c h i l d r e n p r o d u c e  r e s p o n s e s a n d on t h e p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e  of  16 developmental  stages  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n process,  Shaw ( 1 9 8 1 ) u n d e r t o o k (1969)  a partial replication  and  o f Chomsky's  study.  The  I n g r a m and  significant number and  Shaw s t u d y  improvements over age  r a n g e of t h e i r  i n c o r p o r a t e d a number o f the o r i g i n a l  study. F i r s t ,  increased  from  t h r e e , as  tested  i n Chomsky's s t u d y , t o s e v e n  was (see  1 ) . Chomsky l o o k e d a t B a c k w a r d s P r o , F o r w a r d s P r o  B l o c k e d B a c k w a r d s c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I n g r a m and  v a r i a t i o n s of B l o c k e d B a c k w a r d s and  a Blocked  construction,  T h i r d , the  f o r a t o t a l of seven.  i n f l u e n c e s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l And,  were o b t a i n e d  i n a p i l o t study  normative  comparative  and  more r e l i a b l e responses.  Forwards pragmatic  to the t e s t  i n order to provide  d a t a and  s c o r i n g procedure  two  t a s k were c o n s i d e r e d  f o u r t h , a d u l t responses  and  Shaw l o o k e d a t  Backwards P r o , t h r e e v a r i a t i o n s of Forwards P r o ,  minimized.  the  s u b j e c t s were e x p a n d e d .  S e c o n d , t h e number of c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s t o be  Table  Ingram  and items both  a means o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a  f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s  17  TABLE 1 T h i r t y - f i v e Test Sentences and Q u e s t i o n s For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n s Used i n t h e Ingram a n d Shaw S t u d y CONSTRUCTION #1 ( B l o c k e d B a c k ) He t h i n k s D o n a l d i s l e a v i n g . Who t h i n k s D o n a l d i s l e a v i n g ? He d o e s n ' t c a r e t h a t M i c k e y i s g o i n g . Who d o e s n ' t c a r e ? He was g l a d t h a t D o n a l d g o t t h e c a n d y . Who was g l a d ? He i s s a d t h a t M i c k e y i s l e a v i n g . Who i s s a d ? He knows t h a t D o n a l d i s h u n g r y . Who knows D o n a l d i s h u n g r y ? CONSTRUCTION #2 ( B a c k w a r d s P r o ) When he went t o t h e s t o r e , D o n a l d f e l l down. Who went t o t h e s t o r e ? A f t e r he t i e d h i s s h o e , M i c k e y was h a p p y . Who t i e d h i s s h o e ? W h i l e he c r o s s e d t h e s t r e e t , D o n a l d was s c a r e d . Who c r o s s e d t h e s t r e e t ? B e f o r e he a t e l u n c h , M i c k e y t o o k a n a p . Who a t e l u n c h ? When he b r o k e t h e d i s h , D o n a l d was s a d . Who b r o k e t h e d i s h ? CONSTRUCTION #3 ( F o r w a r d s P r o ) Mickey Donald Mickey Donald Mickey  knows he i s h a p p y . Who i s h a p p y ? h o p e s t h a t he w i l l w i n t h e p r i z e . Who d o e s D o n a l d hope w i l l w i n t h e p r i z e ? i s a f r a i d t h a t he m i g h t f a l l down. Who m i g h t f a l l down? t h i n k s he i s t h e f a s t e s t r u n n e r . Who d o e s D o n a l d t h i n k i s t h e f a s t e s t runner? knows he i s l a t e f o r s c h o o l . Who i s l a t e f o r s c h o o l ?  18  CONSTRUCTION #4 ( B l o c k e d B a c k ) He went t o s c h o o l when D o n a l d was t h r e e . Who went t o s c h o o l ? He p l a y e d o u t s i d e a f t e r M i c k e y went home. Who p l a y e d o u t s i d e ? He p l a y e d b a l l b e f o r e D o n a l d came b a c k . Who p l a y e d b a l l ? He c r i e d when M i c k e y g o t l o s t . Who c r i e d ? He r a n f a s t w h i l e D o n a l d y e l l e d . Who r a n f a s t ? CONSTRUCTION #5 ( F o r w a r d s P r o ) When M i c k e y was s i c k , he a t e l u n c h e a r l y . Who a t e l u n c h e a r l y ? A f t e r D o n a l d a t e b r e a k f a s t , he r a n home. Who r a n home? B e f o r e M i c k e y went t o s c h o o l , he f e d t h e d o g . Who f e d t h e dog? W h i l e D o n a l d was a t t h e m o v i e , he was s a d . Who was s a d ? B e f o r e M i c k e y went home, he a t e a h o t d o g . Who a t e a h o t dog? CONSTRUCTION #6 ( B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s ) Under M i c k e y he f o u n d a p e n n y . Who f o u n d a p e n n y ? In f r o n t o f D o n a l d he s t e p p e d on a b u g . Who s t e p p e d on a bug? B e s i d e M i c k e y he saw t h e f i r e m a n . Who saw t h e f i r e m a n ? Near D o n a l d he c o u l d s e e a r a b b i t . Who c o u l d s e e a r a b b i t ? B e h i n d M i c k e y he h e a r d a c a r h o n k . Who h e a r d a c a r h o n k ? CONSTRUCTION #7 ( F o r w a r d s P r o ) M i c k e y saw c a n d y a l l a r o u n d h i m . Who was t h e c a n d y a r o u n d ? D o n a l d saw t h e wagon n e a r h i m . Who was t h e wagon n e a r ? Mickey heard a bear b e h i n d him. Who was t h e b e a r b e h i n d ? M i c k e y jumped on t h e s t o o l n e x t t o h i m . Who was t h e s t o o l n e x t t o ? Mickey dropped the rock next t o him. Who was t h e r o c k n e x t t o ? (reprinted  by p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e a u t h o r )  19 As  i n Chomsky's s t u d y ,  situation  i n v o l v i n g two  Each s u b j e c t the  was  were p r e s e n t e d o r a l l y e a c h s t a t e m e n t was the  referent  m a r k e d as The  dolls,  tested  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  to the  for a t o t a l subjects  determine adult  task  was  p r o c e d u r e f o r r a t i n g the construction  and  i s , she  adults,  was  type.  The strong  l e v e l was,  i f that  a  100%  provide  and'  to a  t h i s was  to  Shaw  scoring  each  considered  severe.  In  Chomsky's a  Blocked  responded that construction  criterion  level.  By  type.  testing  Shaw hoped t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a in fact,  use.  c o n t r o l g r o u p r e s u l t s showed t h a t a d u l t s do  show  Table 2). This coreferential H o w e v e r , on  the  appropriate  f o r c o r e f e r e n t i a l and  level.  type  to Langacker's suggestion  r e s p o n s e s , where a l l o w e d , construction  noncoreferential  sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n  i s in contrast  no  one  100%  to  preferences  100%  asked to  t o have a c q u i r e d  t o a l l t o k e n s of  After  to e s t a b l i s h a  too  subject  r e s p o n s e s d e p e n d i n g upon t h e  the  1).  noncoreferential.  I n g r a m and  considered  utilized  I n g r a m and  criterion  was  of  statements,  c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s on  Chomsky's s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s t o be  noncoreferentially  35  Table  p u r p o s e of  response p a t t e r n s  Backwards r u l e only  of  also administered  20 a d u l t s . The  study, a subject  t o k e n s of e a c h  (see  e i t h e r c o r e f e r e n t i a l or  c o n t r o l g r o u p of  That  Five  D o n a l d Duck.  p r o n o u n . R e s p o n s e s were n o t e d  experimental  individual  M i c k e y Mouse and  individually. types,  Shaw u s e d a game  p r e s e n t e d , the c h i l d  f o r the  being  I n g r a m and  are  not  I n g r a m and  that  obligatory.  type d i d a d u l t performance  Using these data,  (see  reach  Shaw c a l c u l a t e d  20 a criterion subject's level  level  response p a t t e r n  of c o n f i d e n c e .  level,  i f three  construction considered that  t h a t would p e r m i t  This  at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y was a 6 0 % c r i t e r i o n  o r more r e s p o n s e s o u t o f f i v e  t y p e were c o r e f e r e n t i a l ,  t o have a c o r e f e r e n t i a l  particular  coreferential,  judgements r e g a r d i n g  construction. the subject  noncoreferential  l e v e l . At t h i s on a  the subject  was  I f two o r f e w e r r e s p o n s e s were  response preference  as having a f o r that  Note, however, t h a t a 3 out of 5 c r i t e r i o n  c h a n c e o r random  significant  response preference f o r  was s c o r e d  u n l i k e t h e k i n d of p r o p o r t i o n  construction.  level  i s not  t h a t m i g h t be o b t a i n e d  response.  TABLE 2 T o t a l P r o p o r t i o n of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Responses For Twenty A d u l t Subjects F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s In t h e I n g r a m And Shaw S t u d y PROPORTION COREFERENTIAL RESPONSE  CONSTRUCTION Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Blocked Forward  ( r e p r i n t e d by p e r m i s s i o n  a  (3) (5) (7) (2) (1) (4) (6)  of a u t h o r )  .93 .90 .84 .92 .01 .05 .14  by  21 The  experimental  task  aged 3;0 t o 7;11 y e a r s .  was a d m i n i s t e r e d  The r e s u l t s showed t h a t  experimental  group's response p a t t e r n s  construction  t y p e s were, w i t h  adult  pattern  coreferential, the a d u l t  the t o t a l  t o t h e seven  one e x c e p t i o n ,  similar  to the  ( s e e T a b l e 3 ) . The c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s t o  those c o n s t r u c t i o n s Constructions  t o 100 c h i l d r e n ,  where c o r e f e r e n c e  was p o s s i b l e ( i e .  #2,3,5 a n d 7) were p r e d o m i n a t e l y though t h e a c t u a l scores  ones. S i m i l a r l y ,  were n o t a s h i g h a s  the c h i l d r e n ' s responses t o the  B l o c k e d Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,  #1 a n d 4, were  p r e d o m i n a t e l y n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l , t h o u g h n o t so c l e a r l y defined  as i n the a d u l t  that e l i c i t e d  r e s p o n s e s . The o n l y  a response a t variance  with  was t h e B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s c o n s t r u c t i o n , r e s p o n s e s were h i g h l y c o r e f e r e n t i a l , adults'  noncoreferential  construction  the adult  #6. The c h i l d r e n ' s  as opposed t o t h e  responses.  TABLE 3 Mean Number o f • C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e s F o r One H u n d r e d C h i l d S u b j e c t s F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n T y p e s I n t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw S t u d y MEAN NUMBER OF COREFERENTIAL RESPONSE  CONSTRUCTION Forwards Pro  (3) (5) (7) Backwards P r o (2) B l o c k e d Back (1) (4) B l o c k e d Forward (6)  ( r e p r i n t e d by p e r m i s s i o n  of author)  data,  .78 .80 .64 .53 .19 .28 .78  22  Thus f a r t h e d a t a s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n s t u d y had a c q u i r e d F o r w a r d s  and  B a c k w a r d s P r o , and  i n the that  a c q u i r e d B l o c k e d Backwards Pro b e f o r e B l o c k e d Forwards a s e v i d e n c e d by t h e i r Construction  responses  the a c q u i s i t i o n  to determine developmental  of the a d u l t p r o n o m i n a l  to  sequences  individual  order to find  s h a r e d o r common p a t t e r n s . T h e i r  illuminating.  They f o u n d  f i v e major  They subject in  findings  #5  #7  CONSTRUCTIONS #2 #1 #4  #6  I.  Use  of C o r e f e r e n c e  .80  .60  .66  .66  .60  .60  .69  II.  Use  of Precedence  .82  .82  .62  .76  .20  .74  .88  III.  Use  of Precedence  .78  .83  .62  .26  .13  .16  .83  IV.  Use  o f Dominance  .85  .81  .78  .72  .18  .22  .89  V.  Use  of Dominance  .80  .80  .77  .67  .03  .20  .33  ( r e p r i n t e d by p e r m i s s i o n o f  author)  were  p a t t e r n s (see T a b l e 4 ) .  TABLE 4 P r o p o r t i o n of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r E i g h t y - S i x C h i l d r e n i n t h e I n g r a m and Shaw S t u d y D i s t r i b u t e d A c r o s s F i v e P a t t e r n s of Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3  in  r e f e r e n c e system,  Shaw l o o k e d a t t h e d a t a i n more d e t a i l .  examined t h e r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s of each  PATTERN  Pro,  #6.  I n an e f f o r t  I n g r a m and  non-adult-like  they  23 Pattern  I,  (n=7),  involved  the  type,  matter  coreferential  response  construction.  A primitive strategy  seemed t o be definite least  u s e d h e r e . The  Patterns of  a co-occurence  constraints  the  III  fashion,  to  the  Backwards P r o  whereas the subjects  Pattern  Pattern  II  Blocked  Backwards r u l e ,  One  explanation  was  that  Pattern  Backwards r u l e , constructions phrase, had  an  as  III began  not  adult-like  due  reference.  the  use  as  some a w a r e n e s s of  the  major  a w a r e n e s s of  differences  were i n t h e i r #2,  and  Pattern  subjects  the  authors  Blocked  II  subjects  i n an  did  having  III for  #2.  the  Pattern  Blocked  to  the  the  these a  rule  the  the  differences Blocked to a l l  subjects,  Backwards r u l e , #1  Backwards P r o strategy  constraints  on  did.  definite  Constructions  co-occurence  However,  subjects  the  II  adult-like  not.  acquired  preceded  responses  the  seem t o have a c q u i r e d  r e s p o n s e s on  more t o a s i m p l e  a better  involved  construction  pronoun  response  the  the at  to o v e r g e n e r a l i z e  immature g r a s p of  co-occurence  was  whereas P a t t e r n  in Construction  Their  4.  III  subjects,  where t h e  inconsistent  of  did  o f f e r e d by  their  was  well  and  the  r e f e r r e d to  n=36),  subjects  #1  a  antecedents.  construction,  Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , responded  as  of  child  p r e c e d e n c e . The  II and  Backwards Pro  have  (combined  strategy  imposed by  between P a t t e r n to  III,  always  i n d i c a t e d that  p r o n o u n s do  II and  what  b a s e d on  pronoun  noun p h r a s e . T h i s  aware t h a t  no  p r e d o m i n a t e use  and  noun  however, hence 4.  construction than  evidence  pronominal  24 Pattern strategy. both the  IV  (n=37) i n v o l v e d  Subjects  Backwards Pro  continued  to give  construction, #1  and  knowledge of d o m i n a n c e has Of  the  (n=6)  the  subject's differ  constraining  14  the  a simple  received  of the  and  argued that  this  Pattern  not  I subjects.  In  or n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y , i s  one  strategy. classified  t o o many o r one  constructions,  responses. This  i t suggested the  i n t o one  too  in contrast  t o the  Finally,  isolated cases. Their  #3,  rather  the  general the  of  of  few  response i n 5 and  pattern  having acquired  having acquired  t h e main body o f d a t a . as  by  subjects  Forwards r u l e before  classified  where  gave a l l  be  missed being  Forwards Pro  in that  rule - quite  one  shared a unique p a t t e r n  coreferential  situation  the  responses.  the  interesting  fashion,  i n f l u e n c e s of p r e c e d e n c e  e m p l o y e d by  subjects  Three s u b j e c t s which only  adult-like  adult pattern  co-occurence  above f i v e p a t t e r n s  coreferential  Blocked  i n making a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s does  strategy  Four other  the  responses to  the  subjects,  both cases c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y , d e t e r m i n e d by  i n an  responses. I t could  strategy  and  to  acquired.  remaining  from the  4,  responded  #6.  represented  been  noncoreferential  of a d o m i n a n c e  #2,  non-adult-like  Blocked Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n , Pattern V  use  grouped i n t o t h i s p a t t e r n  Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , yet  the  last  7,  was  unexpected  the  Blocked  Blocked trend  Backwards  suggested  six subjects  r e s p o n s e s were not  by  were close  25  t o any p a t t e r n . P a t t e r n s I t o V, when p l o t t e d  on a g r a p h , r e v e a l e d a  ( s e e F i g u r e 1).  possible developmental  sequence  f i v e p a t t e r n s appeared  i n a l l age g r o u p s , w i t h  age,  Although a l l increasing  P a t t e r n s I V a n d V became more d o m i n a n t a n d P a t t e r n s I ,  I I and I I I became l e s s  so. S t a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y s u g g e s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g sequence  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n  pronominal  reference. Children  co-occurence pronoun  of the E n g l i s h  strategy  initially  assignment  i s made  ( a s e v i d e n c e d by t h e s i n g l e noncoreferential precedence  developmental  system of  employ a s i m p l e  i n making a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s .  co-occurs with a d e f i n i t e  coreferential  terms, the  If a  noun p h r a s e , t h e n a (Pattern  I ) , o r n o t made  subject with a l l  responses). Next,  the c h i l d  s t r a t e g y . When t h e p r o n o u n  employs a  precedes a d e f i n i t e  noun p h r a s e , c o r e f e r e n c e i s b l o c k e d , i n a l l o t h e r c a s e s coreference  i s a l l o w e d ( P a t t e r n s I I and I I I ) .  t h e c h i l d d e v e l o p s an a w a r e n e s s relations.  The p r e c e d e  effectively  o f d o m i n a n c e o r command  a n d command r e l a t i o n s a r e u s e d  f o r B l o c k e d Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,  i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y a p p l i e d t o B l o c k e d Forwards (Pattern  Subsequently  IV). Lastly,  the c h i l d  but a r e  constructions  acquires the adult  system  (Pattern V ) . The  I n g r a m and Shaw s t u d y p r o v i d e s a f r a m e w o r k  which t h e a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s of the E n g l i s h pronominal syntactic  within  system of  r e f e r e n c e by ESL l e a r n e r s c a n be s t u d i e d , i n terms. In a d d i t i o n ,  the data obtained i n the  26  original  s t u d y c a n be u s e d t o compare t h e f i r s t  language a c q u i s i t i o n subjects  processes. L a s t l y ,  from d i f f e r e n t  opportunity  arises  native  by  second  incorporating  language backgrounds,  o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i n f l u e n c e of  l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d on t h e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e process.  and  the  native  acquisition  III.  A.  SUBJECTS Because  the  RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY  English  native  t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequence  i n t h e a c q u i s t i o n of  system of p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e  and t h e e f f e c t of  l a n g u a g e on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s were t o be  addressed  i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , a minimum o f t h r e e  language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s (Beginning, A d v a n c e d ) a n d two d i s t i n c t required.  Statistical  number o f 20 s u b j e c t s same n a t i v e  native  proficiency  Intermediate  and  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s were  considerations i n each c e l l ,  require  an optimum  i e . 20 s u b j e c t s  l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d a t t h e same l e v e l  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y . Two n a t i v e  English  of the  of E n g l i s h  language groups and three  l e v e l s would n e c e s s i t a t e  20 X 2 X 3 = 120  subjects. For  r e a s o n s t o be o u t l i n e d i n t h e LIMITATIONS OF THE  PRESENT STUDY s e c t i o n , some o f t h e f o r e g o i n g were i m p o s s i b l e students,  to attain.  I n t h e end,  184 a d u l t E S L  a l l e n r o l l e d i n t h e Manpower p r o g r a m o f K i n g  E d w a r d Campus, s e r v e d s t u d y . The s u b j e c t s  as the experimental  language g r o u p s . Because only  i n the  One h u n d r e d a n d one s u b j e c t s  m a l e , 83 were f e m a l e . The s u b j e c t s  considerations,  subjects  r a n g e d i n a g e f r o m 18 t o 58 y e a r s ,  a mean a g e o f 29.8 y e a r s .  native  requirements  four  represented  of c e l l  were  23 d i f f e r e n t  number  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s were t a r g e t e d f o r  s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n . These were: P o l i s h , C a n t o n e s e , and J a p a n e s e . A l l o t h e r  with  Vietnamese  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s were c o m b i n e d t o 27  28 create a f i f t h  language group c a t e g o r y ,  Miscellaneous  Languages. The English  breakdown f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t language p r o f i c i e n c y  levels  language groups and i s as  follows:  B e g i n n e r P o l i s h : n=14 B e g i n n e r C a n t o n e s e : n=14 B e g i n n e r V i e t n a m e s e : n=4 B e g i n n e r J a p a n e s e : n=0 Beginner Miscellaneous: Beginner  n=l8  Total=50  Intermediate Polish:  n=l6  I n t e r m e d i a t e C a n t o n e s e : n=10 I n t e r m e d i a t e V i e t n a m e s e : n=6 I n t e r m e d i a t e J a p a n e s e : n=7 Intermediate Miscellaneous: Intermediate  n=25  Total=64  Advanced P o l i s h :  n=26  A d v a n c e d C a n t o n e s e : n=11 A d v a n c e d V i e t n a m e s e : n =11 A d v a n c e d J a p a n e s e : n=6 A d v a n c e d M i s c e l l a n e o u s : n=16 Advanced  Total=70  TOTAL EXPERIMENTAL  English the  GROUP=184  language p r o f i c i e n c y  l e v e l was d e t e r m i n e d by  Manpower P r o g r a m ' s p l a c e m e n t e x a m i n a t i o n s w h i c h  c o n s i s t e d of both o r a l and w r i t t e n  t e s t s . These placement  p r o c e d u r e s were d e s i g n e d e x c l u s i v e l y  by a n d f o r t h e Manpower  29 program's  instructors.  Lastly,  20 a d u l t n a t i v e s p e a k e r s  of E n g l i s h e n r o l l e d i n  the E n g l i s h E d u c a t i o n Department of the U n i v e r s i t y of British  Columbia,  s e r v e d as t h e c o n t r o l group. T h i s  mean age was 26.25 y e a r s . F o u r  were male a n d 16 were  I n c l u d i n g the c o n t r o l group, a t o t a l participated  group's female.  o f 204 s u b j e c t s  i n the study.  B. TEST ITEMS As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , c o n s t r u c t i o n s covered  I n g r a m a n d Shaw's s e v e n  a l l four p o s s i b i l i t i e s  of a l l o w e d and  b l o c k e d c o r e f e r e n c e , t h a t i s , both Backwards and Forwards Pro and b o t h B l o c k e d Backwards and Forwards.  The d u p l i c a t i o n  of some c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s was, a c c o r d i n g t o I n g r a m (personal communication),  incorporated i n order  the e f f e c t s of p o i n t s of p a r t i c u l a r Shaw, s u c h #4),  interest  as s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e t y p e s  postposed  vs preposed  to ascertain  t o Ingram and  ( C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 v s  subordinate clauses (Construction  #3 v s #5) a n d i n t e r v s i n t r a  clausal structures  ( C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 a n d #5 v s # 7 ) . I n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n a s much c o n s i s t e n c y a s p o s s i b l e b e t w e e n t h e two s t u d i e s , decided  i t was  t o e m p l o y a l l o f t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw c o n s t r u c t i o n  types. The  test  i t e m s u s e d i n t h e s t u d y were c o m p r i s e d ,  minor changes, of those  sentences  employed i n t h e Ingram and  Shaw s t u d y . B e c a u s e d o l l s were n o t u t i l i z e d the r e f e r e n t s ,  "Mickey  with  Mouse" a n d " D o n a l d  in this  study,  Duck", were  30 changed based  t o two  on  the  fictitious  results  of  boys,  two  "Bill"  pilot  c h a n g e s were made t o v o c a b u l a r y , verb  and  "John".  Also,  studies, additional punctuation, verb  type  and  tensing. There  were f i v e  construction (Table  types  5 ) . The  tested,  first  items  and,  items  were randomly The  tokens  two  accordingly,  of e a c h  of t h e  for a total  test  items  ignored  of  seven 35  i n the  test  study  items were dummy  i n t h e a n a l y s i s . A l l 35  ordered.  construction  types  covered  Construction  #1:  Blocked  Construction  #2:  Backwards  Construction  #3:  Forwards  Construction  #4:  Blocked  Construction  #5:  Forwards  Construction  #6:  Blocked  Construction  #7:  Forwards  were as  Backwards Pro Pro Backwards Pro Forwards Pro  follows:  test  (number  TABLE 5 T e s t Items and C o n s t r u c t i o n Types Employed i n t h e P r e s e n t Study i n b r a c k e t s i n d i c a t e s order of p r e s e n t a t i o n )  CONSTRUCTION TYPE 1 ( B l o c k e d (28) (35) (19) (23) (13)  He He He He He  Back)  knows t h a t J o h n i s b i g . knows t h a t B i l l i s r i g h t . i s unhappy t h a t J o h n i s c o m i n g . i s happy t h a t B i l l i s h e l p i n g t h e t e a c h e r . t h i n k s t h a t John i s l e a v i n g .  CONSTRUCTION TYPE 2 ( B a c k w a r d s P r o ) (31) (24) (18) (14) (12)  When he g o e s t o s c h o o l , J o h n p l a y s h o c k e y . A f t e r he e a t s d i n n e r , B i l l g o e s t o b e d . A f t e r he s t u d i e s , J o h n w a t c h e s t e l e v i s i o n . When he w a t c h e s t e l e v i s i o n , B i l l i s h a p p y . When he g e t s a c o o k i e , J o h n i s h a p p y .  CONSTRUCTION TYPE 3 ( F o r w a r d s P r o ) ( 3) (29) (20) (32) (10)  John Bill John Bill John  knows t h a t he i s g o o d . knows t h a t he i s s i c k . i s unhappy t h a t he i s s t u d y i n g . i s happy t h a t he i s w a t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n . . t h i n k s t h a t he i s g o i n g .  CONSTRUCTION TYPE 4 ( B l o c k e d  Back)  (30) He p l a y s h o c k e y when J o h n comes. (36) He e a t s d i n n e r a f t e r B i l l g o e s home. (16) He d o e s homework a f t e r J o h n l e a v e s . ( 9) He i s unhappy when B i l l i s s i c k . ( 6) He i s q u i e t when J o h n speaks'. CONSTRUCTION TYPE 5 ( F o r w a r d s P r o ) (26) When B i l l g o e s home, he h e l p s m o t h e r . ( 7) A f t e r J o h n e a t s b r e a k f a s t , he r e a d s a book. ( 4) A f t e r B i l l s t u d i e s , he p l a y s a game. (21) When J o h n w a t c h e s a m o v i e , he i s q u i e t . (33) When B i l l g e t s c a n d y , he i s good.  32  CONSTRUCTION TYPE 6 ( B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s ) (27) (15) (22) (34) (11)  B e h i n d B i l l , he s e e s t h e t e a c h e r . B e h i n d J o h n , he h e a r s a b u s . Near B i l l , he h e a r s a d o g . Near J o h n , he s p e a k s t o t h e t e a c h e r . Under B i l l , he s e e s a p e n n y .  CONSTRUCTION TYPE 7 ( F o r w a r d s P r o ) ( 5) B i l l s e e s t h e g i r l b e h i n d h i m . (37) J o h n h e a r s t h e c a r b e h i n d h i m . (17) B i l l hears a r a d i o near him. (25) J o h n s p e a k s t o t h e man n e a r h i m . ( 8) B i l l s e e s t h e box u n d e r h i m .  C. EXPERIMENTAL TASK U n l i k e t h e Ingram test  a n d Shaw e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k ,  i t e m s were p r e s e n t e d o r a l l y ,  p r o v i d e d by t h e u s e o f d o l l s , w r i t t e n task First,  facilitate test  items would  required written of  test  presentation  on t h e s u b j e c t ' s p a r t ,  be r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e  twofold. would i n that the  f o r many r e a d i n g s i f Secondly, the  f o r m a t o f f e r e d a f a s t e r a n d more m a n a g e a b l e method and a n a l y z i n g  the data.  e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k c o n s i s t e d o f 35 t e s t  two dummy i t e m s . E a c h pronoun  f o r t h i s was  (Carden, p e r s o n a l communication).  collecting The  that a written  comprehension  the context  the present study u t i l i z e d a  f o r m a t . The r a t i o n a l e  i t was f e l t  within  i n which  test  items, plus  i t e m c o n t a i n e d an u n d e r l i n e d  a n d a common name, e i t h e r  "Bill"  or "John".  i t e m was f o l l o w e d by t h r e e p o s s i b l e r e f e r e n t s  u n d e r l i n e d pronoun,  t h e names o f t h e two a c t o r s  Each f o r the  employed  33 (ie.  "Bill"  a n d " J o h n " ) , a n d an o p t i o n  ambiguity of anaphoric assignment "Optional" utilized  This  (hereafter c a l l e d the  was a r e s p o n s e o p t i o n n o t  i n t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y . The r a t i o n a l e f o r i t s  inclusion that  response).  forindicating  i s that, a f t e r the f i r s t  forcing subjects  pilot  study,  i t was f e l t  t o make a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s b e t w e e n  two r e f e r e n t s , when e i t h e r was p o s s i b l e , was u n n a t u r a l . The subject's  task  was t o c i r c l e  each u n d e r l i n e d  pronoun  the appropriate  referent for  (see "Quiz" f o r the  experimental  task). Pre-task  instructions consisted  of four  e x a m p l e s . They  involved constructions  n o t t e s t e d . They w e r e :  1.  John  he eats  2.  In front  of  him,  3.  He talks  to  the  4.  Bill  studies  sees  before Bill girl  him after  Any v o c a b u l a r y  sees in  dinner.  (Bill  John  either)  a truck.  (Bill  John  either)  front  school.  of  him.  (Bill  John  (Bill  John  either)  either)  i t e m s n o t u n d e r s t o o d were e x p l a i n e d . The  c l a s s was t h e n a s k e d , a s a g r o u p , t o c h o o s e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e referent  f o r e a c h p r o n o u n i n e a c h s e n t e n c e . The d e c i s i o n o f  the m a j o r i t y  o f r e s p o n s e s was c i r c l e d  accordingly.  The f a c t  t h a t d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e made d i f f e r e n t a n a p h o r i c  assignments  was s t r e s s e d . A l s o ,  were no  "right"  i t was s t r e s s e d  that  there  o r "wrong" a n s w e r s . The s t u d e n t s were t o l d  would r e c e i v e  a "Quiz" c o n t a i n i n g  that  they  s i m i l a r sentences and  requiring  a s i m i l a r method o f r e s p o n s e . The s t u d e n t s were  told  t h e 37 s e n t e n c e s were n o t i n a n y way r e l a t e d , b u t  that  were i s o l a t e d s e n t e n c e s . S t u d e n t s were a l s o t o l d  that a l l  s e n t e n c e s r e q u i r e d a d e c i s i o n as t o a n a p h o r i c that  i n v o l v e d o n l y one o r b o t h o f t h e two a c t o r s ,  and/or  " J o h n " , a n d no o t h e r s .  a n s w e r e d . The " Q u i z z e s " being  i f they  from t h e s t u d e n t s  were  were h a n d e d o u t . W h i l e t h e t a s k  was  completed, the i n v e s t i g a t o r o f f e r e d a s s i s t a n c e t o  i n d i v i d u a l s on p o i n t s o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n vocabulary  regarding  the task  i t e m s . The c o n t r o l g r o u p was g i v e n t h e  experimental  task  experimental  group.  D.  "Bill"  S t u d e n t s were a s k e d  u n d e r s t o o d t h e t a s k . Any q u e s t i o n s  and  assignment  i n e x a c t l y t h e same f o r m a t a s t h e  SCORING Responses t o each t e s t  coreferential optional  tallied  as a  r e s p o n s e , a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e o r an  response  The t o t a l  i t e m were s c o r e d  (a c o r e f e r e n t i a l l y a m b i g u o u s  number o f e a c h o f t h e t h r e e  response).  response types  was  f o r each of the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s . For  e x a m p l e , a s u b j e c t may h a v e h a d two c o r e f e r e n t i a l ,  one  n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l and two o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s f o r t h e f i v e tokens of C o n s t r u c t i o n coreferential,  #1.  The same s u b j e c t may have h a d no  f o u r n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l a n d one o p t i o n a l  responses f o r the f i v e tokens of C o n s t r u c t i o n For  each c o n s t r u c t i o n , the t o t a l  respond t o a test  by e a c h  I n c a s e s where t h e s u b j e c t item, any p r o p o r t i o n s  w e r e c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g  And s o o n .  number o f c o r e f e r e n t i a l ,  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l and o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s , was t h u s o b t a i n e d .  #2.  the t o t a l  subject,  failed to  of response  number o f e a c h  types  35  r e s p o n s e t y p e by t h e t o t a l  number o f t e s t i t e m s a c t u a l l y  completed. Scoring since  on t h e b a s i s o f c o r r e c t n e s s  syntactic notions  of c o r r e c t n e s s  a r b i t r a r y a t the present time or R e i n h a r t ' s  a r e somewhat  ( e g . d o e s one u s e L a n g a c k e r ' s  r e s t r i c t i o n s on p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  judge c o r r e c t n e s s ? ) . crtiterion  was n o t e m p l o y e d ,  Also,  t h e use of a  might p o s s i b l y cause  d a t a t o be o v e r l o o k e d ,  i n order  to  "correctness"  important  features  of the  s u c h a s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p a t t e r n , o r  s t r a t e g y , of response. Recall level  I n g r a m and Shaw e m p l o y e d a 6 0 % c r i t e r i o n  t o determine whether a s u b j e c t  preference subject given  that  f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n . That i s , i f a  scored  three  construction,  preference  f o r that  o r more o f one r e s p o n s e t y p e f o r a t h e n s/he was c l a s s i f i e d a s h a v i n g a response type.  l e v e l was e m p l o y e d i n t h e p r e s e n t  E.  NULL The  had a r e s p o n s e  The same 6 0 % c r i t e r i o n study.  HYPOTHESES f o l l o w i n g n u l l h y p o t h e s e s were  A. T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  tested.  d i f f e r e n c e s between E n g l i s h .  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l , noncoreferential  and o p t i o n a l  B. T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  responses.  d i f f e r e n c e s between  native  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l , n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l a n d optional  responses.  C. T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n  construction  36 t y p e s on  the  coreferential, noncoreferential  and  optional  responses.  F.  S T A T I S T I C A L ANALYSIS B e c a u s e of  the p r e s e n t factorial Stanley,  the  study  design  breakdown of  incorporated with  coreferential,  unbalanced,  repeated measures  a three  of  three  way  noncoreferential  (Campbell  and  or  o p t i o n a l , f o r each t e s t  and  o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s were t h e  construction  independent v a r i a b l e s . E n g l i s h  level  and  l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d were  f a c t o r . The  t y p e were  the  the  t y p e was  the  H o t e l l i n g s t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e  employed to determine the e f f e c t s . The  level,  language p r o f i c i e n c y  between-subjects f a c t o r s . Construction within/subjects  with  three  language p r o f i c i e n c y  three  native  options,  employed. C o r e f e r e n t i a l ,  l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d and  variable  incomplete,  m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  dependent v a r i a b l e s . E n g l i s h  was  subjects,  d i f f e r e n t response  noncoreferential  r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s was  native  an  experimental  1963).  Because a c h o i c e  item,  the  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  SPSS:X S i m p l e ( r e f c a t )  the  dependent  a posteriori  t e s t s were e m p l o y e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h o s e g r o u p s w h i c h d i f f e r e d significantly variables.  from each o t h e r  on  each of  the  three  dependent  37 G. NON-STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS  An e x a m i n a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l  p a t t e r n s of response,  a c r o s s a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n s , was u n d e r t a k e n  i n an e f f o r t  t o d e t e r m i n e common o r s h a r e d p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e . As i n t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y , a t h r e e o u t o f f i v e c r i t e r i o n was employed i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s u b j e c t ' s response preference  f o r each of t h e seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Because t h e  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y d i d n o t u t i l i z e type,  type  an o p t i o n a l  i t was d e c i d e d t o u s e t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  type i n comparing rationale  forthis  response response  t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e two s t u d i e s . The l a y i n the fact  t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n s on  pronominalization are wholly r e s t r i c t i o n s  that block  coreference. While the present study allows a response that d e s i g n a t e s ambiguity of pronominal  r e f e r e n c e , i t seems  r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t .such a p r o c e d u r e w o u l d i m p a c t upon t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l subject's overall  response  type  n o t h a v e an  responses o b t a i n e d . Each  type p r e f e r e n c e f o r a l l seven  c o n s t r u c t i o n s was t h u s o b t a i n e d . I n d i v i d u a l p a t t e r n s were then p l a c e d i n t o t h e shared p a t t e r n s of response  revealed i n  t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y . The p a t t e r n s o f s u b j e c t s d i d not f a l l  i n t o a n y o f t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw p a t t e r n s were  analyzed separately. pattern,  which  I f two o r more s u b j e c t s s h a r e d a common  i t was c l a s s i f i e d  a s a new s h a r e d p a t t e r n .  Ifa  s u b j e c t ' s p a t t e r n was f o u n d t o be u n i q u e , w i t h no o t h e r subject Isolated  showing Case.  a similar  pattern,  i t was c l a s s i f i e d  a s an  IV.  A.  RESEARCH FINDINGS  GENERAL COMMENTS  The  experimental  task  was  satisfactorily  v a s t m a j o r i t y of s u b j e c t s . E l e v e n s u b j e c t s d i d not of  64  Intermediate  least did of  respond to at  one  not the  study  test  level  i t e m . Two  respond to at total  was The  out  least  of one  least  number o f t e s t  of  70  one  50  level  Beginning item.  Six  out  respond to at  Advanced l e v e l  test  items  the  test  s u b j e c t s d i d not out  c o m p l e t e d by  subjects  i t e m . More t h a n  99.5%  i n v o l v e d i n the e n t i r e  completed. C o n t r o l group's responses are given  Note t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n types  in Figure  are arranged  #2.  i n order  of  d e s c e n d i n g p r o p o r t i o n of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e . There i s a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s t o a l l t h e blocked these 100%  constructions  (#1,  4 and  6 ) . However, on  none of  c o n s t r u c t i o n s d i d n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses reach level.  This  i s i n keeping  w i t h the  I n g r a m and  a  Shaw  findings. Coreferential Constructions relatively result to  #2  r e s p o n s e s were q u i t e h i g h  and  5. H o w e v e r , C o n s t r u c t i o n s  high proportions  is difficult  i n d i c a t e , as  t o i n t e r p r e t . On  I n g r a m and  the  other  #3  and  of o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s . t h e one  Shaw p o i n t e d  certain constructions, coreferential o b l i g a t o r y . On  for  out,  7  had  This  h a n d , i t seems that, for  responses are  highly  h a n d , i t a l s o seems t o i n d i c a t e , a s  Langacker suggested, t h a t , f o r other 38  constructions,  39 coreferential  r e s p o n s e s a r e n o n - o b l i g a t o r y . The d a t a  suggests t h a t preposed v s . postposed s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s and inter vs. intra-clausal roles  s t r u c t u r e s may p l a y  significant  i n t h e o b l i g a t o r y nature of the response. Upon a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e C o n t r o l g r o u p d a t a , i t  becomes c l e a r  t h a t a 3/5 c r i t e r i o n  a p p r o p r i a t e o n e . The d a t a s u g g e s t noncoreferential level  criterion  level).  applied  that,  be a p p l i e d  t o C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 a n d 4 (a 4/5  I n s o f a r as t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l  the data suggest a s t r i c t e r  response  criterion  studies,  criterion  l e v e l be  #3 (a 4/5  comparisons  i t was d e c i d e d t o u t i l i z e  level total  t o d e t e r m i n e common p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e . e x p e r i m e n t a l group's  t o be made on c o m p a r i n g  responses t othe  e x p e r i m e n t a l group's roughly p a r a l l e l s  pronounced  noncoreferential  i s i t as w e l l pronounced. optional  response  i n making a n a p h o r i c  Second, t h e  response p a t t e r n  of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  assignments.  pattern  on no  than that of t h e C o n t r o l group. T h i s  i n d i c a t e a l a c k of awareness  group's  although the  that of t h e C o n t r o l group,  e x p e r i m e n t a l group's  a r e two  the experimental  r e s u l t s w i t h t h e C o n t r o l group. F i r s t ,  construction  between t h e  I n g r a m a n d Shaw's 3/5  e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e #3. T h e r e remarks  type  level).  However, i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e  The  i n s o f a r as t h e  t o C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2, 5 a n d , p o s s i b l y ,  criterion  two  i s not always the  response type i s concerned, a s t r i c t e r  criterion  i s concerned,  level  i s much l e s s might of a m b i g u i t y  40 B. S T A T I S T I C A L FINDINGS A t h r e e way m u l t i v a r i a t e Hotellings  analysis  t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e  Means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s multivariate  analysis  utilizing  was p e r f o r m e d on t h e d a t a .  r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e t h r e e way  of v a r i a n c e a r e g i v e n  R e s u l t s of the H o t e l l i n g s interaction  of v a r i a n c e  i n Appendix I .  t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e  e f f e c t s are given  f o r main and  i n T a b l e 9.  TABLE 9 H o t e l l i n g s Test of S i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e Dependent V a r i a b l e E f f e c t DEPENDENT VARIABLE  APPROX. F.  HYPOTH. D. F.  Level Lang. Contype Level X Level X Lang. X Level X Contype  4.20 4.10 141 .78 1.17 3.94 1.81  Lang. Contype Contype Lang. X  SIG. •F.  9.00 1 2.00 1 8.00 21.00 54.00 72.00  557.00 557.00 172.00 557.00 512.00 682.00  .000** .000** .000** .266 .000** .000**  126.00  1192.00  •  1 .30  * s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the ** s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e  ERROR D. F.  Language P r o f i c i e n c y  Language P r o f i c i e n c y  interaction Construction  Level  Level  Level  Language Background e f f e c t , C o n s t r u c t i o n English  .017*  .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e  'Level' = E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y 'Lang.' = N a t i v e Language B a c k g r o u n d 'Contype' = C o n s t r u c t i o n Type  The E n g l i s h  OF  effect,  Native  Type e f f e c t ,  by C o n s t r u c t i o n  Type  e f f e c t , a n d N a t i v e L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d by Type i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t a l l a t t a i n e d  s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t h e .01 l e v e l  o f c o n f i d e n c e . The  English  41 Language P r o f i c i e n c y  L e v e l by N a t i v e L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d by  C o n s t r u c t i o n Type i n t e r a c t i o n at  effect  attained  t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . The E n g l i s h  Proficiency effect  Language  L e v e l by N a t i v e L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d  was t h e o n l y  statistical  significance  interaction  that  interaction  d i d not reach  significance.  The p r e s e n c e o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e e - w a y indicates  that  significant careful  s i g n i f i c a n t two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s a n d  main e f f e c t s  c a n n o t be f u l l y  examination of the three-way  Therefore, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n will  interaction  focus f i r s t  on t h a t  evaluated without a  interaction  of t h e s t a t i s t i c a l  effect. analysis  interaction.  ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL BY NATIVE LANGUAGE BACKGROUND BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE INTERACTION  EFFECT  F i g u r e s 4, 5 a n d 6 p r e s e n t t h e r e s u l t s o f e a c h language group, a t each E n g l i s h f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s coreferential  and o p t i o n a l  language p r o f i c i e n c y  on t h e  responses,  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n  level  noncoreferential, respectively.  F i g u r e 4a p r e s e n t s t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f  Polish,  native  noncoreferential  types f o r Beginning  Beginning Cantonese, Beginning Vietnamese,  Beginning  Japanese and B e g i n n i n g M i s c e l l a n e o u s group s u b j e c t s . 4b p r e s e n t s t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l all  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  types f o r Intermediate  Intermediate Cantonese, Intermediate  Figure  r e s p o n s e s on Polish,  Vietnamese,  42 Intermediate subjects.  J a p a n e s e and I n t e r m e d i a t e  Figure  noncoreferential f o r Advanced  4c p r e s e n t s  the p r o p o r t i o n  P o l i s h , Advanced  Cantonese,  types  Advanced Miscellaneous  subjects.  proportion  constructions ( i e . high  3, 5 and  varying  roughly  #1,  missing  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  (the Beginning  Constructions types d i f f e r  i n terms of t h e  one n a t i v e  proportion  language group i s  the Vietnamese group d i s p l a y s a  that  5a p r e s e n t s  from the o t h e r  i s extremely native the proportion  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n  of  very  groups. I t i s a speaker-like. coreferential  types f o r Beginning  P o l i s h , Beginning Cantonese, Beginning Vietnamese, J a p a n e s e and B e g i n n i n g M i s c e l l a n e o u s 5b p r e s e n t s  the p r o p o r t i o n  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  in  l e v e l Japanese group). A l s o , at the  response pattern  Figure  on  response.  the Beginning l e v e l ,  response p a t t e r n  group  r e s p o n s e on  low p r o p o r t i o n  degrees from each other  different  response f o r a l l seven  7 ) . Note a l s o t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n  Beginning l e v e l ,  levels,  a p p r o x i m a t e s t h a t of t h e C o n t r o l  4 and 6;  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l At  language p r o f i c i e n c y  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  proportion  Constructions #2,  of  J a p a n e s e and A d v a n c e d  Note t h a t , a t a l l E n g l i s h the  group  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n  Vietnamese, Advanced group  Miscellaneous  group s u b j e c t s .  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l  types f o r Intermediate  Intermediate  Cantonese, Intermediate  Intermediate  Japanese and I n t e r m e d i a t e  Beginning Figure  r e s p o n s e s on a l l  Polish,  Vietnamese, Miscellaneous  group  43 subjects. Figure  5c p r e s e n t s  the p r o p o r t i o n  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r A d v a n c e d Polish,  Advanced  C a n t o n e s e , Advanced V i e t n a m e s e ,  J a p a n e s e and A d v a n c e d  Miscellaneous  Note t h a t , a t a l l t h r e e levels,  the p r o p o r t i o n  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s group  ( i e . high  Constructions  group  subjects..  E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l response f o r a l l  roughly  a p p r o x i m a t e s t h a t of t h e C o n t r o l  on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  #3 and 7; and  #2 and 5; medium on  low on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  6 ) . Note a l s o t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s d i f f e r degrees from each o t h e r coreferential Again,  the  there  A l s o , at the Beginning  level,  response d i s p l a y e d  high  by t h e V i e t n a m e s e  Intermediate  l e v e l s a s w e l l . The  and A d v a n c e d  P o l i s h group, a t a l l three levels, #7 t h a t  of group.  language groups at the  English  Intermediate  language  d i s p l a y s a response preference i s opposite  P o l i s h g r o u p shows an  t o t h a t o f most increase  i n the  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e , w h e r e a s most o t h e r l a n g u a g e g r o u p s show a d e c r e a s e . The Vietnamese group c o n t i n u e s  by  language groups d i s t i n g u i s h native  g r o u p s . The  n o t e t h e low  proportion  t h e m s e l v e s from the o t h e r  Construction  level  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e d i s p l a y e d  B o t h P o l i s h and V i e t n a m e s e  proficiency  of  i n the Beginning  P o l i s h g r o u p and t h e r e l a t i v e l y  level  4 and  in varying  i n terms of t h e p r o p o r t i o n  a r e no s u b j e c t s  proportion  coreferential  #1,  response.  Japanese c e l l . overall  Advanced  for other proportion  native  Intermediate  to d i s p l a y the highest  level proportion  44 of c o r e f e r e n t i a l Figure  response.  6a p r e s e n t s t h e p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l  on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n  responses  types f o r Beginning P o l i s h ,  Beginning Cantonese, Beginning Vietnamese, Beginning J a p a n e s e and B e g i n n i n g M i s c e l l a n e o u s g r o u p s u b j e c t s . 6b p r e s e n t s t h e p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  Figure  r e s p o n s e s on a l l  types for Intermediate  Polish,  Intermediate Cantonese, Intermediate Vietnamese, I n t e r m e d i a t e J a p a n e s e and I n t e r m e d i a t e M i s c e l l a n e o u s s u b j e c t s . F i g u r e 6c p r e s e n t s t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n P o l i s h , Advanced  Cantonese, Advanced  J a p a n e s e and A d v a n c e d Note optional levels,  optional  t y p e s f o r Advanced Vietnamese,  M i s c e l l a n e o u s group  Advanced  subjects.  t h a t , u n l i k e t h e C o n t r o l g r o u p , t h e p r o p o r t i o n of response, at a l lthree E n g l i s h  shows a f l a t t e n e d e f f e c t  construction  language  across a l l  proficiency  seven  t y p e s . The C o n t r o l g r o u p d i s p l a y e d a  medium-high p r o p o r t i o n of c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e on  C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7; and low p r o p o r t i o n s on #2,  group  Constructions  5, 6,  1 and 4. N o n e t h e l e s s , c o n s t r u c t i o n  t y p e s do  to d i f f e r  i n v a r y i n g degrees from each other  i n t e r m s of t h e  p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l  seem  r e s p o n s e r e s p o n s e , d e p e n d i n g upon  native  l a n g u a g e g r o u p and E n g l i s h  level.  Note  that the d i f f e r e n c e s  r e s p o n s e between c o n s t r u c t i o n pronounced a t the Advanced  language  proficiency  i n p r o p o r t i o n of  optional  t y p e s a p p e a r s t o be more  level  t h a n a t any  other.  45 Again, there Japanese c e l l . Miscellaneous proportion situation  i n the Beginning l e v e l  At t h e B e g i n n i n g l e v e l ,  P o l i s h and  g r o u p s show q u i t e o p p o s i t e  o f r e s p o n s e on C o n s t r u c t i o n s repeats  Constructions disparity  a r e no s u b j e c t s  itself  d i r e c t i o n s i n the #3 a n d 5. T h i s  at the Intermediate  #3 a n d 2. A t t h e A d v a n c e d  l e v e l on  level  note the  i n r e s p o n s e between t h e P o l i s h and Cantonese  g r o u p s , e s p e c i a l l y on C o n s t r u c t i o n  #3.  E v e n t h o u g h t h e two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s may be a r e s u l t o f the  three-way  interesting  interaction just described,  i t i s nevertheless  t o e x a m i n e t h e s e i n t e r a c t i o n s more c l o s e l y .  NATIVE LANGUAGE BACKGROUND BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE INTERACTION Figure  7 presents  EFFECT  t h e r e s u l t s of each n a t i v e  group f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  language  t y p e s on t h e  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l , c o r e f e r e n t i a l and o p t i o n a l response Figure  7a p r e s e n t s  the proportion  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n  types.  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  types f o r P o l i s h ,  Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s  group  subjects. Note pattern  that a l lnative  that  roughly  parallels  However t h e p r o p o r t i o n Construction  language groups d i s p l a y a response that  of the C o n t r o l  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e on  #6 i s l o w e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e C o n t r o l  amount o f d i s p e r s i o n  i n the proportion  r e s p o n s e between n a t i v e  group.  g r o u p . The  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  language groups i s g r e a t e s t  on  46 Constructions  #6  7  7 and 2. On C o n s t r u c t i o n  g r o u p shows t h e h i g h e s t  #6 t h e P o l i s h  p r o p o r t i o n of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e a n d t h e J a p a n e s e g r o u p shows t h e l o w e s t . Construction  #7 t h e V i e t n a m e s e g r o u p a g a i n  response that Construction  i s extremely  On  displays a  n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e . On  #2 t h e P o l i s h g r o u p shows t h e h i g h e s t  p r o p o r t i o n of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e and t h e V i e t n a m e s e g r o u p shows t h e l o w e s t . Figure  7b p r e s e n t s  the p r o p o r t i o n of c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s  for Polish,  Cantonese, V i e t n a m e s e , Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s s u b j e c t s . With the exception  of t h e P o l i s h group, a l l n a t i v e  language groups d i s p l a y a p a t t e r n of c o r e f e r e n t i a l that  roughly  group  response  p a r a l l e l s t h a t o f t h e C o n t r o l g r o u p . The  group d i s p l a y s r e l a t i v e l y  low p r o p o r t i o n s  on  Polish  Constructions  #5 and 2, a n d t h e V i e t n a m e s e g r o u p d i s p l a y s r e l a t i v e l y proportions  on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  #7 a n d 3. I n g e n e r a l , t h e  C a n t o n e s e , J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s similar  proportions  of r e s p o n s e a c r o s s  groups d i s p l a y  Figure  on C o n s t r u c t i o n s 7c p r e s e n t s  of t h i s  #1 a n d 4.  the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s  on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s  for Polish,  V i e t n a m e s e , J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s again,  very  a l l seven  c o n s t r u c t i o n s . T h e r e seems t o be some w e a k e n i n g similarity  high  Cantonese,  g r o u p s u b j e c t s . Once  t h e o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e i s s e e n t o have t h e f l a t t e s t  c o n f i g u r a t i o n of a l l t h r e e response types,  r e s p o n s e t y p e s . Of t h e t h r e e  t h e o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e i s t h e most  dissimilar  47 f r o m t h e C o n t r o l g r o u p r e s p o n s e s . The P o l i s h a n d J a p a n e s e g r o u p s show h i g h e r all  proportions  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s  of o p t i o n a l responses  than the other  native  across  language  groups.  ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY L E V E L BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE INTERACTION EFFECT Figure proficiency  8 presents level  t h e r e s u l t s of each E n g l i s h  f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l , c o r e f e r e n t i a l and o p t i o n a l Figure  8a p r e s e n t s  the proportion  language  on t h e responses.  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r t h e C o n t r o l subjects  and Advanced, I n t e r m e d i a t e  groups. Note the neat o r d e r i n g Constructions  response, followed  ordering  of each l e v e l f o r  proportion  by t h e A d v a n c e d , I n t e r m e d i a t e  i s symmetrically 8b p r e s e n t s  group  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  l e v e l s . On C o n s t r u c t i o n s  Figure  level  #4, 1 a n d 6. By a n d l a r g e , t h e C o n t r o l  displays the highest  Beginning  and B e g i n n i n g  and  #7, 3, 2 a n d 5 t h i s  reversed.  the proportion  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e s on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r t h e C o n t r o l subjects  and Advanced, I n t e r m e d i a t e  groups. Note t h a t the neat o r d e r i n g proficiency  levels displayed  t h e most.  of the E n g l i s h  i n Figure  h e r e . However, C o n t r o l and B e g i n n i n g differ  and B e g i n n i n g  level language  8a i s l e s s p r o n o u n c e d  level  continue  to  48 Figure on  8c p r e s e n t s  the  a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  Advanced, Intermediate Control  group d i f f e r s  proficiency  l e v e l s on  o f a d i f f e r e n c e on  proportion  of  t y p e s f o r the  and  optional  Control  Beginning l e v e l  most f r o m a l l E n g l i s h Constructions  the  other  #3  and  responses  subjects  groups.  and  The  language 7.  There i s l e s s  constructions.  CONSTRUCTION TYPE EFFECT A contrast Construction three  was  undertaken to determine  Types d i f f e r e d  response types.  response type are significant  significantly,  Contrasts  given  in Table  f o r the 10A.  which f o r e a c h of  the  noncoreferential  Table  10A  d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l C o n s t r u c t i o n  reveals Types.  49  TABLE 10A Contrasts f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRASTED  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  T-VALUE  SIG. OF T.  #1 v s #1 v s #1 v s #1 v s #1 v s #1 v s #2 v s #2 v s #2 v s #2 v s #2 v s #3 v s #3 v s #3 v s #3 v s #4 v s #4 v s #4 v s #5 v s #5 v s #6 v s  2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 -1 .04 -1 .04 -1 .04 -1 .04 -1 .04 - .69 - .69 - .69 - .69 2.21 2.21 2.21 -1 . 39 -1 .39 1 .36  .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .1 1 .1 1 .11 . 1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .13  20.99 20.99 20.99 20.99 20.99 20.99 -9.17 -9.17 -9.17 -9.17 -9.17 -6.29 -6.29 -6.29 -6.29 20.46 20.46 20.46 -12.91 -12.91 10.10  .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000**  * **  2 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 6 7 7  c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01  Contrasts in Table  l e v e l of l e v e l of  conf conf  f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response  10B. T a b l e  10B r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t  between a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s except between C o n s t r u c t i o n  type are given  differences  f o r the contrast  #3 v s . C o n s t r u c t i o n  #7.  50  TABLE 1 OB Contrasts f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRASTED #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4 #5 #5 #6  vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs  2 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 6 7 7  contrasts contrasts  all  T-VALUE  .62 .62 -1 .62 -1 .62 -1 .62 -1 .62 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 -1.73 1 .77 -1.04 .24 -1.75 -1.75 -1 .75 1 .77 1 .77 -1 .03  .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .10 .10 .1 2 .1 2 .10 .1 0 .10 .1 1 . 1 1 . 12  -17.42 -17.42  significant significant  -17.42  -17.42 -17.42 -17.42 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.60 -16.14 16.48 - 8.35 1 .96 -16.70 -16.70 -16.70 '16.07 16.07 - 7.93  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  f o r the o p t i o n a l response  10C. T a b l e  constructions  Construction  STD. ERR.  -1 -1  Contrasts Table  COEFF.  #6.  10C r e v e a l s except  significant  SIG. OF T. .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .051 .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000**  of c o n f i d e n c e of c o n f i d e n c e  type a r e given i n differences  between C o n s t r u c t i o n  #2 v s .  between  51  TABLE IOC Contrasts f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRASTED  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  T-VALUE  2 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 6 7 7  -.40 -.40 -.40 -.40 -.40 -.40 .56 -.43 -.33 -.19 . 38 . 54 . 54 .54 .54 -.45 -.45 -.45 -.39 -.39 -.36  .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .10 .10 .08 . 10 .1 1 .10 .1 0 .1 0 .10 .10 .10 .10 .09 .09 .1 2  -4.21 -4.21 -4.21 -4.21 -4.21 -4.21 5.18 -4.30 -3.92 -1 .76 3.50 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 -4.44 -4.44 -4.44 -4.28 -4.28 -3.00  #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4 #5 #5 #6  vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs vs  contrasts significant contrasts significant  SIG. OF T. .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .079 .001** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .003**  a t t h e .05 l e v e l a t t h e .01 l e v e l  NATIVE LANGUAGE BACKGROUND  of c o n f i d e n c e of confidence  EFFECT  A c o n t r a s t was u n d e r t a k e n t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h n a t i v e language backgrounds d i f f e r e d three  significantly  response types. Contrasts  response type are given significant  i n Table  f o r the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l 11A. T a b l e  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e P o l i s h  groups, P o l i s h  f o r each of the  11A r e v e a l s and Vietnamese  and Japanese g r o u p s , Cantonese and V i e t n a m e s e  52 g r o u p s , C a n t o n e s e a n d J a p a n e s e g r o u p s , V i e t n a m e s e and Japanese g r o u p s , Vietnamese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups and J a p a n e s e and M i s c e l l a n e o u s g r o u p s .  TABLE 11 A Contrasts f o r the N a t i v e L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d E f f e c t on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type LANGUAGES CONTRASTED  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  POLI/CANT POLI/VIET POLI/JAPA POLI/MISC CANT/VIET CANT/JAPA CANT/MISC VIET/JAPA VIET/MISC JAPA/MISC  -  .44 .50 .70 .39 .56 .78 .46 .52 . 52 .73  .1 1 - 1 .39 -1 .64 .03 - 1.28 - 1.83 .1 4 1 .43 - 1 .43 1 .83  T-VALUE ,.25 -2, .74 -2, .32 .08 -2, .26 -2, .33 .32 2,.73 -2, .73 2, .48 -  SIG. OF T, .796 .007** .021* .933 .024* .021* .749 .007** .007** .014*  * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e ** c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e 'POLI' 'CANT' 'VIET' 'JAPA' 'MISC  = = = = =  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  Contrasts  f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l  response type are given  i n T a b l e 11B. T a b l e 11B r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t between  the P o l i s h  and Cantonese g r o u p s , t h e P o l i s h and  Vietnamese groups, the P o l i s h Polish  differences  and J a p a n e s e g r o u p s , t h e  and M i s c e l l a n e o u s g r o u p s , a n d t h e V i e t n a m e s e and  Japanese groups.  53  TABLE 11B Contrasts f o r the N a t i v e Language B a c k g r o u n d E f f e c t on t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type LANGUAGES CONTRASTED  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  POLI/CANT POLI/VIET POLI/JAPA POLI/MISC CANT/VIET CANT/JAPA CANT/MISC VIET/JAPA VIET/MISC JAPA/MISC  1 .89 2 .70 1 .86 1 .35 .80 - .1 2 - .54 -1 .35 - .24 - .48  .49 .56 .78 .43 .63 .87 .51 .58 .89 .82  T-VALUE 3..79 4..75 2..36 3,.08 1 .28 , - ,. 1 4 .05 -1 , -2, .31 - ,.27 .58  SIG. OF T, .000** .000** .019* .002** .202 .884 .294 . 022* .786 . 557  * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e ** c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e 'POLI* 'CANT' 'VIET' 'JAPA' 'MISC  = = = = =  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  Contrasts f o r the optional Table the  response type are given i n  11C. T a b l e 11C r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t  Polish  differences  and Cantonese g r o u p s , t h e P o l i s h  groups, the P o l i s h  and Vietnamese  and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups and t h e  C a n t o n e s e and Japanese g r o u p s .  between  54  TABLE 1IC Contrasts f o r the N a t i v e L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d E f f e c t on t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type LANGUAGES CONTRASTED  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  T-VALUE  SIG. OF T.  POLI/CANT POLI/VIET POLI/JAPA POLI/MISC CANT/VIET CANT/JAPA CANT/MISC VIET/JAPA VIET/MISC JAPA/MISC  -1 -1 -1  .44 .50 .69 .38 .55 .78 .45 .51 .79 .73  -3.91 -2.72 - .33 -3.49 .64 2.51 .82 .03 1 .28 -1.84  .000** .007** .737 .001** .518 .013* .409 . 975 .199 .067  * **  .73 . 37 .23 .35 .36 1 .96 .37 .01 1.01 -1 .34  c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e  'POLI' 'CANT' 'VIET' 'JAPA' 'MISC  = = = = =  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL EFFECT A c o n t r a s t was u n d e r t a k e n t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s  differed  s i g n i f i c a n t l y , f o r each  of t h e t h r e e r e s p o n s e o p t i o n s . C o n t r a s t s  f o r the  noncoreferential  i n Table  12A  response type  reveals significant  Intermediate  levels  C o n t r o l . No o t h e r  a r e given  12A. T a b l e  d i f f e r e n c e s between B e g i n n i n g a n d  and between t h e B e g i n n i n g  levels differed  l e v e l and t h e  significantly.  55 TABLE 12A Contrasts f o r the E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l E f f e c t on t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type LEVELS CONTRASTED BEG./I NT. BEG./ADV. BEG./CON. INT./ADV. INT./CON. ADV./CON.  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  T-VALUE  1.18 .66 1 .22 -.24 .31 .55  .45 .41 .60 . 36 .61 .58  2.62 1 .59 2.01 -.65 . 50 .94  * contrasts significant ** c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t 'BEG.' 'INT.' 'ADV.' 'CON.'  = = = =  . 010** .111 .045* .513 .612 . 345  a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f  confidence confidence  Beginning Level Intermediate Level Advanced L e v e l C o n t r o l Group  Contrasts in Table  SIG. OF T.  f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l  12B. T a b l e  between t h e B e g i n n i n g Intermediate  12B r e v e a l s level  response type a r e given  significant  a n d t h e C o n t r o l a n d between t h e  l e v e l a n d t h e C o n t r o l . No o t h e r  found t o d i f f e r  differences  significantly.  levels are  56  TABLE 12B Contrasts f o r the E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l E f f e c t on t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type LEVELS CONTRASTED  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  T-VALUE  SIG. OF T.  BEG./I NT. BEG./ADV. BEG./CON. INT./ADV. INT./CON. ADV./CON.  -.52 .42 1 .45 .68 1 .76 -.96  . 50 .46 .71 .41 .77 .65  -1 .04 .91 2.02 1 .67 2.28 -1 .47  .298 .361 .044* .096 .024* .141  * contrasts significant ** c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t 'BEG.' 'INT.' 'ADV.' 'CON.'  = = =  f o r the Optional  12C. T a b l e  12C r e v e a l s  between t h e B e g i n n i n g Beginning level  confidence confidence  Beginning Level Intermediate Level Advanced L e v e l C o n t r o l Group  The c o n t r a s t s in Table  a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f  level  response type are given  significant  and Advanced l e v e l s ,  differences between t h e  and t h e C o n t r o l , between t h e  Intermediate  and t h e C o n t r o l , and between t h e Advanced l e v e l and  t h e C o n t r o l . No o t h e r signi f icantly.  l e v e l s were f o u n d t o d i f f e r  57  TABLE 12C C o n t r a s t s f o r the E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l E f f e c t on t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type  * **  LEVELS CONTRASTED  COEFF.  STD. ERR.  T-VALUE  BEG./INT. BEG./ADV. BEG./CON. INT./ADV. INT./CON. ADV./CON.  - .78 -1 .25 -2.64 - .49 -2.34 -2 .00  .44 .41 .63 .36 .68 .73  -1.75 -3.03 -4.15 -1 .34 -3.43 -2.74  contrasts significant contrasts significant  'BEG.' 'INT.' 'ADV.' 'CON.'  C.  = = = =  .05 .01  .081 .003** .000** .181 .001** .007**  l e v e l of l e v e l of  confidence confidence  Beginning Level Intermediate Level Advanced L e v e l C o n t r o l Group  NON-STATISTICAL A N A L Y S I S : COMMON PATTERNS OF I n g r a m and  Shaw's 3/5  determine each i n d i v i d u a l for  at the at the  SIG. OF T.  criterion  l e v e l was  RESPONSE employed  s u b j e c t ' s response type  a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s .  to  preference  As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r  (see  s e c t i o n NON-STATISTICAL A N A L Y S I S ) t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type  was  used to determine  r e s p o n s e . T h a t i s , when a s u b j e c t noncoreferential type,  s/he  preference  was  r e s p o n s e s on  individual  scored  of  t h r e e o r more  a particular  construction  assumed t o have a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e  for that construction  type.  In a d d i t i o n to a l l the major p a t t e r n s I n g r a m and  patterns  Shaw s t u d y ,  f o u r new  found i n  the  p a t t e r n s were r e v e a l e d  for a  58 total 92%  o f t e n p a t t e r n s . T h e s e p a t t e r n s a c c o u n t e d f o r 169 o r  of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  presented  i n Table  13. E q u i v a l e n t  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y confusion,  s u b j e c t s . The t e n p a t t e r n s a r e  are also given.  the patterns  be p r e s e n t e d  patterns  i n Arabic  uncovered  In order  numerals w i t h lower  upper c a s e l e t t e r s .  A description  terms of c o n s t r u c t i o n types response preferences,  Ten  case  study  letters.  of each p a t t e r n , i n  which r e c e i v e d n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l displaying  as w e l l .  TABLE 13 P a t t e r n s o f R e s p o n s e R e v e a l e d By the Present Study  PRESENT STUDY'S PATTERNS  INGRAM AND SHAW'S PATTERNS  1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7a 7b 8 9a 9b 1 Oa 10b  IA 1 subject IIIA IIA nil nil nil nil nil nil 3 subjects IVA IVB VA VB  will  i n Roman n u m e r a l s  a n d t h e number o f s u b j e c t s  each p a t t e r n a r e presented  i nthe  to avoid  i n the present  I n g r a m a n d Shaw's p a t t e r n s a r e p r e s e n t e d and  found  CONSTRUCTION TYPES WITH 3/5 NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE  NUMBER OF SUBJECTS  nil #1,2,3,4,5,6,7 #1,2,4 #1 #4 #1,2,3,4,6,7 #1,3,4 #1,3,4,7 #1,3,4,6 #1,3,4,6,7 #1,2,4,6,(7 o p t i o n a l ) #1,4 #1,4,7 #1,4,6 #1,4,6 (one o t h e r constructon) TOTAL  8 7 7 2 5 8 9 4 16 6 20 24 3 46 4 169  59  Patterns  1a and  1b r e p r e s e n t  s t r a t e g y . Anaphoric assignments co-occurence represents  of pronoun  t h e use o f a  a r e based  7, 8 and  indicate utilization,  sophistication,  Pattern  the  that  3, 4 and  5  represent  of v a r y i n g d e g r e e s  and c o - o c c u r e n c e  of  i n d i c a t e awareness  the  of not o n l y  the n a t i v e - s p e a k e r  falling  i n t o each  strategy.  of the above t e n  patterns  a r e as f o l l o w s : Pattern  1a: 44*,  Pattern  1b :  Pattern  2:  Pattern  3: 92,  76, 78, 99,  27* , 29*, 31 , 63, 69,  P a t t e r n 4:  73,  39*, 105,  125*,  47,  106,  107,  124,  Pattern  6a :  40* , 51, 88, 94*,  Pattern  6b :  24, 102*,  Pattern  7a :  37, 48,  P a t t e r n 7b :  146,  178,  67*,  68.  179,  184.  202.  1 62.  5: 21 , 30, 33, 46, 8 1 ,  180,  55,  126,  Pattern  171  6,  c o n s t r a i n t , but a l s o t h e dominance c o n s t r a i n t .  Subjects  170,  of  as  s t r a t e g i e s , of v a r y i n g d e g r e e s  10 r e p r e s e n t s  189,  104,  157. 111, 115,  166, 118,  192. 123, 131,  142.  96, 119,  133,  127.  66, 70, 75, 7 7 * , 89, 194.  38* , 56, 87,  128,  2  pronoun  f a c t o r s on a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s . P a t t e r n s  9 represent  precedence  o n l y when  noun p h r a s e . P a t t e r n s  s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , of b o t h p r e c e d e n c e constraining  on  strategy.  N o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses are given  strategies that  solely  and d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e . P a t t e r n  t h e use o f a p r e c e d e n c e  precedes d e f i n i t e  co-occurence  130,  185*.  60 Pattern 137,  8: 25, 5 9 * , 79, 84, 86, 101, 110, 114, 135, 136,  139, 141, 147, 148, 152, 155, 174, 176, 2 0 3 .  Pattern 150,  9 a : 42, 45, 49, 6 1 , 93, 98, 103, 113, 117, 121, 138,  156, 159, 163, 165, 173, 175, 177, 186, 187, 188, 195,  204. Pattern  9b: 36, 64, 83.  Pattern  10a: 22, 23, 26, 35, 50, 53, 54, 60, 65, 7 1 , 7 2 , 74,  80,  8 2 , 90, 100, 109, 112, 120, 122, 129, 132*, 143, 144,  145,  149, 151*, 153, 154*, 158, 164, 168, 169, 172, 181,  182,  183, 190, 191, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 2 0 1 .  Pattern  10b: 9 1 , 116, 134, 160.  Asterisks  indicate subjects  above t e n p a t t e r n s ,  who were p l a c e d  a l t h o u g h they d i d not a t t a i n  3/5 c r i t e r i o n l e v e l on a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n overall  response patterns  similar  enough t o a p a r t i c u l a r  i n d i c a t e d response  A breakdown of t h e s e s u b j e c t s Two m i s s e d o u t on b e i n g t o o many n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l subjects too 67).  This  brings  pattern, i s given  included  responses  m i s s e d o u t on b e i n g  few n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  types.  responses  a  strict  Since  their  preferences  t h e y were  included.  below. i n Pattern  (Subjects  included  i n the  44, 1 2 5 ) . F o u r  i n Pattern  (Subjects  t h e t o t a l number o f P a t t e r n  1a by one  1b by one  27, 29, 3 9 , 1 subjects  to  15. Two by  subjects  m i s s e d o u t on b e i n g  one t o o few n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  three  constructions  noncoreferential  that  i n Pattern  r e s p o n s e s on one o f t h e  received  responses  included  predominately  (Subjects  40, 9 4 ) . One  subject  6a  61 m i s s e d o u t on b e i n g  included  i n Pattern  6b by one t o o many  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s on a c o n s t r u c t i o n o t h e r four  that  received predominately noncoreferential  (Subject  102). This brings  subjects  t o 13.  One s u b j e c t by  the t o t a l  m i s s e d o u t on b e i n g  than the four t h a t  received  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses out  number o f P a t t e r n 6  included  i n P a t t e r n 7a  on b e i n g  included  predominately  (Subject  i n Pattern  7 7 ) . Two s u b j e c t s  that  received predominately noncoreferential  (Subjects 7 subjects  38, 185). T h i s  brings  the t o t a l  constructions responses  number o f P a t t e r n  t o 22.  One s u b j e c t m i s s e d o u t on b e i n g  included  i n Pattern 8  one t o o many n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s on a c o n s t r u c t i o n  other  than the f i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s  that  received  predominately n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses brings  the t o t a l  Lastly, Pattern  number o f P a t t e r n  three  constructions  the t o t a l  (Subjects  that  received  (Subjects  number o f P a t t e r n  The r e m a i n i n g cases  8 subjects  59). This  t o 20. included i n  10a by one t o o few n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s on one  the three  brings  (Subject  s u b j e c t s m i s s e d o u t on b e i n g  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses  97,  missed  7b by one t o o few  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s on one o f t h e f i v e  of  responses  one t o o many n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s on a c o n s t r u c t i o n  other  by  than the  predominately  132, 151, 1 5 4 ) . T h i s  10 s u b j e c t s  15 s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d  t o 50. as i s o l a t e d  28, 3 2 , 34, 4 1 , 43, 52, 5 7 , 5 8 , 6 2 , 8 5 , 95,  108, 140, 1 6 7 ) . They d i d n o t f i t i n t o a n y o f t h e t e n  62 p a t t e r n s , n o r d i d t h e y d i s p l a y any p a t t e r n interesting  t o n o t e , however, t h a t nine  cases are Beginning Level  s u b j e c t s , and only In o r d e r  acquisition and  Level  to capture  subjects,  i n common. I t i s  of the i s o l a t e d  four are  two a r e A d v a n c e d L e v e l  of t h e a d u l t pronominal r e f e r e n c e  effort  to capture  sequences, t h e p e r c e n t a g e of e x p e r i m e n t a l study,  s h o w i n g e a c h o f t h e 10 p a t t e r n s  plotted level  on a g r a p h a c c o r d i n g  study (see  developmental subjects  in this  o f r e s p o n s e , were  t o E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y  1 was r e l a t i v e l y  high  at the Beginning  dropped r a p i d l y f o r Intermediate  Patterns the  Ingram  (Figure 9 ) . Pattern  but  system,  d i s p l a y i n g each  p a t t e r n , a t e a c h d i f f e r e n t age g r o u p i n t h e i r #1). I n a s i m i l a r  subjects.  developmental sequences i n the  Shaw p l o t t e d t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f s u b j e c t s  Figure  Intermediate  and Advanced  2, 3 a n d 4 were d i s p l a y e d by v e r y  present  study.  Although Pattern  u s e d by t h e s u b j e c t s Beginning  level  in this  subjects  study,  level  5 was r e l a t i v e l y  levels.  Pattern  little  i t was u s e d more by  subjects  Pattern while  seemed t o h a v e b e e n u s e d by t h e same p r o p o r t i o n at a l l three  levels.  few s u b j e c t s i n  t h a n by t h e o t h e r s .  u s e d most by t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e  level,  6 was  Pattern  of s u b j e c t s  8 showed an i n c r e a s i n g  proportion  of use as E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l  increased.  Pattern  Beginning increase 10,  9 was u s e d by t h e same p r o p o r t i o n o f  and I n t e r m e d i a t e  level  i n u s e by A d v a n c e d l e v e l  the native  s u b j e c t s , b u t showed an subjects. Lastly, Pattern  s p e a k e r p a t t e r n , was u s e d by a s u r p r i s i n g l y  7  63 l a r g e number o f s u b j e c t s a t a l l t h r e e E n g l i s h proficiency  levels.  proficiency  level  However, i t s use seemed t o i n c r e a s e  i n d i c a t e that those  patterns  l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g i e s , s u c h as  1 - 5, a r e u s e d more by s u b j e c t s a t t h e B e g i n n i n g English  The  of  that  more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g i e s , s u c h a s P a t t e r n s  - 9, a r e u s e d more by s u b j e c t s a t t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e Advanced  Patterns  level  language p r o f i c i e n c y . A l s o , those p a t t e r n s  represent  as  increased.  I n summary, t h e d a t a representing  language  6  and  levels. ten patterns  used i n F i g u r e  9 were u s e d i n a  c o m p a r i s o n o f n a t i v e l a n g u a g e g r o u p s . O n l y t h e two l a r g e s t g r o u p s , t h e P o l i s h and C a n t o n e s e comparison of  i s presented  g r o u p s , were c o m p a r e d .  in Figure  10. N o t e  This  t h a t t h e number  s u b j e c t s a t each E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i s  relatively  s m a l l . Any  t h u s be done w i t h Beginning  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s must  caution.  l e a r n e r s i n b o t h l a n g u a g e g r o u p s gave P a t t e r n  1 r e s p o n s e s more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n s u b j e c t s a t t h e Intermediate  and A d v a n c e d  levels.  a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of B e g i n n i n g other  P a t t e r n 2 was  level Polish  u s e d by  subjects.  s u b j e c t s u s e d t h i s p a t t e r n . P a t t e r n 3 was  s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of I n t e r m e d i a t e Cantonese  s u b j e c t s . No o t h e r  p a t t e r n . P a t t e r n 4 was Intermediate  and A d v a n c e d  only No  u s e d by a level  subjects displayed  this  d i s p l a y e d by a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of  and A d v a n c e d  level  Polish  s u b j e c t s . No  s u b j e c t s u s e d t h i s p a t t e r n . P a t t e r n 5 was  other  u s e d by 2 1 % o f t h e  64 Beginning of  level  Polish  Intermediate  and  subjects  Advanced l e v e l  5 was  u s e d by  level  Cantonese s u b j e c t s  a small proportion and  Cantonese s u b j e c t s . P a t t e r n of P o l i s h t o be  by  no  6 was  Intermediate  Intermediate  level  Polish  subjects.  increased.  Pattern  Intermediate increased proportion The  I t s use  and  9 was  subjects contrasts with Beginning  level  large proportion increased  u s e d by  Polish of  the  level  was  language  higher  for  only  the  level  a small proportion  of  Polish  subjects.  increased.  Beginning  use  Pattern  level  obtained 10 was  i n both groups. I t s increased.  Its  However, a l a r g e r  seemed t o use  by  u s e d most  as p r o f i c i e n c y  proportion  as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l  proportion  subjects,  7 was  in both  subjects. Pattern  subjects  Pattern  Advanced  a small  d i s p l a y e d by  increased  i t s use  and  of C a n t o n e s e  of use  of Cantonese s u b j e c t s of  subjects.  l e v e l s . H o w e v e r , i t seemed  8 was  as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l  percentage  Intermediate  subjects  Advanced l e v e l  high proportion  Polish  l e v e l . Pattern  g r o u p s . However, the p r o p o r t i o n Cantonese s u b j e c t s . P a t t e r n  a smaller  u s e d by  a larger proportion  p e a k i n g at the  by  of B e g i n n i n g  s u b j e c t s , at a l l three  u s e d by  o f t e n by  but  by  9.  Cantonese the  u s e d by use  a  V.  A.  DISCUSSION OF  DISCUSSION OF  RESEARCH FINDINGS  S T A T I S T I C A L ANALYSIS REJECTION OF  The the  Hotellings  three n u l l A.  t e s t of  There are  no  significant differences l e v e l s on  noncoreferential  optional  There are  and C.  optional There are  construction  and  no  1.  an  no  4.  responses.  and  the  subjects'  optional  of  noncoreferential  Hotellings  between  responses.  t e s t of  significance  Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  l e v e l of  a Construction  an  native  coreferential,  the  .000  l e v e l of  yielded  Effect  confidence)  a N a t i v e Language B a c k g r o u n d E f f e c t  of  between  their coreferential,  t y p e s on  ( s i g n i f i c a n t at  the  confidence) Type E f f e c t  ( s i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .000  confidence)  English  Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  Type I n t e r a c t i o n  5.  their coreferential,  significant differences  ( s i g n i f i c a n t at  level  English  significant results:  English  .000  of  responses.  I n summary, t h e following  rejection  between  significant differences  noncoreferential  the  forced  hypotheses:  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s on  3.  significance  language p r o f i c i e n c y  B.  2.  NULL HYPOTHESES  Effect  By  ( s i g n i f i c a n t at  Construction the  .000  confidence)  a N a t i v e L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d By 65  Construction  Type  level  66 Interaction  Effect  ( s i g n i f i c a n t at  the  .000  level  of  conf idence) 6.  an  English  Language P r o f i c i e n c y  B a c k g r o u n d By (significant Of  a l l the  effects, the  the  English  at  the  .017  c a s e of of  the  l e v e l of  interaction  o n l y one  that  interaction  effects, d i d not  undertaken for the  t y p e s and  interaction  of  the  the  i n d e e d of  a l l the  attain significance  L e v e l by  Native  interaction  main e f f e c t s  e f f e c t s , and  l e v e l s , native  was  Language  e f f e c t s , and  suggested, in  revealed,  language groups,  i n the  the the  case  language construction  combinations thereof which d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  f r o m e a c h o t h e r on That  Effect  confidence)  main e f f e c t s , t h o s e s p e c i f i c E n g l i s h  proficiency  Language  effect.  Subsequent a n a l y s i s contrasts  Native  C o n s t r u c t i o n Type I n t e r a c t i o n  Language P r o f i c i e n c y  Background  L e v e l By  i t was  statistical  the  not  three response  possible  contrasts  f o r any  a d e f i n i t e drawback to the However, t h e r e  types.  to obtain of  the  meaningful  interaction  interpretation  i s a consideration  of  the  effects  is  results.  that  ameliorates  the  significant  the  situation. C o n s i d e r the interaction Recall  the  fact  effects ten  that  involved  a l l of the  common p a t t e r n s of  NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS s e c t i o n . from each o t h e r different  i n t e r m s of  s u b s e t s of  the  C o n s t r u c t i o n Type  effect.  response discussed The  certain  ten  patterns  types  the  differed  response b i a s e s  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  in  for  employed  67  i n t h e s t u d y . A l s o , most o f t h e t e n p a t t e r n s in subjects  at a l l three  l e v e l s , and  in a l l five native  the  three  the  five native  were o b s e r v e d  E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l a n g u a g e g r o u p s . When e a c h of  E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s ,  language groups c o n s i s t s of s u b j e c t s  d i s p l a y a s many.as t e n d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s  types),  one c l u e  effects  i s found. Each E n g l i s h  and e a c h n a t i v e  response biases  vs.  intra  subjects  who  level display  f o r t h e same c o n s t r u c t i o n s .  d e g r e e s of s e n s i t i v i t y  possibly  to s y n t a c t i c  c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s , e t c . Thus, the q u e s t i o n  construction  less with  type d i f f e r s  why  These  s u c h a s p r e c e d e and command r e l a t i o n s , i n t e r  addressed should deal  more w i t h  language p r o f i c i e n c y  a r e d e t e r m i n e d by s t r a t e g i e s t h a t  indicate varying considerations  construction  t o the cause of the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n  language group c o n t a i n  response biases  who  of r e s p o n s e ( i e .  r e s p o n s e s t o d i f f e r e n t s u b s e t s of the seven  different  o r e a c h of  why  t o be  one p a r t i c u l a r  significantly  one p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n  from a n o t h e r , but  of r e s p o n s e  differs  from a n o t h e r . A b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of each of the i n t e r a c t i o n and m a i n e f f e c t s i s g i v e n  significant below.  E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l Native  Language Background  Construction T h e r e was  By  Type I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t  a wide d i s p a r i t y i n p r o p o r t i o n  noncoreferential  by  of  r e s p o n s e s f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  types  68 between  native  proficiency All the  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s and between  l e v e l s (Figures  contrasts  response a t t a i n e d  r e s u l t s are consistent  with  the  types.  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  constructions,  terms of subordinate Backwards Pro  clause  #3,  s i g n i f i c a n c e . These differences  Recall that #6.  e f f e c t on  there  was  T h e r e were two  between only  one  Blocked  #1 and 4, however t h e y d i f f e r e d i n  Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  constructions,  Type m a i n  the inherent  Blocked Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n , Backwards  language  4 a , b and c ) .  f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n  noncoreferential  English  type. #2.  T h e r e was  only  one  T h e r e were t h r e e  Forwards  5 and 7. However t h e y d i f f e r e d i n  t e r m s o f p o s i t i o n i n g of s u b o r d i n a t e  clauses  and  i n t e r m s of  i n t e r vs i n t r a c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s . All  significant  contrasts  obtained  f o r the  Language Background main e f f e c t i n v o l v e d Vietnamese and/or  the Japanese groups  r e v i e w of F i g u r e s  4 a , b and c r e v e a l why  the  e i t h e r the  ( s e e T a b l e 11A). A this  Beginning l e v e l Japanese group i s m i s s i n g .  Beginning deviant  l e v e l V i e t n a m e s e g r o u p d i s p l a y s an  pattern  Japanese group  (Figure (Figure  because of the s m a l l  Native  i s so.  Second,  the  extremely  4 a ) , as does t h e Advanced 4 c ) . These p a t t e r n s  First,  level  are u n r e l i a b l e  n i n e a c h o f t h e s e two n a t i v e  language  groups. Figures  4 a , b and c r e v e a l  language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l noncoreferential approximates that  that,  increases,  in general,  as  the p r o p o r t i o n  r e s p o n s e s f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p  ( i e .high  English of types  proportion  69 of  noncoreferential  low  proportion  response f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s  f o r #2,  3,  5 and  further points. First,  group's d r a m a t i c a l l y r e s p o n s e on  a l l the  (Constructions overall  #2,  low  proportion  5 and  level  level  #1  as  and  4,  dispersion  like  reveals  Vietnamese  noncoreferential pronominalization  tend to c r e a t e  Second, the  80%  r a n g e on  relatively  Intermediate  an  c l u s t e r i n g of Constructions  greater  amount o f  l e v e l ' s r e s p o n s e s on  a l s o tends to c r e a t e  a response that  t h e A d v a n c e d l e v e l ' s . T h e s e two  p o i n t s may  anomalous f i n d i n g s o b t a i n e d  for  E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l main e f f e c t ,  on  the  noncoreferential  i s more  contrasts  the  significantly  same  for  rather  B e g i n n e r s were f o u n d t o d i f f e r  i n the  the  account  the  Intermediates  6;  r e s p o n s e t h a t more c l o s e l y  opposed to the  constructions,  of  7) c o u l d  responses i n the  i n the  figures  allowing  a p p r o x i m a t e s the Advanced l e v e l ' s . Beginning  the  Beginning l e v e l  constructions 3,  Beginning  the  4 and  7).  H o w e v e r , a c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n of two  #1,  where  from  response  (see  Table  12A). That the  Intermediate  of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l be  due  to the  highest or  4.  r e s p o n s e s on  fact that  proportion  of  These p a t t e r n s  r e s p o n s e s on  coreferential  the  had  low #4  showed a g r e a t e r  dispersion  Constructions  and  Intermediate  subjects  Construction  T h e r e was  level  l e v e l had  4  and  1,  of  3  noncoreferential  respectively.  in proportion  may  the  displaying either Pattern  proportions  a wide d i s p a r i t y  #1  of  reponse f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  types,  70 between n a t i v e proficiency the  language  groups  l e v e l s (Figures  Construction  and b e t w e e n E n g l i s h  #5a,  b and c ) . A l l c o n t r a s t s f o r  Type m a i n e f f e c t on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l  response a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e , except between C o n s t r u c t i o n s similarity that both  regard  r e v e a l why  to the s i g n i f i c a n t  response  native  type  language  (Table  groups.  most o t h e r decreasing.  The  language  It displayed  the small  approximates Constructions  response  was  with lowest  the P o l i s h  opposite  by t h e m i s s i n g n i n both  increases,  to that  rather  f o r a l l seven  #2 and  5; medium on  group,  with  of  than  contrast  Beginning  may  level  groups. as  the p r o p o r t i o n  English of  constructions  t h a t of the c o n t r o l group  6 ) . The V i e t n a m e s e coreferential  #7  5 a , b and c r e v e a l t h a t , i n g e n e r a l ,  proficiency level  coreferential  the  c  f o r almost a l l  increasing in proportion  h a v e been c a u s e d , once a g a i n ,  Figures  significantly  s i g n i f i c a n t Vietnamese-Japanese  g r o u p and  5 a , b and  at a l l E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y  response preference  groups,  for  the  11A), F i g u r e s  I n a d d i t i o n , on C o n s t r u c t i o n  coreferential  be t h e f a c t  m a i n e f f e c t on  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l response  c o n s t r u c t i o n types,  Japanese  f o r the  contrasts obtained  the P o l i s h group c o n t r a s t e d  proportion  levels.  reason  contrast  Pro.  Language Background  coreferential  other  7. One  f o r the  b e t w e e n t h e s e two c o n s t r u c t i o n s may  the N a t i v e  all  #3 and  i n v o l v e Forwards  With  language  (high  #3 and  on  7; low on  i t s high proportion  #1,  4  and  of  r e s p o n s e s on a l m o s t a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s a t b o t h  71 the  B e g i n n i n g and  contributing obtained effect  Intermediate  levels,  f a c t o r i n a l l the  f o r the (Table  significant  12B).  However, i t must be  display a generally  Construction  coreferential either  lower p r o p o r t i o n #2  r e s p o n s e s on  the Advanced l e v e l  Just  as  i n the  and  c a s e of  the  response types,  though not  great,  i n the  f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n g r o u p s and (Figures  #6a,  b and  6.  proportion #1  and  4,  there  of  than  group.  noncoreferential  and  is a clear disparity,  proportion  of  optional  between n a t i v e  c). A l l contrasts the  s i g n i f i c a n c e , excepting and  responses  language  optional the  f o r the  Construction  response type  contrast  between  attained Constructions  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that Construction  a Backwards Pro  construction  whereas C o n s t r u c t i o n  #6  #2  is  is a  B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s c o n s t r u c t i o n . The  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  unclear.  the  o p t i o n a l response  the  experimental  little  However, c o n s i d e r i n g  u s e d on  a w h o l e and  any  that  that  construction  considering  w e l l p r o c e s s e d of unlikely  do  between E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s  Type m a i n e f f e c t on  #2  levels  of c o r e f e r e n t i a l  Control  types,  main most  Intermediate  a higher  the  coreferential as  noted that  Constructions or  a  contrasts  E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s a t b o t h B e g i n n i n g and  r e s p o n s e s on  d o e s seem t o be  the  by  that Construction  three  blocked  was  are was  group  the  constructions,  some e l e m e n t o f c h a n c e may  in t h i s f i n d i n g .  #6  this  least  i t is  have p l a y e d  as  a  not  part  72  The  Native  revealed  L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d main e f f e c t  significant  Polish-Vietnamese,  c o n t r a s t s between  Table  11C).  The  significant  t o h a v e been c a u s e d in  the  and  o p t i o n a l response type  Polish-Cantonese  in large part  by  postposed  #3,  the  "that" clause  Polish-Miscellaneous discrepancies level  on  Forwards Pro  b e t w e e n t h e s e two  Constructions  Constructions  #3  r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The  #3  and  and  5.  (Figures  r e s p o n s e s d i s p l a y e d by  groups  at the 6b and  a  Beginning  the  level  6a,  Polish-Vietnamese h a v e been due  and to the  t h e V i e t n a m e s e and  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the  native  the  smaller  on  Intermediate  g r o u p s , b o t h of w h i c h a r e l a n g u a g e g r o u p s by  seems  significant  groups at the  C a n t o n e s e - J a p a n e s e c o n t r a s t s may deviant  two  have been c a u s e d by  2, and  significant  the  construction with  ( F i g u r e 6 c ) . The  c o n t r a s t may  contrast  (see  the extreme d i f f e r e n c e s  r e s p o n s e between t h e A d v a n c e d l e v e l s o f  Construction  on  Polish-Cantonese,  Polish-Miscellaneous  C a n t o n e s e - J a p a n e s e g r o u p s on  contrasts  number of  rather  Japanese other  subjects  in  each. Of optional  the  three  1 and  4.  response type. that  the  optional  from the  w h i c h showed m e d i u m - h i g h p r o p o r t i o n s  Constructions 6,  the experimental  r e s p o n s e i s t h e most d i s s i m i l a r  group data,  5,  response types,  #3  and  7;  I t i s the  low  proportions  least  I t does not  u s e d , and  seem u n u s u a l ,  on  group's control on  Constructions  least  #2,  w e l l used  t h e r e f o r e , to  E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l c o n t r a s t s on  find the  r e s p o n s e y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s between a l l  73 l e v e l s and  the  C o n t r o l . The  significantly  from the  r e s u l t of  low  the  Constructions Beginning  #1  and  groups at  4 by the  of  higher  Advanced l e v e l  This  differed  seems t o be  and  a  on  language groups at  proportion  #3  also  o p t i o n a l responses  a l l native  Constructions  the  level  Advanced l e v e l .  proportion  l e v e l and  r e s p o n s e s on  Beginning  of  optional  7 by most n a t i v e  (Figures  the  6a and  language  6c,  respect i v e l y ) .  Native  Language Background  Construction By  and  Control  (Figure  #7a).  is a noticeable Construction  r e s p o n s e s on  #6.  that  There i s a high  decline This  that Construction  #6  is similar proportion  Constructions  i n the  i s an  Effect  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s show a  response p a t t e r n  noncoreferential  fact  Type I n t e r a c t i o n  large, a l l native  noncoreferential  By  proportion  expected  #1  of  finding  to previous  process than the  B l o c k e d Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s .  of  noncoreferential  constructions The  response f o r the  is relatively  noncoreferential  constructions  are  roughly  g r o u p s . However, t h e r e Construction proportion  of  #6  the  research,  are  the  of  and  4.  response  There on  i n view of  i s a Blocked Forwards  which, according  to  the  construction  i s more d i f f i c u l t  r e s t of  The  to  proportion  the  low.  response p a t t e r n similar  for a l l native  some n o t i c e a b l e  P o l i s h g r o u p shows t h e  noncoreferential  across  a l l seven language  differences. highest  r e s p o n s e s whereas  the  On  74 J a p a n e s e g r o u p shows t h e l o w e s t . Vietnamese group g i v e s a very whereas the other proportions  On C o n s t r u c t i o n  the  n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e response  n a t i v e language groups d i s p l a y  of t h i s  #7  r e s p o n s e . And  higher  on C o n s t r u c t i o n  #2  the  P o l i s h and V i e t n a m e s e g r o u p s d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m s e l v e s by giving,  r e s p e c t i v e l y , the h i g h e s t  noncoreferential the  and l o w e s t  proportion  r e s p o n s e . I t a p p e a r s t o be t h e c a s e t h a t  P o l i s h , V i e t n a m e s e and J a p a n e s e g r o u p s ' r e s p o n s e s on  Constructions  #6,  7 and 2 a c c o u n t f o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d By C o n s t r u c t i o n Type i n t e r a c t i o n and  of  f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t  noncoreferential dissimilar  Native  Because  size,  on t h e  t h e s e g r o u p s a r e so  the P o l i s h group  having  one o f t h e l a r g e s t and t h e V i e t n a m e s e and J a p a n e s e  groups  having  i n terms of c e l l  effect  Language main e f f e c t  response type.  Native  the s m a l l e s t , i t i s d i f f i c u l t  to i n t e r p r e t these  r e s u l t s . An a t t e m p t a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may  best  be c o n d u c t e d  a f t e r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e d i s c u s s i o n s on t h e o t h e r response It  two  types. i s easier to detect  those native language  groups  which c o n t r i b u t e d to the s i g n i f i c a n t Native  Language  B a c k g r o u n d By C o n s t r u c t i o n Type i n t e r a c t i o n  e f f e c t and t o  the  s i g n i f i c a n t Native  the c o r e f e r e n t i a l  Language Background main e f f e c t  r e s p o n s e t y p e ( F i g u r e #7b).  g r o u p d i s p l a y s q u i t e a low p r o p o r t i o n of r e s p o n s e on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  #5,  The  Polish  coreferential  2 and 6. The V i e t n a m e s e  d i s p l a y s q u i t e a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of c o r e f e r e n t i a l on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  #7 and 3. However, a g a i n  on  group  response  because of t h e  75 unequal c e l l these  s i z e , c a u t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d i n  r e s u l t s . One  dissimilarity between  p o i n t t h a t b e a r s n o t i n g , however,  i n p r o p o r t i o n of c o r e f e r e n t i a l  the P o l i s h  and M i s c e l l a n e o u s and 4. T h i s  i s the  response  g r o u p , on t h e one h a n d , and t h e  Cantonese  g r o u p s , on t h e o t h e r , on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  i s an i n t e r e s t i n g  three groups are the l a r g e s t of n u m b e r s . We  interpreting  will  finding, considering and t h e most s i m i l a r  return to t h i s point  in a  #1  these i n terms  subsequent  sect ion. The all  three  times  response types  s i g n i f i c a n t Native  effect  relatively  numerous  u s e d of t h e t h r e e  effect  Language  B a c k g r o u n d By  response  h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of c o r e f e r e n t i a l t y p e s . The  Construction  and t h e s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e  on t h e o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e t y p e .  construction  Language  It displays a r e s p o n s e on a l l  Japanese group d i s p l a y s a  similar  p a t t e r n . However, o n c e a g a i n , b e c a u s e o f u n e q u a l c e l l interpretation dissimilarities  is difficult. between  and M i s c e l l a n e o u s In  Note a g a i n , however,  t h e P o l i s h g r o u p and t h e  summary, t h e s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language  N a t i v e Language  size,  the Cantonese  groups.  By C o n s t r u c t i o n Type i n t e r a c t i o n  largest  of  I t appears t h a t the P o l i s h group, a g a i n , accounts f o r  Type i n t e r a c t i o n main  variability  ( F i g u r e # 7 c ) . As m e n t i o n e d  p r e v i o u s l y , i t i s the l e a s t  types. the  o p t i o n a l response d i s p l a y s the l e a s t  main  effect  effect  apppear  Background  and t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  t o have been due  and s m a l l e s t n a t i v e l a n g u a g e g r o u p s i n t h e  W h i l e the weaknesses  i n the design  of the study  t o the  study.  are thus  76 revealed,  there  are  sufficient  i n d i c a t i o n s i n the data  warrant a c l o s e r a n a l y s i s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , between the g r o u p s on  P o l i s h g r o u p and  Miscellaneous  o p t i o n a l response  further consideration. This point w i l l the N a t i v e  discrepancies  t h e C a n t o n e s e and  t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l and  d i s c u s s i o n on  the  be  level  by  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e r e s u l t s of e a c h E n g l i s h  in Figure  #8a.  for Constructions  on  a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  Note the #4,  c o n t r o l group d i s p l a y s the  1 and  neat o r d e r i n g 6.  highest  Intermediate  and  Beginning  5 this ordering  between the  by  l e v e l s . On  i s symmetrically  C o n t r o l and  p r o n o u n c e d and  By  Beginning  the  the  large  i s the  of  The  significant  t o h a v e been due r e s p o n s e of  to the  the  the  Beginning  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response  unexpected n a t i v e  the Beginning  Type  the  between the  l e v e l s on  contrast  English  significant Intermediate  3,  significant  mentioned e a r l i e r ,  obtained  #7,  most  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e . As contrast  each the  Construction  L a n g u a g e P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l main e f f e c t on  types  Advanced,  reversed.  appears to account f o r the  e f f e c t a s w e l l as  of  Constructions  level  E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l By interaction  and  proportion  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response, followed  and  the  Type I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t  language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l given  in  Language Background Main E f f e c t .  Construction  are  bears  addressed  E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  The  to  and seems  speaker-like  l e v e l V i e t n a m e s e g r o u p and  by  the  2  77 differences  i n r e s p o n s e between B e g i n n i n g and I n t e r m e d i a t e  l e v e l s on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  #1 a n d 4.  The c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e r e s u l t s o f e a c h language p r o f i c i e n c y are  given  levels  i n Figure  l e v e l on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n #8b. N o t e t h a t  continue  contrasts Control  to d i f f e r  Constructions  proficiency  significant  i n r e s p o n s e on  l e v e l on a l l s e v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n  contrasts  types are given  accounts f o r the  o b t a i n e d between t h e C o n t r o l  English  12C), as w e l l as t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  summary, on t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l language p r o f i c i e n c y  level,  By C o n s t r u c t i o n  significant  English  optional  response  Language  Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  type,  seems t o h a v e Proficiency  main e f f e c t  r e s p o n s e t y p e . On t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e t y p e s , an i n t e r a c t i o n o f  language p r o f i c i e n c y  (Table 12C).  Type i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t a n d t h e  on t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l and  response  contrast  in itself,  accounted f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t E n g l i s h Level  and a l l  l e v e l s on t h e o p t i o n a l  o b t a i n e d between B e g i n n i n g and Advanced l e v e l s In  language  f r o m e a c h o t h e r on  #3 a n d 7. T h i s p o s s i b l y  language p r o f i c i e n c y  (Table  12B) seems t o  response r e s u l t s of each E n g l i s h  #8c. A l l l e v e l s d i f f e r  Constructions  (Table  #7, 3, 6, 1 a n d 4.  The o p t i o n a l  type  l e v e l and  o b t a i n e d between t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l and t h e  h a v e been c a u s e d by t h e i r d i v e r g e n c e  English  of the  t h e m o s t . The s i g n i f i c a n t  on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e  in Figure  types  the heat o r d e r i n g  i s l e s s p r o n o u n c e d h e r e . The B e g i n n i n g  Control  English  l e v e l and c o n s t r u c t i o n  English  t y p e seems t o  78 have a c c o u n t e d f o r the effects  obtained.  a p p e a r s t o be  significant  Lastly,  interaction  of t h e  three  C o n s t r u c t i o n Type M a i n  revealed  main  the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response  t h e most r o b u s t  Contrasts  and  response  I t revealed s i g n i f i c a n t  c o n s t r u c t i o n s , except response type  (Table  #3  v s . 7, on  10B).  the  Finally,  the o p t i o n a l response type As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r ,  (Table  d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l coreferential  i t revealed  d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , except  the  effect  d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l seven  c o n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e t y p e 10A).  types.  Effect  u n d e r t a k e n f o r t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n Type  significant  type  (Table these  significant  #2  v s . 6,  on  10C). results  are  i n keeping  with  i n h e r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n  types.  N a t i v e Language Background Main  Effect  C o n t r a s t s u n d e r t a k e n f o r the N a t i v e Language Background effect  r e v e a l e d a number of  c o n t r a s t s . For  (Table  11A).  c o n t r a s t s , out T h i s was  s i g n i f i c a n t contrasts obtained t y p e s . For  the c o r e f e r e n t i a l  c o n t r a s t s were o b t a i n e d response type,  native  language  the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e , a  of seven s i g n i f i c a n t obtained  significant  the  of a t o t a l  o f t e n , were  l a r g e s t number o f  f o r any  of t h e t h r e e  response type,  (Table  total  11B).  On  five  response  significant  the o p t i o n a l  f o u r s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s were  obtained  79  11C).  (Table The  f o r e g o i n g c o n t r a s t s must be  As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , language groups, account  the  largest  interpretedcautiously.  and  smallest native  P o l i s h , V i e t n a m e s e and  f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t  However, a c l o s e r  results  examination  J a p a n e s e , seem t o  obtained. of t h e d a t a  suggests  t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the weaknesses i n the present design, there  i s evidence  to support  the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t  N a t i v e Langage Background e f f e c t does p l a y a r o l e determining  the responses  t h a t t h e P o l i s h and  of the e x p e r i m e n t a l  Cantonese groups,  groups i n the study, d i f f e r e d c o r e f e r e n t i a l and  e v e n t h o u g h t h e two  groups'  cell  of t h e  s i z e s are  contrasts with other  the  in  s u b j e c t s . Note  on  contrasts.  c o m p a r a b l e , t h e C a n t o n e s e g r o u p was significant  two  significantly  o p t i o n a l response  study's  largest  the Furthermore,  roughly  i n v o l v e d i n f a r fewer  n a t i v e language groups  than  t h e P o l i s h g r o u p , f o u r as o p p o s e d t o n i n e . If  unequal c e l l  significant  s i z e was,  by  itself,  c o n t r a s t s were o b t a i n e d , one  assume t h a t t h e l a r g e s t g r o u p s i n t h e to  differ  significantly  differ  from each o t h e r  groups.  However, such  Consider  one  the reason would  study  normally  should tend  from each o t h e r , nor  should  i n c o n t r a s t s made w i t h o t h e r i s not  the  they language  the  language  i n three t a b l e s , each p r e s e n t i n g  contrasts for a particular  response  remembered t h a t t h e t a b l e s do  not  not  case.  more p o i n t . A l t h o u g h  c o n t r a s t s are presented  why  type,  i t must  represent  three  the  be discrete  80 "tests",  but rather  are  possible.  the  relationship  obtained is  one t e s t  i n which three response  The s i g n i f i c a n c e  of the three t a b l e s  between them, r a t h e r  across a l l three Note t h a t  lies in  than i n t h e r e s u l t s  i n e a c h . The b e s t e x a m p l e t o i l l u s t r a t e  i n c o m p a r i n g , once a g a i n ,  options  this  point  t h e P o l i s h and C a n t o n e s e  groups  tables.  i n regards to the noncoreferential  response  type b o t h groups d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e V i e t n a m e s e and J a p a n e s e g r o u p s , b u t n o t f r o m e a c h o t h e r The  fact  that  significantly  11A) .  b o t h P o l i s h and C a n t o n e s e g r o u p s d i f f e r f r o m t h e same n a t i v e  s i m p l y be a t t r i b u t e d  language groups can  t o unequal c e l l  sizes. After  P o l i s h a n d C a n t o n e s e g r o u p s a r e much l a r g e r native  (Table  a l l ,  the  t h a n any o t h e r  language group.  However, on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l  response c o n t r a s t  P o l i s h group d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a l l o t h e r including  the  groups,  t h e Cantonese group, whereas the Cantonese  group  does n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m any o t h e r l a n g u a g e  group  except the P o l i s h group  also  be a t t r i b u t e d inconsistent  (Table  t o unequal c e l l  1 1 B ) . Can t h i s f i n d i n g sizes?  t o make s u c h a c l a i m ,  I t w o u l d be  considering  the  p e r f o r m a n c e o f b o t h g r o u p s on t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  response  type. Why  i s t h e r e such a d i s s i m i l a r i t y between t h e P o l i s h  and C a n t o n e s e g r o u p s ' c o n t r a s t s g r o u p s on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l explanation  i s that  with other native  r e s p o n s e t y p e ? One  language  possible  t h e P o l i s h and Cantonese groups  utilize  81 the c o r e f e r e n t i a l Similarly,  response type i n q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t  on t h e o p t i o n a l  P o l i s h and Cantonese  response c o n t r a s t ,  groups d i f f e r  significantly  o t h e r , however a l l o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t  (Table  11C). That  groups  from e a c h o t h e r , t h e P o l i s h  g r o u p s do n o t o b t a i n  significant  contrasts  t h e same l a n g u a g e g r o u p s . Once a g a i n , u n e q u a l c e l l does not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y  account  both groups' performances coreferential  on t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  with  sizes  and  response types.  b e t w e e n P o l i s h and C a n t o n e s e noncoreferential  subjects  similarity  in utilization  response t y p e , but d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s  of the on  the  response types.  E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l Main By a n d  yielded  language p r o f i c i e n c y  level  English  results that  keeping w i t h the r a t h e r obvious p r e d i c t i o n  English  Effect  l a r g e , the c o n t r a s t s undertaken f o r the  Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l e f f e c t in  and  f o r these data, c o n s i d e r i n g  I n summary, t h e d a t a s u g g e s t a p o s s i b l e  other  each  c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d by  group are w i t h m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e language  Cantonese  the  from  either  i s , aside  manner.  that  responses would  are  the lower tend to  d i f f e r more f r o m t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p r e s p o n s e s t h a n t h e advanced This  E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y i s seen most c l e a r l y  coreferential  level  responses.  on t h e c o n t r a s t s  f o r the  r e s p o n s e t y p e , where b o t h B e g i n n i n g and  Intermediate levels d i f f e r e d  significantly  group, but the Advanced l e v e l d i d not  from the  ( T a b l e 12B).  Control  82 On  the  o p t i o n a l response type,  proficiency  levels differed significantly  group. However, the significantly  Beginning l e v e l  from the  suggests t h a t , while native  speaker-type  they are  from B e g i n n i n g  by  the  of  level  optional  response  subjects,  may  be  because the  notion  pronominal reference late  i n the  Contrasts yielded  an  Remembering t h e  f o r the  not  give  i t seems l i k e l y  are  rather  t o any  low  construction that  the  subjects,  of  r e l u c t a n t to u t i l i z e .  of p o s s i b l e a m b i g u i t y  i s a s o p h i s t i c a t e d one  acquisition  do  t h i s p a r t i c u l a r response,  that experimental  whatever p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l ,  This  e n o u g h t o d i s t i n g u i s h them  subjects.  i s one  Control  12C).  clearly  o p t i o n a l responses given  experimental  from the  (Table  Advanced s u b j e c t s r e s p o n s e s on  language  also d i f f e r e d  Advanced l e v e l  nonetheless d i s t i n c t  proportion  a l l English  and  This  of acquired  process. noncoreferential  anomalous f i n d i n g . In  keeping with  type  the  prediction,  the  the  g r o u p , however, i t a l s o d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Control  from the was  an  Intermediate  u n e x p e c t e d one.  d i s c u s s i o n on Native  Beginning l e v e l  response  the  level  (Table  However, as  this  deviant  Beginning  r e s p o n s e and  noncoreferential  This  last  indicated in  Construction  anomalous f i n d i n g can  the  12A).  be  the  difference  in proportion  By  Type i n t e r a c t i o n  a t t r i b u t e d to  l e v e l Vietnamese group's  from  result  E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d By  effect,  differed significantly  the  noncoreferential of  r e s p o n s e b e t w e e n B e g i n n i n g and  Intermediate  83  l e v e l s on C o n s t r u c t i o n s  B. DISCUSSION OF THE  #1  and  4.  COMMON PATTERNS OF  E a c h o f t h e t e n common p a t t e r n s  RESPONSE  of response  mentioned  i n t h e NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS s e c t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d b e l o w w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t m i g h t have been employed  to produce  them.  Pattern 1 This pattern divided  i n t o two  i s b a s e d on a c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y . I t i s subgroups. P a t t e r n  and Shaw's P a t t e r n  1a i s t h e same as  IA. In t h i s p a t t e r n  the  subject's  r e s p o n s e s a r e a l l c o r e f e r e n t i a l o n e s . When p r o n o u n definite  of  Ingram  1a). P a t t e r n  and Shaw's s u b j e c t s who  r e s p o n s e s . I t i s not q u a l i t a t i v e l y 1a. Once a g a i n , When p r o n o u n  1b).  one  gave a l l n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t from  a co-occurence strategy  and d e f i n i t e  are  1b i s t h e same a s  Pattern  seems t o be  applied.  noun p h r a s e c o - o c c u r , t h e d e c i s i o n  i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y made t h a t p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n (Chart  and  noun p h r a s e c o - o c c u r , a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s  a u t o m a t i c a l l y made ( C h a r t  Ingram  i s blocked  84  CHART 1A Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back II  Blocked  Forwards  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTI AL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  CHART 1B Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back ii Blocked Forwards  The totally  fact  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  1b S u b j e c t s Level Response  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  t h a t t h e two s u b g r o u p s o f P a t t e r n  opposite  anaphoric  j u d g e m e n t s i s n o t an  concern, s i n c e , i n both cases, co'-occurence. I t i s c o n c e i v a b l e individual  1a S u b j e c t s Level Response  variation,  1 yield important  j u d g e m e n t s a r e made s o l e l y on that  such f a c t o r s as  amount a n d n a t u r e  of exposure t o t h e  85 target  language and n a t i v e  determining  the s p e c i f i c  co-occurence strategy  language background play  anaphoric  i n v o l v e recourse  a s s i g n m e n t made when a  i s employed.  A co-occurence s t r a t e g y not  roles in  i s the simplest  t o any o t h e r  d o e s i t seem t o i n v o l v e r e c o u r s e  one. I t does  s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t , nor to non-syntactic  such as semantic, pragmatic or l e x i c a l  factors,  considerations.  Pattern 2 This The  pattern subject  i s t h e same a s I n g r a m a n d Shaw's P a t t e r n i s using  a p r e c e d e n c e s t r a t e g y . When p r o n o u n  p r e c e d e s d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e , p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n hence n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s a r e g i v e n #1, 2 a n d 4 ( C h a r t constraint Pattern  2 ) . The s e n s i t i v i t y  suggests that Pattern  CHART 2 Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE ?!  II  Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back Blocked  i s blocked,  to Constructions  t o the precedence  2 i s a r e f i n e m e n t on t h e  1 strategy.  Forwards Pro  Forward  3 5 7 2 4 6  IIIA.  2 Subjects Level Response  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  86 Pattern 3 Though t h i s p a t t e r n Pattern  i s numbered s e q u e n t i a l l y a f t e r  2, i t i s n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r i t i s , i n f a c t , a p a t t e r n  that develops subsequently. This  concern a p p l i e s t o Patterns  4 and 5 as w e l l . This  pattern  I I A . The s u b j e c t allows  i s t h e same a s I n g r a m a n d Shaw's P a t t e r n c o r r e c t l y blocks  pronominalization  Construction  on a l l o t h e r  #1, b u t  constructions  3).  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s u g g e s t e d t h a t P a t t e r n  use  of a co-occurence s t r a t e g y  (Chart  3 indicated the  i n conjunction  with  some  a w a r e n e s s o f t h e p r e c e d e n c e c o n s t r a i n t . I f I n g r a m a n d Shaw are on  correct  in their  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the continued  a co-occurence strategy  as P a t t e r n s Pattern  suggests that Pattern  reliance  3, a s w e l l  4 a n d 5, a r e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t d e v e l o p p r i o r t o  2.  CHART 3 Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards Pro Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Blocked Forwards  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  3 Subjects Level Response  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  87 Pattern This  i s a pattern  this pattern, all  not found  the subject  constructions,  subject  4  i n t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y . I n  gives  a c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t o  except Construction  #4 ( C h a r t  a p p l i e s the B l o c k e d Backwards r u l e c o r r e c t l y t o o n l y  one c o n s t r u c t i o n . N o t e t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and P a t t e r n  between P a t t e r n  3. I n b o t h c a s e s t h e s u b j e c t  correctly  one o f t h e two B l o c k e d Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s , pronominalization Pattern Pattern  while  blocks  allowing  4 involves  t h e same s t r a t e g y ,  or s t r a t e g i e s , as  3. The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two p a t t e r n s  subordinate  clauses  constructions. constructions  i n the Blocked  3 subjects  with a subordinate  will  correctly  A difference  clauses  d i f f e r e n t i a t e s Pattern  block while  on c o n s t r u c t i o n s  "when" a n d " a f t e r " c l a u s e .  subordinate  Back  "that" clause,  pronominalization  do e x a c t l y t h e o p p o s i t e .  seems  i n response t o the d i f f e r e n t  involved  Pattern  incorrecty allowing a subordinate  4  on a l l o t h e r s .  to l i e i n the d i f f e r e n c e s  various  4 ) . The  Pattern  4  subjects  i n s e n s i t i v i t y to  a p p e a r s t o be t h e f a c t o r  3 a n d 4.  with  that  88  CHART 4 Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 4 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards Pro Tf  Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back Blocked  Forward  3 5 7 2 4 6  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  Pattern 5 This  i s a l s o a p a t t e r n n o t f o u n d i n t h e I n g r a i n a n d Shaw  study. In t h i s p a t t e r n , the subject  gives a noncoreferential  response t o a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , except C o n s t r u c t i o n  #5  5 ) . The s u b j e c t c o r r e c t l y  on o n l y  one  allows pronominalization  (Chart  construction. T h i s p a t t e r n d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be q u a l i t a t i v e l y  different  from e i t h e r P a t t e r n s  3 o r 4. A c o - o c c u r e n c e  s t r a t e g y , c o m b i n e d w i t h some a w a r e n e s s o f t h e p r e c e d e n c e c o n s t r a i n t , a l s o seems t o be i n v o l v e d h e r e . C o n s i d e r t h e type of response t h a t a P a t t e r n upon a c q u i s i t i o n Pattern all  1a s u b j e c t w o u l d d i s p l a y  o f a more a d v a n c e d s t r a t e g y . B e c a u s e a  1a s u b j e c t d i s p l a y s o n l y c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e s on  c o n s t r u c t i o n s , any subsequent r e f i n e m e n t o f p r o c e s s i n g  s t r a t e g i e s w o u l d be r e v e a l e d noncoreferent i a l  by t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f  r e s p o n s e s on a p p r o p r i a t e  constructions. If  89  the  precedence c o n s t r a i n t plays  a role in  anaphoric assignments, then the f i r s t noncoreferential constructions, the  determining  appearance of  responses would occur w i t h  either Construction  the Blocked  #1 o r 4. C o n s i d e r ,  type of response that a P a t t e r n  1b s u b j e c t  would  Back  next, display  upon a c q u i s i t i o n o f a more a d v a n c e d s t r a t e g y . B e c a u s e a Pattern on  1b s u b j e c t  displays only  a l l constructions,  processing  noncoreferential  any s u b s e q u e n t r e f i n e m e n t o f  s t r a t e g i e s w o u l d be r e v e a l e d  coreferent i a l  r e s p o n s e s on a p p r o p r i a t e  precedence c o n s t r a i n t plays assignments, the f i r s t  pronominalization,  either Construction  on C o n s t r u c t i o n  I f the  anaphoric  i n v o l v i n g backwards  b u t on one t h a t  Pattern  constructions.  appearance of c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses  pronominalization,  that  by t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f  a role i n determining  w o u l d n o t be on a c o n s t r u c t i o n  fact  responses  5 subjects  involves  forwards  #3, 5, 6 o r 7. The  d i s p l a y c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses  #5, a n d n o t on any o t h e r ,  may be due t o a  main v s . s u b o r d i n a t e  preposed clause  case of C o n s t r u c t i o n  #5 v s . 3) a s w e l l a s an i n t e r v s . i n t r a  clausal Recall  distinction  ( i n t h e case of C o n s t r u c t i o n  Solan's f i n d i n g that  t o be b l o c k e d  distinction  more t h a n  ( i n the  #5 v s 7.  intra-clausal structures  inter-clausal structures.).  tended  90  CHART 5 Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n 5 S u b j e c t s U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n L e v e l On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards Pro  3 5 7 2  I!  Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Blocked  Forward  4 6  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  Pattern 6 T h i s p a t t e r n was, a g a i n , n o t f o u n d study.  i n t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw  I t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e  preference  for Constructions  Backwards r u l e  #1, 3 a n d 4. The B l o c k e d  seems t o h a v e been a c q u i r e d , b u t t h e B l o c k e d  Forwards r u l e does n o t . A l s o , t h e s u b j e c t b l o c k i n g p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n on C o n s t r u c t i o n Pattern Pattern  #3.  6 i s d i v i d e d i n t o two s u b g r o u p s , P a t t e r n 6a a n d  6b. P a t t e r n 6a r e p r e s e n t s a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  response preference 6A).  i s incorrectly  f o r Constructions  P a t t e r n 6b r e p r e s e n t s  preference  #1, 3 a n d 4  (Chart  a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response  for Constructions  #1, 3, 4 a n d 7 ( C h a r t 6 B ) .  91  CHART 6A Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Blocked  Forward  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  CHART 6B Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back ti Blocked  Forward  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y ,  subgroups, P a t t e r n s the  two p a t t e r n s  6b S u b j e c t s Level Response  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X  Note t h e r a t h e r p e c u l i a r the  6a S u b j e c t s Level Response  s t a t u s of C o n s t r u c t i o n  Pattern  #7. I n  I I I was d i v i d e d i n t o two  I I I A a n d I I I B . The d i s t i n c t i o n  between  was i n t h e r e s p o n s e t o C o n s t r u c t i o n  I n g r a m a n d Shaw's P a t t e r n  I I was s i m i l a r l y  #7.  d i v i d e d i n t o two  92 subgroups, Patterns in the  I I A and I I B . Once a g a i n ,  response t o C o n s t r u c t i o n  the d i f f e r e n c e s  #7 was t h e d i s t i n c t i o n  between  t w o . I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t a t e , ... I t t u r n s o u t t h a t C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 o f t e n p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n t h e o t h e r s i x c o n s t r u c t i o n s , and a p p e a r s t o u n d e r g o i t s own autonomous d e v e l o p m e n t . A c l o s e r l o o k a t i t s s t r u c t u r e s u g g e s t s an explanation. F i r s t , i t involves clause internal c o r e f e r e n c e ... . A l s o , i t s a c q u i s i t i o n i s c a u g h t up w i t h t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f r e f l e x i v e s . I t may be t h a t t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f C o n s t r u c t i o n 7 a t any p o i n t i n d e v e l o p m e n t i s h i g h l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h e c h i l d ' s k n o w l e d g e o f r e f l e x i v e s . ( I n g r a m and Shaw, 1981, p. 31 ) Whatever t h e reason  Construction  f o r t h e p e c u l i a r s t a t u s of  #7, i t s p r o m i n e n c e i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e two  subgroups of a p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n as w e l l a s P a t t e r n  7, a s w i l l  holds true  f o r Pattern  be s e e n s h o r t l y .  A l s o , note the s a l i e n c e of C o n s t r u c t i o n  #3 i n P a t t e r n  6. T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p e a r s t o have a d i s t i n c t i v e from a l l other Pattern By  6,  structure  Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I t stands out i n  7 as w e l l . allowing pronominalization  Backwards P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n , P a t t e r n  on C o n s t r u c t i o n 6 subjects  a w a r e o f t h e command c o n s t r a i n t . However, t h e i r  #2, t h e  a p p e a r t o be processing  of b o t h B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s and F o r w a r d s P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n s i s incomplete. This  r e s u l t i s i n keeping with  t h e Ingram and  Shaw d a t a w h i c h s u g g e s t s t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n s backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n constructions  are acquired  i n v o l v i n g forward  involving  before  pronominalization.  93  Pattern Pattern  7 i s a n o t h e r new  is characterized  in that  #1,  3,  4 and  6.  Backwards Pro,  Blocked Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s However, t h e  noncoreferential  Construction  #3  this  response  It is similar  study.  6 and  7 subjects  to the  seem t o h a v e been response preference  adult  and acquired. for  Pattern  7.  However, P a t t e r n  correctly  block  6.  This  7 appears  i s because  b o t h B l o c k e d Back  and  Blocked Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , although they continue process Construction Pattern Pattern two  7a  7 can  and  7b.  subgroups l i e s  Construction  #7.  Pattern  pattern  7b  #3  a l s o be  divided  Once a g a i n ,  the  in differences 7a  into  characterized #1,  two  subgroups,  d i s t i n c t i o n between i n response  there  for Constructions  to Constructions  to  incorrectly.  In P a t t e r n  response preference 7A).  It  preference  B l o c k e d Backwards  a stage subsequent to P a t t e r n  Pattern  by  i s n o n - a d u l t - l i k e . Note the s i m i l a r i t i e s  between P a t t e r n t o be  revealed  by a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  for Constructions pattern,  pattern  7  is a #1,  to  noncoreferential 3,  4 and  a noncoreferential 3,  4,  6 and  the  7 (Chart  6  (Chart  response 7B).  CHART 7A Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Blocked  Forward  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  CHART 7B Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Blocked  Forward  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  7a S u b j e c t s Level Response  7b S u b j e c t s Level Response  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  95 Pattern This  pattern  i s t h e same a s t h e p a t t e r n  I n g r a m a n d Shaw's s u b j e c t s , response preference and  8  i n which a  shown by t h r e e o f noncoreferential  was shown t o w a r d s C o n s t r u c t i o n s  6, w i t h an o p t i o n a l n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  for Construction acquired  #7 ( C h a r t  response  8 ) . These s u b j e c t s  the Blocked Forwards r u l e before  Backwards r u l e , as e v i d e n c e d  #1, 2, 4 preference  a p p e a r t o have  the Blocked  i n the c o r r e c t bl.ocking of  Construction  #6 s e n t e n c e s , b u t t h e i n c o r r e c t b l o c k i n g o f  Construction  #2 s e n t e n c e s .  CHART 8 Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards Pro Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back T!  Blocked  Forward  Pattern and  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTI AL RESPONSE 0-2 3 - 5 X X (X) (X) X X X X  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  8 subjects  8 Subjects Level Response  correctly  block  Blocked Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s .  allow  pronominalization  both Blocked  They a l s o  Back  correctly  on a l l F o r w a r d s P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n s .  However, they  incorrectly  block  t h e Backwards P r o  construction,  #2. I n g r a m a n d Shaw n o t e d t h i s p a t t e r n i n  t h e i r own s t u d y . They commented t h a t  this pattern,  contrary  96 t o t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e main body o f d a t a , situation  i n which t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s  proniminalization are acquired backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . no  suggested a  i n v o l v i n g forwards  before  those i n v o l v i n g  They s u g g e s t e d t h a t  r e a s o n why some c h i l d r e n w o u l d n ' t a c q u i r e  Forwards rule) before  the (Blocked  "there i s  the (Blocked  Back r u l e ) , a p a r t  some y e t t o be d e t e r m i n e d e x p l a n a t i o n  from  b a s e d on m a r k e d n e s s "  (p. 3 9 ) . One f u r t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P a t t e r n not  a pattern  but  i s , rather, a p a r a l l e l  that develops subsequent t o P a t t e r n s  7. T h e s e p a t t e r n s  p a t t e r n . Consider  f o r m e r , and c o r r e c t p r o c e s s i n g Pro  and Blocked  the  latter.  #3, i s i n c o r r e c t l y  one  of Blocked  Blocked  Back, Backwards i n the case of  the Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  processed. In Pattern  8, B l o c k e d  Back,  p r o c e s s e d . The B a c k w a r d s P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n , #2, i s  A clear distinction h a n d , and P a t t e r n  difference  i n general  pronominalization and  of  6 and  Forwards and Forwards P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e  correctly not.  6 a n d 7,  i n t h e case of t h e  Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,  In both p a t t e r n s ,  i t is  Patterns  indicated correct processing  Back a n d B a c k w a r d s P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,  Blocked  8 i s that  between P a t t e r n s  8, on t h e o t h e r , propensity  8 subjects  forwards  or backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . on  Pattern 6  processing  i n v o l v i n g backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n .  appear t o have f o c u s s e d  constructions  a p p e a r s t o be a  towards e i t h e r  7 s u b j e c t s a p p e a r t o have f o c u s s e d  constructions  6 a n d 7, on t h e  on  Pattern  processing  i n v o l v i n g forwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n .  There  97 d o e s n o t seem t o be any r e a s o n f o r p l a c i n g a s t r a t e g y concentrates or  on f o r w a r d s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  parallel,  on b a c k w a r d s  They a p p e a r t o be d i f f e r e n t , b u t  s t r a t e g i e s . Perhaps each a p p e a l s t o a d i f f e r e n t  k i n d of language  learner.  Pattern This pattern represents ie.  either prior to  subsequent t o a s t r a t e g y that c o n c e n t r a t e s  pronominalization.  9  i s t h e same a s I n g r a m a n d Shaw's P a t t e r n  t h e c o r r e c t use of t h e B l o c k e d  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response preference  #1 a n d 4, b u t l i t t l e  Backwards  for Construction  o r no a w a r e n e s s o f t h e B l o c k e d  #6. T h i s  pattern  J u s t a s I n g r a m a n d Shaw's  I V was d i v i d e d i n t o two s u b g r o u p s , P a t t e r n  divided  i n t o two s u b g r o u p s . P a t t e r n  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response preference  response preference  pattern  to Constructions  f o r Construction  9a r e p r e s e n t s  the noncoreferential  those that  involve forwards  response  clause  ( s e e PREVIOUS  9 a p p e a r s t o be a n o t h e r v a r i a t i o n  6 a n d 7, i n t h a t a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s  backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  #1  #1, 4 a n d 7 ( C h a r t 9 B ) .  i n t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , a s s u g g e s t e d by S o l a n  of P a t t e r n s  a  a noncoreferential  #7 may be due t o some  RESEARCH s e c t i o n ) . P a t t e r n  9 is  for Constructions  9b r e p r e s e n t s  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s u g g e s t t h a t  Forwards  preference  Pattern  9A). Pattern  rule,  seems t o i n d i c a t e t h e  emergence o f a dominance r e l a t i o n .  4 (Chart  IV. I t  for Constructions  r u l e , a s e v i d e n c e d by a c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e  and  that  involving  a r e p r o c e s s e d much b e t t e r pronominalization.  than  98  CHART 9A Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Blocked  Forward  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  9a S u b j e c t s Level Response  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  CHART 9B Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back tt Blocked  Forward  3 5 7 2 1 4 6  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X  X X  X  Pattern This pattern  9b S u b j e c t s Level Response  10  i s t h e same a s I n g r a m  a n d Shaw's P a t t e r n V. I t  represents  an a d u l t o r n e a r a d u l t - l i k e  reference.  As i n t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y ,  divided  into  two s u b g r o u p s . P a t t e r n  system of pronominal this pattern i s  10a i s t h e a d u l t  system,  99 wherein n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses are given constructions  #1, 4 a n d 6 ( C h a r t  only to  10). Pattern  showed a n e a r a d u l t - l i k e r e s p o n s e p r e f e r e n c e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . However, t h e r e  on a l l s e v e n  was some w e a k e n i n g o f t h e  p r e c e d e n c e a n d d o m i n a n c e c o n s t r a i n t s on o t h e r The  criteria  for inclusion  the  one u s e d f o r i n c l u s i o n  I t was a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Constructions  into Pattern  experimental  response preference f o r  subjects  CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards Pro tl Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back Forward  construction.  9 a n d 10 show t h a t a h i g h displayed  CHART 10 Response P a t t e r n of P a t t e r n U s i n g a 3/5 C r i t e r i o n On t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  The  10b was t h e same a s  #1, 4 a n d 6, a n d no more t h a n 3  Both F i g u r e s  Blocked  constructions.  i n I n g r a m a n d Shaw's P a t t e r n VB.  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s on one o t h e r  the  10b s u b j e c t s  3 5 7 2 4 6  this  p r o p o r t i o n of  pattern.  10 S u b j e c t s Level Response  NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X  t e n common p a t t e r n s  o f r e s p o n s e were grouped  f o u r major p a t t e r n s . These f o u r p a t t e r n s  into  were based on: (1)  100 a co-occurence strategy  (Pattern  1 ) , (2) a p r e c e d e n c e  strategy  (Patterns  2, 3, 4 a n d 5 ) , (3) a d e v e l o p i n g  strategy  (Patterns  6, 7, 8 a n d 9 ) , a n d ( 4 ) t h e a d u l t  strategy  (Pattern  subjects  d i s p l a y i n g each of the f o u r major p a t t e r n s  English Note are  1 0 ) . The p r o p o r t i o n s  of  experimental  language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l a r e given  that  by a r e l a t i v e l y  a t each  i n Figure  both t h e c o - o c c u r e n c e and p r e c e d e n c e  displayed  command  small proportion  11.  strategies of s u b j e c t s ,  b u t t h e t e n d e n c y a p p e a r s t o be one i n w h i c h t h e i r u s e declines  with  increasing English  developing  command s t r a t e g y  proportion  of experimental  i s employed subjects.  increase  with English  strategy  i s seen t o be u t i l i z e d  of  the experimental  by t h e l a r g e s t  I t s u s e seems t o  language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l .  subjects.  language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l The  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y . The  by a s i g n i f i c a n t  proportion  I t s use i n c r e a s e s  as E n g l i s h  increases.  f o u r major p a t t e r n s  compare t h e two n a t i v e  The a d u l t  i n Figure  11 w e r e u s e d t o  language groups of i n t e r e s t , the  P o l i s h and Cantonese  g r o u p s . These d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n  Figure  the co-occurence strategy  12. N o t e t h a t  by a r e l a t i v e l y Cantonese  small  proportion  subjects. Also,  i s employed  of both P o l i s h and  i t s u s e d o e s seem t o d e c l i n e  with  i n c r e a s i n g E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y . The p r e c e d e n c e strategy  i s employed  by a h i g h e r  both groups. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g precedence strategy proficiency  level  proportion  of subjects i n  t o note t h a t , w h i l e the  seems t o d e c l i n e a s E n g l i s h  increases  language  f o r the P o l i s h group,  i t s use  101 seems t o i n c r e a s e increases strategy  as E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y  f o r t h e C a n t o n e s e g r o u p . The d e v e l o p i n g increases  as E n g l i s h  quite dramatically  language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l  level command  f o r the P o l i s h group increases.  However,  f o r t h e Cantonese group, i t peaks a t t h e Intermediate and a c t u a l l y d e c l i n e s a t t h e A d v a n c e d strategy Polish  a p p e a r s t o be u t i l i z e d  subjects  at a l l English  However, t h e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n  level.  by a h i g h e r  The a d u l t p r o p o r t i o n of  language p r o f i c i e n c y  of use a c r o s s  level  a l l three  levels. levels  a p p e a r s t o be t h e same f o r b o t h P o l i s h a n d C a n t o n e s e subjects. A l t h o u g h t h e weaknesses interpretation  difficult,  d i f f e r e n c e s between  i n the design  the data  o f t h e s t u d y make  show some i n t e r e s t i n g  t h e two l a n g u a g e g r o u p s . The  i m p l i c a t i o n s of these d i f f e r e n c e s a r e unclear insufficienct either  d a t a on t h e p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  because of t h e  systems i n  P o l i s h or Cantonese.  C. COMPARISONS WITH THE INGRAM AND SHAW STUDY The  data  i n Figures  #2 a n d 3 a r e c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e  I n g r a m a n d Shaw c o n t r o l g r o u p a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l Table  14. F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f c o m p a r i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e  two s t u d i e s , o n l y are  group i n  given.  optional  This  the noncoreferential  i s because  response  type.  response type r e s u l t s  I n g r a m a n d Shaw d i d n o t employ an  1 02  TABLE 14 COMPARISON OF PRESENT STUDY'S DATA WITH INGRAM AND SHAW'S DATA ON THE NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE TYPE CONSTRUCTION TYPE / PROPORTION OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE INGRAM AND SHAW CONTROL .07 . 10 .16 .08 .99 .95 .86  F o r w a r d s P r o #3 #5 #7 B a c k w a r d s P r o #2 B l o c k e d Back #1 #4 B l o c k F o r w a r d #6  PRESENT STUDY'S CONTROL  PRESENT STUDY'S EXPT. GROUP  INGRAM AND SHAW'S EXPT. GROUP  .36 .1 2 .28 .29 .82 .82 .60  .09 .00 .1 1 .06 .97 .99 .84  .22 .20 .36 .47 .81 .72 .22  A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw c o n t r o l g r o u p d a t a with  the present  study's c o n t r o l group data r e v e a l s  degree of s i m i l a r i t y . Construction subordinate  exception  #5, a F o r w a r d s P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n clause.  a proportion  The one n o t i c e a b l e  a high i s on  with a preposed  The I n g r a m a n d Shaw c o n t r o l g r o u p showed  o f .10 n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  r e s p o n s e s . The p r e s e n t  s t u d y ' s c o n t r o l g r o u p showed a .00 p r o p o r t i o n o f noncoreferential control  r e s p o n s e s . However, t h e p r e s e n t  g r o u p gave a .14 p r o p o r t i o n  this particular  construction  type,  of o p t i o n a l suggesting  study's r e s p o n s e s on  that the  difference  b e t w e e n t h e two s t u d i e s ' c o n t r o l g r o u p s i s l e s s  indicative  o f r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s , a n d  more an o u t c o m e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e o p t i o n s  allowed i n  1 03 the p r e s e n t  study. A l s o , t h i s discrepancy  b e t w e e n t h e two  c o n t r o l g r o u p s d o e s seem t o s u p p o r t  the contention that  certain  appropriate contextual  c o n s t r u c t i o n types, without  c l u e s , do e l i c i t pronominal  a response  t h a t i n d i c a t e s ambiguity of  r e f e r e n c e . The l i m i t a t i o n s o f a p u r e l y  a p p r o a c h t o t h e p r o b l e m i s made c l e a r A comparison of t h e p r e s e n t and  the present  study's  close  similarity  While  the experimental  syntactic  here.  study's c o n t r o l group  experimental  group data  i n n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response  data  reveals a  proportions.  g r o u p r e s u l t s were n o t a s c l e a r l y  pronounced as the c o n t r o l  group's r e s u l t s ,  t h e t r e n d was  t o w a r d s a l l o w i n g p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n on t h e F o r w a r d s a n d B a c k w a r d s P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n s (#'s 3, 5, 7 and 2) a n d b l o c k i n g p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n on t h e B l o c k e d  c o n s t r u c t i o n s (#'s 1, 4 a n d  6) . The  one p o i n t t o r a i s e  experimental the Blocked  g r o u p c o m p a r i s o n d e a l s w i t h C o n s t r u c t i o n #6, Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n . R e c a l l  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s i m i l a r l y c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l one  r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n t r o l and  found groups'  t h a t , though  a c l o s e p a t t e r n i n g of t h e i r overall  results,  t h e r e was  e x c e p t i o n , t h e c o m p a r i s o n on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. I n g r a m a n d  Shaw f o u n d lower  that their  experimental  group data  p r o p o r t i o n of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses  p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s was n o t t h e c a s e present  s t u d y . Upon c o m p a r i n g t h e p r e s e n t  experimental  g r o u p a n d t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw  showed a much (.22) on t h i s i nthe  study's experimental  g r o u p , one f i n d s s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e  on a l l  1 04  c o n s t r u c t i o n s except  #6. The p r e s e n t  study's  experimental  g r o u p , a s a w h o l e , seems t o h a v e a c q u i r e d t h e B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e ,  w h e r e a s I n g r a m a n d Shaw's e x p e r i m e n t a l  d o e s n o t . Two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s s u g g e s t First,  the present  study's  w h o l e , be a t a h i g h e r and  experimental  experimental  been n o t e d  g r o u p may, a s a  the present  g r o u p may be q u a l i t a t i v e l y  l e a r n e r s than  themselves.  stage of development than  Shaw s u b j e c t s . O r , s e c o n d l y ,  group  t h e Ingram  study's  different  language  t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s u b j e c t s . I t h a s a l r e a d y  that the present  study's  experimental  group  c o n t a i n s a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f s u b j e c t s who d i s p l a y n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e competence i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g of t h e t e s t This c e r t a i n l y discrepancy experimental  p l a y s a major r o l e  noted  to  f o r the  a b o v e between t h e two s t u d i e s '  g r o u p s on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. The q u e s t i o n a s t o  w h e t h e r t h e two e x p e r i m e n t a l different  i n accounting  items.  groups represent  qualitatively  k i n d s o f l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s i s a more d i f f i c u l t one  resolve. All  o f t h e common p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e  I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y , Pattern  including  8, were e v i d e n c e d  obtained  i n the  u n e x p e c t e d ones such a s  by t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e p r e s e n t  s t u d y . H o w e v e r , f o u r new p a t t e r n s were r e v e a l e d , P a t t e r n s 4, 5, 6 a n d 7. The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e response  a r e u n c l e a r . T h e r e a r e two q u e s t i o n s w h i c h  themselves.  First,  present  d o e s t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e new common  p a t t e r n s of response first  new common p a t t e r n s o f  c o n s t i t u t e p o s i t i v e evidence  and second language a c q u i s i t i o n  that the  processes are  105  d i s s i m i l a r ? And, s e c o n d , does t h e d i s c o v e r y common p a t t e r n s that  first  different different The  of response c o n s t i t u t e p o s i t i v e evidence  and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s a r e q u a l i t a t i v e l y kinds  of l e a r n e r s ?  T h e s e a r e two f u n d a m e n t a l l y  questions. data obtained  suggest that  the f i r s t  i n the present  acquistion  o n e s . A l l t e n common  o f r e s p o n s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e f o u r new p a t t e r n s ,  interpretable outlined  study o f f e r s l i t t l e t o  and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e  processes are indeed d i s s i l i m i a r patterns  o f t h e new  i n t e r m s o f t h e same s y n t a c t i c  i n t h e I n g r a m and Shaw s t u d y .  considerations  Co-occurence,  p r e c e d e n c e a n d command r e l a t i o n s , i n t e r v s . i n t r a constructions,  e t c . were a l l s e e n t o p l a y v i t a l  both the present first  clausal  roles in  s t u d y and t h e I n g r a m and Shaw s t u d y . The  and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e E n g l i s h  of p r o n o m i n a l i z a t o n same s y n t a c t i c  were  system  both appear t o i n v o l v e recourse  to the  considerations.  However, t h e f a c t t h a t new a n d d i f f e r e n t common patterns  o f r e s p o n s e were o b t a i n e d  i n the present study  seem i n d i c a t i v e o f r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n f i r s t language l e a r n e r s the  and  3 was a p a t t e r n  the present study. Both patterns  i n v o l v e d t h e use of a c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y with  Patterns  n o t e d i n both t h e Ingram  Shaw s t u d y a s w e l l a s t h e p r e s e n t o n e . P a t t e r n  noted i n only  and second  i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and u t i l i z a t i o n of  same s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s . T a k e , f o r e x a m p l e ,  3 a n d 4. P a t t e r n  does  4 was  seem t o h a v e  i n conjunction  some a w a r e n e s s o f t h e p r e c e d e n c e c o n s t r a i n t . I n P a t t e r n  106 3, o n l y C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 was b l o c k e d . Construction  #4 was b l o c k e d .  I n P a t t e r n 4, o n l y  I t was n o t e d  previously that  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 a n d 4 l a y i n t h e kind of subordinate I t was s u g g e s t e d different  c l a u s e e m p l o y e d by b o t h c o n s t r u c t i o n s .  that d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n s i t i v i t y to  subordinate  differentiated  c l a u s e s a p p e a r e d t o be t h e f a c t o r  the subjects d i s p l a y i n g  That t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e p r e s e n t  study  to a subordinate clause which r e s u l t e d p a t t e r n of response, not,  these  that  two p a t t e r n s .  showed a  sensitivity  i n a new common  a n d t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s u b j e c t s d i d  i s i n d i c a t i v e of a p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and u t i l i z a t i o n  of a s p e c i f i c  consideration  c l a u s e t y p e ) . The same  ( i e . subordinate  syntactic  a r g u m e n t c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h e o t h e r new common p a t t e r n s of r e s p o n s e , It  i s clear  account study  P a t t e r n s 5, 6 a n d 7. that there are other  f a c t o r s w h i c h may  f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f i n d i n g s of the present  a n d t h e Ingram a n d Shaw s t u d y . The e x p e r i m e n t a l  differs,  a d u l t s u b j e c t s a r e used i n t h e former  in the l a t t e r ,  subjects i n the present  a c q u i r e d one l a n g u a g e ,  there  makeup o f t h e p r e s e n t  study's  study  the present  seems t o be a t a h i g h e r proficiency large,  than  and c h i l d r e n  have a l r e a d y  i s a great d i v e r s i t y  level  i n the  s u b j e c t s i n terms of n a t i v e  language background, e d u c a t i o n , e x p e r i e n c e , mentioned e a r l i e r ,  task  study's  e t c . , and, as  sample g e n e r a l l y  of E n g l i s h language  I n g r a m a n d Shaw's s a m p l e . H o w e v e r , by a n d  the results obtained  i n the present  s t u d y do i n d i c a t e  1 07 p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between f i r s t learners  i n terms of p r o c e s s i n g  and  second  language  s t r a t e g i e s which  warrants  further investigation. The  preceding discussion  suggests that  the  acquistion  p r o c e s s i s n o t c o m p r i s e d o f a p r e d e t e r m i n e d and sequence  of d e v e l o p m e n t a l  process that allows,  stages,  invariant  b u t a d y n a m i c and  w i t h i n the l i m i t s  creative  s e t by t h e L a n g u a g e  A c q u i s i t i o n D e v i c e and u n i v e r s a l grammar, some v a r i a t i o n i n the  l e a r n i n g sequence.  any  r e a s o n why  an a d u l t  That ESL  c o r e f e r e n t i a l co-occurence noncoreferential t o be any acquired  strategy  as o p p o s e d  s t r a t e g y . Nor  a B l o c k e d Forwards  imposed  by p r e c e d e  l e a r n e r s may  reach native  a  to a  r u l e cannot  seem  be  when t h e  and command r e l a t i o n s a r e data suggests that  language  speaker p r o f i c i e n c y through a  number o f a l t e r n a t i v e , b u t e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e ,  sequences  of e v e n t s .  I n summary, t h e d a t a s u g g e s t t h a t the  E n g l i s h system of p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ,  may  initially  adopt  s t r a t e g y . They may 1a, o r t h e y may 1b. P a t t e r n  1a may  1b may  one  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of adult  ESL  o f two v a r i e t i e s o f t h e  learners  co-occurence  make a l l c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s ,  make a l l n o n c o r e f e r e n i a l  noncoreferential Pattern  adopt  does t h e r e  b e f o r e a B l o c k e d B a c k w a r d s r u l e , even  i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The  limited  d o e s n o t seem t o be  l e a r n e r must i n i t i a l l y  co-occurence  r e a s o n why  constraints taken  i s , there  develop into Patterns  responses appear  responses, 3 o r 4,  Pattern  wherein  for Constructions  develop into Pattern  Pattern  #1  or  4.  5, w h e r e i n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  108 responses appear  for Construction  may t h e n d e v e l o p i n t o P a t t e r n  #3. P a t t e r n s  2, a f u l l  blown  3, 4 a n d 5 precedence  s t r a t e g y wherein n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses are given Constructions  #1, 2 a n d 4. P a t t e r n  two d i r e c t i o n s .  F o r some l a n g u a g e  2 might  then develop i n  learners,  constructions  i n v o l v i n g backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n more s a l i e n t  than c o n s t r u c t i o n s  pronominalization. response p a t t e r n s preference  as P a t t e r n  for Constructions  preference  involving  #1 a n d 4. O t h e r  Finally, native  both groups  speaker  of language  strategy.  #1,  response language  t o focus  on t h o s e  forwards pronominalization.  8, w h e r e i n C o n s t r u c t i o n s  7, a  f o r Constructions  l e a r n e r s may d i s p l a y r e s p o n s e p r e f e r e n c e s Pattern  response  #1, 3 a n d 4, o r P a t t e r n  l e a r n e r s , h o w e v e r , may show a p r o p e n s i t y constructions  such  6, a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  9, a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  for Constructions  reason,  forwards  learners display  n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response preference 3, 4 a n d 6, o r P a t t e r n  a r e , f o r some  involving  These language  on  These  such as found i n  #1, 2, 4 a n d 6 a r e b l o c k e d . l e a r n e r s converge  upon t h e  V I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  A. SUMMARY The p r e s e n t s t u d y u n d e r t o o k a p a r t i a l  replication  of the  I n g r a m a n d Shaw (1981) s t u d y on p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e . The s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d i n an e f f o r t  t o determine t h e e f f e c t of  two s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s , p r e c e d e a n d command r e l a t i o n s , on the a c q u i s i t i o n  of t h e E n g l i s h  system of pronominal  r e f e r e n c e by a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . Two f u r t h e r p r o b l e m s were a d d r e s s e d . They w e r e : dissimilarities acquisition  (1) t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s  between  the f i r s t  and second  p r o c e s s e s , a n d (2) t h e e f f e c t  b a c k g r o u n d on s e c o n d l a n g u a g e One h u n d r e d a n d e i g h t y representing  23 d i f f e r e n t  and/or language  of n a t i v e  language  acquisition.  four experimental  native  subjects,  language groups and three  l e v e l s o f E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y , were e m p l o y e d . A control  g r o u p o f 20 n a t i v e  s p e a k e r s o f E n g l i s h was a l s o  used. The  replication  was a p a r t i a l  e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k was c h a n g e d original  one, i n t h a t t h e  f r o m an o r a l  format, as i n t h e  s t u d y , t o a w r i t t e n one. A l s o , minor changes  made t o l e x i c a l Additional  were  items, p u n c t u a t i o n , verb type and tense.  c h a n g e s were made t o t a s k  response o p t i o n s and  s c o r i n g and d a t a a n a l y s i s p r o c e d u r e s . A l l t h e f o r e g o i n g c h a n g e s were b a s e d upon t h e r e s u l t s o f two p i l o t the s p e c i f i c  needs o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y .  109  s t u d i e s and  11 0  Thirty  five  t e s t items r e p r e s e n t i n g  seven d i f f e r e n t  sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n  types comprised the t e s t  The  required  experimental  task  subjects  t o make a n a p h o r i c  assignments t o pronouns i n each t e s t item. antecedent an  actor  different item, the  f o r t h e p r o n o u n was r e s t r i c t e d  whose name was c o n t a i n e d actor  subject  test  item  i n the  a c o r e f e r e n t i a l response. I f the subject  noncoreferential  s/he  i n the test  i n d i c a t e d ambiguity of r e f e r e n t . I f  not contained  i n the t e s t item  o f t h e p r o n o u n s/he was s c o r e d  referent  options:  i n the t e s t item, a  c h o s e t h e name o f t h e a c t o r c o n t a i n e d  name o f t h e a c t o r  referent  t o three  a s t h e r e f e r e n t o f t h e p r o n o u n , s/he was s c o r e d  having given the  Choice of  whose name was n o t c o n t a i n e d  or a response that  instrument.  of the pronoun c o u l d  was s c o r e d  as t h e a  i n d i c a t e d that the  be e i t h e r o f t h e two a c t o r s ,  as having given  Throughout the task  chose  as h a v i n g given  response. I f the subject  as  an o p t i o n a l  t h e names o f o n l y  response.  two a c t o r s  were  employed. The present  following null  h y p o t h e s e s were p r o p o s e d  i n the  study:  A. T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s between  English  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l , noncoreferential B.  and o p t i o n a l  T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  responses.  d i f f e r e n c e s between  native  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l , n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l a n d optional  responses.  C. T h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s between  construction  111 t y p e s on t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l , n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  and  optional  responses. O v e r 99.5% s t u d y was analysis the  satisfactorily  variables.  English  c o m p l e t e d . A 3 way  multivariate  r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s was  language p r o f i c i e n c y  background  and  employed  The  The  Hotellings  SPSS:X S i m p l e ( r e f c a t )  significantly  p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e was criterion The  level 3 way  Construction  Level,  The  Proficiency Construction English  dependent  a posteriori tests  o f i n d i v i d u a l and  .01  analysis  level,  Level  .01  Language  revealed  Type  interaction effect  Language  interaction (English  by N a t i v e L a n g u a g e B a c k g r o u n d s i g n i f i c a n c e at the  Language P r o f i c i e n c y  revealed  Type and t h e N a t i v e  by C o n s t r u c t i o n  Type) a t t a i n e d  type.  and  f o r the E n g l i s h  by C o n s t r u c t i o n  three-way Level  level,  (3/5)  of v a r i a n c e  f o r the E n g l i s h  dependent  shared  response  Type m a i n e f f e c t s . I t a l s o  were  differed  N a t i v e Language Background  Language Background effects.  significance  u n d e r t a k e n u s i n g a 60%  multivariate  s i g n i f i c a n c e , at the Proficiency  t y p e were t h e  of t h e  on t h e n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l  s i g n i f i c a n c e , at the Proficiency  native  f r o m e a c h o t h e r on e a c h o f t h e t h r e e  L a s t l y , an a n a l y s i s  on  dependent  t e s t of  to determine those groups which  variables.  performed  level,  sentence construction  used to determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e  variables.  The  items i n the  t h r e e r e s p o n s e o p t i o n s were t h e  independent v a r i a b l e s . was  number of t e s t  of v a r i a n c e w i t h  d a t a . The  language  of the t o t a l  Level  by N a t i v e  Language  by .05  level.  Language  11 2 B a c k g r o u n d two-way i n t e r a c t i o n significance study's  (.266). As  three  The  of these  i n determing the  interaction  study  attain  f i n d i n g s , the  h y p o t h e s e s were r e j e c t e d .  source  t e s t s were  of t h e  e f f e c t s n o t e d a b o v e . The  d i f f e r e n c e s between the the  a result  d i d not  SPSS:X S i m p l e ( r e f c a t ) a p o s t e r i o r i  instrumental and  null  effect  significant  inherent  seven c o n s t r u c t i o n types  employed i n  were s e e n t o be a m a j o r c a u s e of a l l t h e  significant  findings obtained  e f f e c t . The  inequality in c e l l  c a u s e of a l l t h e  significant  by  the C o n s t r u c t i o n  s i z e s was  Type  f o u n d t o be  findings obtained  Language B a c k g r o u n d e f f e c t . R e a l  by  a major  the  the major  of a l l t h e  the  significant  findings obtained  Language P r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l a n a l y s i s of  response revealed 92%  of t h e  10 p a t t e r n s  and  of  shared  level  the  for  of  use  the  sequence of a  co-occurence  t h e d o m i n a n t s t r a t e g y e m p l o y e d by  Patterns  of  d i s p l a y i n g each of  a developmental  1, r e p r e s e n t i n g  s u b j e c t s , but  increased.  patterns  s u b j e c t s . When p r o p o r t i o n s  10 p a t t e r n s were a n a l y z e d ,  s t r a t e g y , was  English  response, accounting  s u b j e c t s , at each p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l ,  appeared. P a t t e r n  by  cause  effect.  individual  experimental  Native  d i f f e r e n c e s between E n g l i s h  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s w e r e s e e n t o be  The  main  Beginning  became l e s s so as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l 3,  co-occurence strategy  4 and  representing  in conjunction  t h e c o n s t r a i n t s i m p o s e d by in general, a gradual  5,  the  use  a  w i t h some a w a r e n e s s of  the precedence r e l a t i o n ,  d e c l i n e i n use  of  from B e g i n n i n g  showed, level  to  1  Advanced  level.  Pattern  2, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e u s e o f a  blown p r e c e d e n c e s t r a t e g y , B e g i n n i n g t o Advanced representing awareness  level.  i n use from  P a t t e r n s 6, 7, 8 a n d 9,  of the c o n s t r a i n t s  levels.  i m p o s e d by b o t h t h e p r e c e d e n c e  increased  Pattern  i n use from B e g i n n i n g t o  10, t h e a d u l t  d i s p l a y e d by a s u r p r i s i n g l y experimental  full  t h e u s e o f a s t r a t e g y b a s e d on a d e v e l o p i n g  and command r e l a t i o n s , Advanced  showed a d e c l i n e  s t r a t e g y , was  large p r o p o r t i o n of the  s u b j e c t s a n d showed a g r a d u a l  from B e g i n n i n g t o Advanced  increase  i n use  levels.  A comparison of the present study's experimental and t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p r e v e a l e d present  s t u d y ' s g r o u p a p p e a r e d t o be a t a h i g h e r  development  13  than the o r i g i n a l  i n d i c a t e d by t h e d i f f e r e n c e s g r o u p s on C o n s t r u c t i o n  group  that the  l e v e l of  s t u d y ' s g r o u p . T h i s was i n r e s p o n s e b e t w e e n t h e two  #6. I n a d d i t i o n ,  f o u r new common  p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e were u n c o v e r e d by t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , none o f w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n t h e I n g r a m a n d Shaw s t u d y . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e 10 common p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e , a s d i s p l a y e d by two d i f f e r e n t  native  language groups,  Polish  and C a n t o n e s e , s u g g e s t e d , c o n t r a r y t o t h e s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, factor fact  the p o s s i b i l i t y  of n a t i v e  language background as a  i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . H o w e v e r , due t o t h e  that  little  literature  i s a v a i l a b l e on t h e p r o n o m i n a l  r e f e r e n c e systems of languages o t h e r than E n g l i s h , difficult  to ascertain  i t is  i n what way t h e p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e  s y s t e m o f t h e m o t h e r l a n g u a g e may h a v e i n f l u e n c e d t h e  114 perceived  B.  d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s p o n s e between t h e s e two  CONCLUSIONS  B a s e d upon t h e  a number  of  s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t of p r e c e d e n c e p l a y s a r o l e  in  conclusions 1) The  f i n d i n g s of t h e  can  the anaphoric  be  present  tentatively  a s s i g n m e n t s made by  s t r a t e g y b a s e d s o l e l y on i n f l u e n c e of  is difficult  Pattern  Pattern  Construction interesting  #5,  a d u l t ESL of  subjects displayed  the p r e c e d e r e l a t i o n  to ignore.  5 subjects  blocked.  #2  who  block  F o r w a r d s ) . Once a g a i n , pronominalization This exception  are  This  i s the p r e d i c t i o n i f the  t h a t a l l the definite  except and  a l l constructions excepting  #6  also,  (Blocked  i n v o l v i n g backwards Construction  i s s u p p o r t e d by  the  that are  blocked  #2.  the  processing  i n v o l v i n g forwards pronominalization. constructions  Pattern  Construction  seems t o i n d i c a t e some a w a r e n e s s o f  dominance c o n s t r a i n t . T h i s constructions  Consider,  (Forwards Pro)  blocked,  except  i n v o l v i n g backwards  a l l constructions  ( B a c k w a r d s P r o ) , #5  2),  other  a l l constructions  p r e c e d e n c e c o n s t r a i n t i s a r e a l one. 6 subjects  (Pattern  construction. It is  that a l l constructions are  a  Take, f o r example,  block  a Forwards Pro  pronominalization  learners.  t h e p r e c e d e n c e c o n s t r a i n t on  strategies 5.  study,  drawn:  Although only a small proportion  the  groups.  have  of  Note  the  noun p h r a s e i n t h e m a i n c l a u s e , w h e r e a s a l l t h e  constructions processing  that are allowed  of C o n s t r u c t i o n  #6)  ( i n c l u d i n g the  incorrect  have the pronoun i n the  main  115 clause.  Some n o t i o n  of dominance i s c l e a r l y  h e r e . An a l t e r n a t e e x p l a n a t i o n simpler  f o r Pattern  one. I t i s t h a t p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  constructions  that contain  6 may be a i s allowed  preposed subordinate  p h r a s e s . However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t b a s e d on a s i m i l a r  playing a role  to detect  on  clauses or  other  patterns  s t r a t e g y w h i c h may h a v e d e v e l o p e d  prior  t o o r s u b s e q u e n t t o t h i s o n e . The main body o f t h e d a t a suggest the i n t e r p l a y  o f t h e p r e c e d e a n d command  as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f P a t t e r n explained differs (Blocked finding  6. P a t t e r n  relations  7 c a n s i m i l a r l y be  i n terms of the i n f l u e n c e of precedence. P a t t e r n 7  from P a t t e r n  6 i n one r e s p e c t  Forwards) i s c o r r e c t l y that  more r e a d i l y  - Construction  blocked.  intra-clausal constructions than  inter-clausal  However, tend  #6  Solan's  t o be  blocked  c o n s t r u c t i o n s , seems t o be  t h e c a u s e f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two p a t t e r n s . Lastly, consider constructions  Pattern  except  8. P a t t e r n  #3 a n d 5 ( b o t h  c o n s t r u c t i o n s ) . These s u b j e c t s c o u l d using an  a full  8 subjects  Forwards Pro be c o n s i d e r e d  blown precedence s t r a t e g y  #3 a n d 5 i n v o l v e  c o n s t r u c t i o n s , and C o n s t r u c t i o n s  t o be  i n conjunction  awareness of the i n t e r v s . i n t r a c l a u s a l  (both C o n s t r u c t i o n s  block a l l  with  distinction '  inter-clausal  #6 a n d 7 i n v o l v e  intra-clausal constructions). 2.  The s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t o f d o m i n a n c e p l a y s  anaphoric proportion  a role  i n the  a s s i g n m e n t s made by a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . The of s u b j e c t s  involves recourse  displaying a processing  strategy  t o b o t h t h e p r e c e d e a n d command  that  relations  116 was h i g h .  Pattern  displayed  by a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n  of  the dominance  10, t h e n a t i v e s p e a k e r s t r a t e g y ,  c o n s t r a i n t was  of s u b j e c t s . The  influence  evident  processing  s t r a t e g i e s a s w e l l . The p r e c e d i n g and 7 s u b j e c t s  showed  was  i n other  d i s c u s s i o n on P a t t e r n  t h e r o l e of t h e d o m i n a n c e  constraint.  In a d d i t i o n , both of t h e s e s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s can account  for Pattern  8. P a t t e r n  8 subjects  clearly  p r e c e d e a n d command r e l a t i o n s t o c o r r e c t l y constructions However,  involving  their  construction  processing  is still  3. A d i s t i n c t  backwards  use t h e  process a l l  pronominalization.  of t h e B l o c k e d  Forwards  for either  backwards  or forwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  some a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , focus  neatly  weak.  preference  pronominalization  6  on b a c k w a r d s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ,  i s shown by some  learners  a s e v i d e n c e d by  n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e r e s p o n s e s t o Backwards P r o and  their  Blocked  Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s b u t n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e r e s p o n s e s t o constructions  involving  learners focus by t h e i r Blocked  native  forwards pronominalization.  on f o r w a r d s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , speaker-like  pronominalization.  d i s p l a y e d between P a t t e r n  difference  speaker-like  backwards  shown by t h e d i f f e r e n c e s  6 and 7 s u b j e c t s  backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ) (preference  but n o n - n a t i v e  involving  T h i s was  as e v i d e n c e d  r e s p o n s e s t o F o r w a r d s P r o and  Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s  responses t o c o n s t r u c t i o n s  and P a t t e r n  8  (preference  was  for  subjects  f o r f o r w a r d s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ) . Though i n preference  Other  this  n o t shown by a l l s u b j e c t s , t h e  11 7 data the  s u g g e s t t h a t n o t a l l a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s w i l l Blocked  4. A d u l t  Back r u l e b e f o r e  the Blocked  Forward  rule.  ESL l e a r n e r s do n o t show a marked p r e f e r e n c e f o r  Forwards P r o over Backwards P r o . L u s t , L o v e l a n d (1980),  acquire  Solan  (1981 ) a n d G o o d l u c k  and Kornet  (1981) c o n c l u d e d  in their  s t u d i e s that c h i l d r e n tended t o a l l o w p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n constructions on  i n v o l v i n g forwards  p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n more t h a n  c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g backwards  However, c o n s i d e r utilized,  real Or,  pronominalization.  the f a c t that the precede r e l a t i o n ,  automatically blocks pronominalization  constructions  being  in a l l  shown h e r e f o r a c o n s t r u c t i o n  i s i t more a q u e s t i o n  of u t i l i z a t i o n  s t r a t e g y ? The d i s t i n c t i o n  5. P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  In t h i s ,  i s one i n p e r s p e c t i v e . more i n  in inter-clausal  the present  study  concurs  Solan's  ( 1 9 8 1 ) f i n d i n g . The i n f l u e n c e o f t h e i n t r a  clausal  distinction  was n o t e d  regards  to Patterns  5, 7 8 a n d 9.  6. S u b o r d i n a t e  clause  type  i n preceding  plays a role  and  with vs. inter  discussions in  i n the  anaphoric  a s s i g n m e n t s made by a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . S u b o r d i n a t e type  type?  of a p a r t i c u l a r  t e n d s t o be b l o c k e d  i n t r a - c l a u s a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s than constructions.  when  i n v o l v i n g backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . I s a  "preference"  processing  on  clause  was s e e n t o be a f a c t o r i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g P a t t e r n s 3 4.  7. A d i s t i n c t i o n subordinate anaphoric  b e t w e e n p r e - p o s e d and p o s t - p o s e d  c l a u s e s a n d p h r a s e s may p l a y a r o l e  i n the  a s s i g n m e n t s made by some a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . The  11 8 pre-posed vs. post-posed clause a possible role i n determining  distinction  was s e e n t o p l a y  P a t t e r n 5.  8. P r a g m a t i c s p l a y s a r o l e i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f ambiguity.  While  i t i s c l e a r that pronouns a r e p o t e n t i a l l y  a m b i g u o u s , i t d o e s n o t seem l i k e l y i n t e n t of the vast m a j o r i t y given, clues  a referent  study's  in a relatively  the  i s the  When a p r o n o u n i s  The a b s e n c e o f c o n t e x t u a l t e s t i t e m s seems t o have  high proportion  r e s p o n s e s on C o n s t r u c t i o n s This  that ambiguity  of speakers.  i s intended.  f o r the present  resulted  anaphoric  of o p t i o n a l  #3 a n d 7 by t h e C o n t r o l  group.  r e s u l t s u g g e s t s t h e i n t e r a c t i v e and complex n a t u r e of c o n s t r a i n t s on p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n .  9. A d u l t  ESL l e a r n e r s d i f f e r e d  from f i r s t  language  acquisition  l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and  utilization  o f t h e same s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s . T h i s was  e v i d e n c e d by t h e f o u r new common p a t t e r n s revealed  by t h e p r e s e n t  experience, and  Factors  language t r a i n i n g ,  cognitive differences,  native  l a n g u a g e may be  for this.  The s t u d y  appropriate  of pronominal reference  context  c a n p r o v i d e an  f o r l e a r n i n g more a b o u t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f  l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d on s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s t i o n .  The a n a l y s i s o f t h e common p a t t e r n s that  such as age,  t h e k n o w l e d g e o f a t l e a s t one o t h e r  responsible 10.  formal  study.  of response  further research  11. A d u l t  of response i n d i c a t e d  i s warranted.  ESL l e a r n e r s , a t d i f f e r e n t E n g l i s h  proficiency  language  l e v e l s , d i s p l a y d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s f o r making  1  anaphoric  a s s i g n m e n t s . S y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s s u c h as p r e c e d e  command r e l a t i o n s , i n t e r vs. clause  backwards vs.  intra-clausal  type  and  forwards  the  s t r a t e g i e s employed. Initially,  a d u l t ESL  capable  a s s i g n m e n t s . They t h e n of p r e c e d e n c e and  vs.  sensitivity  l e a r n e r s employ a p r i m i t i v e  forwards  incorporate  the  dominance i n t h e i r  to other  anaphoric  syntactic constraints  strategies. Differences  s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s , s u c h as  pronominalization,  inter vs.  sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n s , subordinate  type  and  c l a u s e and  phrase  c o n s t r u c t i o n s , are a l s o c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s to these  backwards  intra-clausal  clause  pre-posed vs. post-posed subordinate  d e v e l o p m e n t of  clause  of e x p l a i n i n g a l l of  s t r a t e g y b a s e d on c o - o c c u r e n c e i n m a k i n g  in  subordinate  pre-posed vs. post-posed subordinate  phrase c o n s t r u c t i o n s are  and  pronominalization,  sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,  and  19  the  more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g i e s . F i n a l l y ,  the n a t i v e speaker s t r a t e g y i s a c q u i r e d .  C.  LIMITATIONS OF  A number o f  first  justifiably  of t h e  findings. First,  b o r r o w e d , i n any  way,  research,  Some h a v e v o i c e d  known a b o u t e i t h e r t h e processes  t o some e x t e n t ,  language a c q u i s i t i o n  language a c q u i s i t i o n unclear.  PRESENT STUDY  factors limit,  generalizability whether  THE  the  first  the  the q u e s t i o n  research  can  of  be  f o r the p u r p o s e s of  or v i c e v e r s a ,  is  o p i n i o n t h a t too or second language  t o a l l o w c o m p a r i s o n s , e v e n on  the  second  still  little  is  acquisition  research  level  1 20 (Brown,  1973; T a r o n e e t a l . ,  1974; H a k u t a ,  have gone f u r t h e r a n d p o i n t e d o u t t h a t m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and a n a l y t i c language a c q u i s i t i o n that  t o o l s employed  i n any k i n d of  r e s e a r c h a r e i n need o f s u c h r e f i n e m e n t  (Chomsky,  1969; T a r o n e , S w a i n a n d Fathman, 1976;  H a k u t a a n d C a n c i n o , 1977; S w a i n , validity  of using  acquisition  1977; Chun,  I n g r a m a n d Shaw's f i r s t  r e s e a r c h a s a model  second language a c q u i s i t i o n  1 9 7 8 ) . The  language  f o r the present study's  research  i sunclear.  However,  contention of the present study i s that, having duly  n o t e d t h e s e p o s s i b l e p r o b l e m s , i t does valuable  i n s i g h t s may be l o s t  utilizing, of  the very  f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s c a n o n l y be t e n t a t i v e a n d  conditional  the  1976). Others  As  indicated  i n t h e RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY language  proficiency  ( B e g i n n i n g , I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced)  distinct  native  statistical  l a n g u a g e g r o u p s were r e q u i r e d .  a n d two Also,  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u g g e s t e d a minimum o f t w e n t y  s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each c e l l . thus  t h e design and f i n d i n g s  research.  c h a p t e r , a minimum o f t h r e e E n g l i s h levels  that  o r o v e r l o o k e d by n o t  a t l e a s t on some l e v e l ,  previous  seem c l e a r  A minimum o f 120 s u b j e c t s was  required. A f t e r a p p r o a c h i n g a number o f E n g l i s h  institutions  i n Vancouver,  i t became c l e a r  language that,  t h o u g h most  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d p r o g r a m d i r e c t o r s were w i l l i n g t o a u t h o r i z e use of t h e i r  students for the study, the desired  numbers o f s u b j e c t s f o r p a r t i c u l a r  n a t i v e language  groups  121  c o u l d not An  be  obtained  effort  from d i f f e r e n t  from a s i n g l e  to pool  the a p p r o p r i a t e  i n s t i t u t i o n s was  that each i n s t i t u t i o n  institution. number of  made d i f f i c u l t  employed d i f f e r e n t  by  as  t o how  from d i f f e r e n t English  the  The  problem  to determine whether s u b j e c t s  i n s t i t u t i o n s were t r u l y  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y . I t was  at the  taken  same l e v e l  hoped t h a t a  E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t c o u l d  administered  to a l l subjects p r i o r  However, c o n s i d e r i n g the restrictions  l a r g e number of  on c l a s s r o o m  time a l l o t e d  hesitation  on  evaluative  t e s t i n g of t h e i r  finding  t h e p a r t of  o r d e v i s i n g an  f o r the  these  students  reasons,  subjects should  institution.  The  the  and  s u b j e c t s were t h u s o b t a i n e d ,  reach  i t was  level  by  study.  impossible  limitation  in  of  of the  to  that  the  E d w a r d Campus  limitation  failed  to  the  study. the p r e s e n t  study  184  language  statistical  a real  study's  best  H o w e v e r , even t h o u g h  n a t i v e language group c e l l s  a n a l y s i s of the  representativeness  the d i f f i c u l t y  many o f t h e E n g l i s h  considerations. This presented  Another  the  be drawn f r o m a s i n g l e  minimum numbers r e q u i r e d by  statistical  research,  determined  Manpower p r o g r a m o f K i n g  n e e d s of t h e p r e s e n t  proficiency  involved,  E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i . e n c y t e s t  experimental  met  task.  some a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n a l l o w i n g  s u i t e d t o t h e p u r p o s e , t h i s p r o v e d t o be undertake. For  be  experimental subjects  of  separate,  standardized  to the  fact  m e t h o d s of  e v a l u a t i n g E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . thus arose  subjects  lies  in  s a m p l e . I t must  be  the  to  1 22  remembered t h e  students  e n r o l l e d i n t h e Manpower p r o g r a m of  K i n g E d w a r d Campus a r e n o t students large,  found at other  i n s t i t u t i o n s or  for that matter.  consideration studies,  the  This  at Columbia  of a h i g h e r  counterparts  i n order  to enter mainstream  i n Canada. O t h e r s are  t o be y o u n g e r , b e t t e r level  than  their studying  simply  studying English  however, a r e ,  f o r t h e most p a r t , survival  i n the E n g l i s h language.  In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e are a t t i t u d i n a l two  their  of  home c o u n t r i e s .  i m m i g r a n t s to Canada, c o n c e r n e d w i t h a c q u i r i n g  skills  are  educational  v a c a t i o n i n g i n Canada w h i l e on h o l i d a y s o r a l e a v e  Manpower p r o g r a m s t u d e n t s ,  the  pilot  at Columbia C o l l e g e  a b s e n c e f r o m s c h o o l o r work i n t h e i r  new  a  i n t h e Manpower p r o g r a m . P u r p o s e s f o r  institutions and  by  College.  socioeconomic  E n g l i s h a l s o d i f f e r . Many s t u d e n t s enrolled  i n the p u b l i c at  i s made c l e a r  at Columbia C o l l e g e tend  and  to  s u b j e c t s e m p l o y e d i n t h e two  students  Students schooled  of t h e  n e c e s s a r i l y comparable  d i f f e r e n c e s between  g r o u p s of s t u d e n t s . C o l u m b i a C o l l e g e  own  tuition  and  students  a t t e n d v o l u n t a r i l y , which i s not  c a s e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e Manpower p r o g r a m Many of t h e s e  students  have t h e i r  e m p l o y e r s o r t h e g o v e r n m e n t and condition  These are  two  g r o u p s of  socioeconomic the very  students level,  the  students.  p a i d f o r by  must a t t e n d c l a s s e s a s  f o r f u t u r e e m p l o y m e n t . Thus we  between the schooling,  tuition  pay  their a  find differences  i n t e r m s of  m o t i v a t i o n and  age, attitude.  f a c t o r s t h a t h a v e been s u g g e s t e d  by  some  1 23 to  have a d i r e c t  process these  b e a r i n g on  (Schumann, 1978;  reasons,  the  second language  Stauble,  1978;  Another point regarding study  d e a l s w i t h the nature  e m p l o y e d . The task  most o b v i o u s  at t h i s time  mere f a c t  of  suggested  i n the  heightened 1978)  and  solving that  the  study's  have f o r t h i s  literature  fosters biases  formal  (Olson,  oral  study.  I t has  been  a  (Donaldson, problem  (1976)  suggests  t h a t i s , p r e d o m i n a n t use engenders  of  different  second language a c q u i s i t i o n t h a t i s , predominant  than r e l i a n c e on  e x p o s u r e f o r l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . However, the  i n v o l v e d i n the  rather interesting i s s u e of l i t e r a c y  language l e a r n i n g , i t i s not to  i m p l i c a t i o n s the  1976). A l s o , Krashen  language t r a i n i n g ,  notwithstanding be  experimental  i n t e r m s of a p p r o a c h i n g  t h e w r i t t e n medium f o r i n s t r u c t i o n ,  informal  present  task  that l i t e r a c y creates  language t r a i n i n g ,  p a t t e r n s of  the  be t e s t e d . I t i s  s e n s e of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a w a r e n e s s  tasks  r a t e s and  of t h e  e x a c t l y what k i n d of  l i t e r a c y may  For  sample.  of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  s u b j e c t s can  1979).  the  l i m i t a t i o n s of  limitation  i s that only l i t e r a t e  unclear  Andersen,  no c l a i m s a r e made r e g a r d i n g  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of t h e p r e s e n t  acquisition  how  this  The  i s s u e can  last  of the p r e s e n t statistical  study  and  i t s effect  c l e a r , at the p r e s e n t  be a d d r e s s e d  p o i n t t o be  implications that  i n an e f f e c t i v e  r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g the  r e l a t e s to the  a n a l y s i s e m p l o y e d . The  ( m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e )  on time,  as  manner.  limitations  l i m i t a t i o n s of  the  SPSS.X MANOVA was  may  employed i n the  1 24  present  s t u d y . B e c a u s e t h e SPSS.X MANOVA d o e s n o t c u r r e n t l y  perform a complete to  obtain contrasts  within had  s e t o f p o s t hoc o r r a n g e  tests,  i n order  f o r a l l p o s s i b l e combinations of groups  each dependent v a r i a b l e ,  t o be u n d e r t a k e n ,  a number o f s t a t i s t i c a l  thus i n c r e a s i n g  the risk  runs  of error  by a  f a c t o r e q u a l t o t h e number o f r u n s t a k e n . F o r e x a m p l e , i n order t o obtain the contrasts proficiency  levels, a total  e x e c u t e d . The f i r s t all  language  o f t h r e e r u n s h a d t o be  run c o n t r a s t e d t h e c o n t r o l group  o t h e r l e v e l s . The s e c o n d  l e v e l with a l l other l e v e l s , third  for a l l English  r u n c o n t r a s t e d t h e Advanced including  t h e c o n t r o l . The  run c o n t r a s t e d the the Intermediate l e v e l  other l e v e l s ,  including  the control.  p o s s i b l e combinations of E n g l i s h  of e r r o r In  native  by a f a c t o r  with a l l  I n t h i s way, a l l  language  proficiency  c o u l d be c o n t r a s t e d . H o w e v e r , s u c h a p r o c e d u r e risk  with  levels  increasesthe  of t h r e e .  order t o contrast a l l p o s s i b l e combinations of language  increasing The  groups,  the risk  f o u r r u n s were e x e c u t e d ,  o f e r r o r by a f a c t o r o f f o u r .  increase i n the risk  of e r r o r caused  by s u c h  p r o c e d u r e s was u n a v o i d a b l e b u t deemed n e c e s s a r y the o v e r a l l  thus  n a t u r e o f t h e d a t a . Use o f a  i n view o f  statistical  a n a l y s i s o t h e r t h a n a MANOVA was deemed i n a p p r o p r i a t e a n d inadequate.  1 25 D. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 1) I t i s recommended t h a t , f o r a n o t h e r s t u d y o f t h e acquisition ESL  of the E n g l i s h system of p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  l e a r n e r s , t h e number o f d i f f e r e n t s e n t e n c e  by  construction  t y p e s i n v e s t i g a t e d be r e d u c e d . I t w o u l d be u s e f u l t o maintain  construction  types that  i n v o l v e b o t h F o r w a r d s and  B a c k w a r d s P r o , a s w e l l as b o t h B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s and B l o c k e d B a c k w a r d s . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e o f t h e l a r g e number o f p o s s i b l e factors that difficulty  may  i n separating  that clause  these  influences,  i n t e r n a l and c l a u s e  investigated or  i n f l u e n c e a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s and t h e i t i s suggested  external constructions  i n separate s t u d i e s . In a d d i t i o n ,  relative clauses,  be  subordinate  p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s o f any k i n d , e t c .  must be c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d . 2) I t i s recommended t h a t pronominal reference, order  v e r b t y p e be c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d i n  t o m i n i m i z e such p o s s i b l e  pronominalization and  the semantic  construction  features  of  t y p e be i n c r e a s e d  to better  criteriion  define  and/or  intransitivity  verbs. t h e number o f t o k e n s p e r t o a t l e a s t 10. T h i s  and m a x i m i z e t h e v a l i d i t y  would  of  levels.  4) I t i s recommended t h a t presentations order  factors affecting  as v e r b t r a n s i t i v i t y  3) I t i s recommended t h a t  help  i n s i m i l a r s t u d i e s of  o r a l and w r i t t e n  o f t h e t e s t i n s t r u m e n t be a d m i n i s t e r e d  to determine t h e i r  i n f l u e n c e s on s u b j e c t  anaphoric ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  in  response and  1 26 5) I t i s recommended t h a t more s t u d i e s on t h e pronominal  reference  systems  be u n d e r t a k e n t o p r o v i d e w e l l as p r o v i d i n g  analyses  background  on t h e s e c o n d  information  language a c q u i s i t i o n  be u n d e r t a k e n t h a t p l a c e s  T h i s might h e l p  that  to c l a r i f y  p r a g m a t i c c o n s t r a i n t s on  English  would  of t h e i n f l u e n c e s of n a t i v e  6) I t i s recommended t h a t a s t u d y reference  than  a framework f o r c o m p a r i s o n s , as  invaluable  facilitate  of l a n g u a g e s o t h e r  language process.  on p r o n o m i n a l  a paragraph or s t o r y .  the e f f e c t s of c o n t e x t u a l pronominalization.  and/or  VII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A l l w r i g h t , R i c h a r d L. "Problems i n the Study of t h e L a n g u a g e T e a c h e r ' s T r e a t m e n t o f L e a r n e r E r r o r " i n M. K. B u r t and H. C. D u l y ( e d s ) New D i r e c t i o n s i n S e c o n d L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , T e a c h i n g and B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D.C: TESOL, 1975. A n d e r s e n , Roger W. "The I m p o v e r i s h e d S t a t e o f C r o s s - S e c t i o n a l Morpheme A c q u i s i t i o n / A c c u r a c y M e t h o d o l o g y ( o r : The L e f t o v e r s A r e More N o u r i s h i n g Than The M a i n C o u r s e ) " i n W o r k i n g P a p e r s on B i l i n g u a l i s m , No. 14, 1977. " E x p a n d i n g Schumann's P i d g i n i z a t i o n H y p o t h e s i s " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 29, No. 1, pp. 105-119. 1979. B a i l e y , N a t h a l i e , C a r o l y n Madden and S t e p h e n D. Krashen. " I s There a ' N a t u r a l Sequence' i n A d u l t Second Language L e a r n i n g ? " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 24, pp. 2 3 5 - 2 4 3 . 1974. B e r k o , J . "The C h i l d ' s L e a r n i n g o f E n g l i s h M o r p h o l o g y " i n Word, No. 14, pp. 150-177. Brown, R o g e r . A F i r s t Language. H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973.  1958.  Cambridge,  Mass.:  B u r l i n g , R o b b i n s . "Language D e v e l o p m e n t o f a G a r o and E n g l i s h - S p e a k i n g C h i l d " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) S e c o n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n . R o w l e y , M a s s . : Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s , 1978 ( o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1 9 5 9 ) . C a m p b e l l , D. T. and J u l i a n C. S t a n l e y . E x p e r i m e n t a l and Q u a s i - E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n s f o r Research. B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n M i f f l i n Co., 1963. C a n a l e , M i c h a e l , Raymond Mougeon and E d o u a r d " A c q u i s i t i o n o f Some G r a m m a t i c a l E l e m e n t s i n F r e n c h by M o n o l i n g u a l and B i l i n g u a l C a n a d i a n i n C a n a d i a n Modern L a n g u a g e R e v i e w , V o l . 34, 505-524. 1978.  Beniak. E n g l i s h and Students" pp.  C a n c i n o , H., E. R o s a n s k y and J . Schumann. "The A c q u i s i t i o n o f E n g l i s h N e g a t i v e s and I n t e r r o g a t i v e s by N a t i v e S p a n i s h S p e a k e r s " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) S e c o n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n ( o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1975).  1 27  Caramazza, A l f o n s o , E l l e n Grober, C a t h e r i n e G a r v e y and J a c k Y a t e s . " C o m p r e h e n s i o n o f A n a p h o r i c Pronouns" i n J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , V o l . 16, pp. 601-609. 1977. Caramazza, A l f o n s o and S h a l i n i Gupta. "The R o l e s of T o p i c a l i z a t i o n , P a r a l l e l F u n c t i o n and Verb Semantics i n the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Pronouns" i n L i n g u i s t i c s , No. 17, pp. 4 9 7 - 5 1 8 . 1979. C a r d e n , Guy. P e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 1983.  University  Celce-Maria, Marianne. "The S i m u l t a n e o u s A c q u i s i t i o n of E n g l i s h and F r e n c h i n a Two-Year-Old C h i l d " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n ( p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 1975 TESOL conference). Chomsky, C. " P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n " i n The A c q u i s i t i o n o f S y n t a x i n C h i l d r e n f r o m 5 t o 10. C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : MIT P r e s s , p p . 102-111. 1969. Chun, J u d i t h . "A S u r v e y o f R e s e a r c h i n S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n " i n The Modern L a n g u a g e J o u r n a l , V o l . 64, No. 3, p p . 2 8 7 - 2 9 6 . 1980. C z i k o , G a r y A. " D i f f e r e n c e s i n F i r s t and S e c o n d Language R e a d i n g : The Use o f S y n t a c t i c , S e m a n t i c and D i s c o u r s e C o n s t r a i n t s " i n The C a n a d i a n Modern Language Review, pp. 473-489. F e b . 1978. d e V i l l i e r s , J i l l G. a n d P e t e r A d e V i l l i e r s . "A C r o s s - S e c t i o n a l S t u d y o f t h e A c q u i s i t i o n o f G r a m m a t i c a l Morphemes i n C h i l d S p e e c h " i n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c R e s e a r c h , V o l . 2, No. 3, pp. 2 6 7 - 2 7 8 . 1973. Donaldson, Margaret. C h i l d r e n ' s Minds. New Y o r k : W. W. N o r t o n a n d Company, 1978. D u l a y , H e i d i C. a n d M a r i n a K. B u r t . " S h o u l d We T e a c h C h i l d r e n S y n t a x ? " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 2 3 , No. 2, p p . 2 4 5 - 2 5 8 . 1 973. " E r r o r s and S t r a t e g i e s i n C h i l d S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n " i n TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 8, No. 2, p p . 129-136. 1974a.  " N a t u r a l Sequences i n C h i l d Second L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n ( o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1974b. "A New P e r s p e c t i v e on t h e C r e a t i v e C o n s t r u c t i o n P r o c e s s i n C h i l d Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 24, No. 2, p p . 253-278. 1974c. "Creative Construction i n S e c o n d L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g and T e a c h i n g " i n M. K. B u r t a n d H. C. D u l a y ( e d s ) New D i r e c t i o n s i n Second Language L e a r n i n g , T e a c h i n g and B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . 1975. E r v i n - T r i p p , S u s a n M. " I s Second Language L e a r n i n g L i k e t h e F i r s t ? " i n TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 8, No. 2, pp. 111-127. 1974. F a t h m a n , Ann K. "Language B a c k g r o u n d , Age a n d t h e O r d e r o f A c q u i s i t i o n o f E n g l i s h S t r u c t u r e s " i n M. K. B u r t a n d H. C. D u l a y ( e d s ) New D i r e c t i o n s i n S e c o n d L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , T e a c h i n g and B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . 1975. "The V a l u e o f Morpheme O r d e r S t u d i e s f o r S e c o n d Language L e a r n i n g " i n W o r k i n g P a p e r s on B i l i n g u a l i s m , No. 18, pp. 179-197. 1979. F e l i x , S a s c h a W. "Some D i f f e r e n c e s Between F i r s t and Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n " . Paper presented at the Third I n t e r n a t i o n a l C h i l d L a n g u a g e Symposium, L o n d o n , S e p t . 3-5, 1975. F l y n n , Suzanne. " E f f e c t s of the R e v e r s a l of P r i n c i p a l B r a n c h i n g D i r e c t i o n ( f r o m L I t o L 2 ) i n L2 A c q u i s i t i o n " . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the b i a n n u a l meeting of the L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a , San A n t o n i o , W i n t e r , 1980. G a s s , S u s a n a n d J o s h A r d . "L2 D a t a : T h e i r R e l e v a n c e f o r Language U n i v e r s a l s " i n TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 14, No. 4, p p . 443-452. 1980. G i l l i s , Mary a n d R o s e - M a r i e Weber. "The Emergence o f S e n t e n c e M o d a l i t i e s i n t h e E n g l i s h of Japanese-Speaking C h i l d r e n " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 26, No. 1, p p . 77-94. 1976.  G o o d l u c k , H. "Children's Interpretation of P r o n o u n s a n d N u l l N P ' s : S t r u c t u r e and Strategies". Unpublished paper, U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n , 39 pp. 1981. Hakuta, K e n j i . "A Case S t u d y o f a Japanese C h i l d L e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a Second Language" i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 26, No. 2, p p . 3 2 1 - 3 5 3 . 1976. Hakuta, K e n j i and H e r l i n d a C a n c i n o . "Trends i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n R e s e a r c h " i n H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l Review, No. 4 7 , pp. 2 9 4 - 3 1 6 . 1977. H a t c h , E v e l y n M. " D i s c o u r s e A n a l y s i s and S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . 1978. Ingram, D a v i d . P e r s o n a l communication. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1983. and C a t h e r i n e Shaw. "The C o m p r e h e n s i o n o f P r o n o m i n a l R e f e r e n c e in Children". Unpublished paper, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 60 p p . 1981. K l i m a , E. S. a n d U. B e l l u g i . " S y n t a c t i c R e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e Speech of C h i l d r e n " i n J . L y o n s a n d R. W a l e s ( e d s ) P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , pp. 183-208. 1966. K r a s h e n , S t e p h e n D. "Formal and I n f o r m a l L i n g u i s t i c E n v i r o n m e n t s i n Language L e a r n i n g and L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n " i n TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 10, p p . 157-168. 1976. "Is the 'Natural Order' an A r t i f a c t o f t h e B i l i n g u a l S y n t a x M e a s u r e ? " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 28, No. 1, p p . 187-192. 1978. V i c t o r i a S f e r l a z z a , Lorna F e l d m a n a n d Ann K. F a t h m a n . "Adult P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e SLOPE T e s t : More E v i d e n c e f o r a N a t u r a l Sequence i n A d u l t Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 26, No. 1, p p . 145-152. 1976.  L a n g a c k e r , R o n a l d W. "On P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n and t h e C h a i n o f Command" i n D. A. R e i b e l a n d S. A. Schane ( e d s ) M o d e r n S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Prentice Hall, I n c . , p p . 160-186. 1969. L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D i a n e E. "The A c q u i s i t i o n o f G r a m m a t i c a l Morphemes by A d u l t ESL S t u d e n t s " i n TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 9, No. 4, p p . 4 0 9 - 4 1 9 . 1 975. "An E x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e Morpheme A c q u i s i t i o n O r d e r o f S e c o n d Language L e a r n e r s " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 2 6 , No. 2, p p . 125-135. 1976. L a s n i k , Howard. "Remarks on C o r e f e r e n c e " i n L i n g u i s t i c A n a l y s i s , V o l . 2, No. 1, p p . 1-22 1 976. L e e , Dong J a e . " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Morpheme Rank O r d e r i n g i n L 2 R e s e a r c h " i n P. S. D a l e and D. I n g r a m ( e d s ) C h i l d L a n g u a g e . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1981. L u s t , B. " C o n s t r a i n t s on A n a p h o r a i n C h i l d Language: A Prediction for a U n i v e r s a l " i n S. T a v a k o l i a n ( e d ) L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n and L i n g u i s t i c Theory. C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : MIT P r e s s , p p . 74-96. 1981. , K. L o v e l a n d a n d R. K o r n e t . "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f C o r e f e r e n c e a n d Anaphora i n F i r s t Language: S y n t a c t i c and Pragmatic C o n s t r a i n t s " i n L i n g u i s t i c A n a l y s i s , V o l . 6, No. 2, p p . 2 1 7 - 2 4 9 . 1980. M c C r a y , A l e x a T. "The S e m a n t i c s o f B a c k w a r d Anaphora". Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Tenth Meeting of t h e North East L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , U n i v e r s i t y o f O t t a w a , Nov. 2-4, 1979. Mace-Matluck, B e t t y J . "Order of Acquisition: Same o r D i f f e r e n t i n F i r s t and S e c o n d L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g ? " i n The R e a d i n g T e a c h e r , V o l . 3 2 , p p . 6 9 6 - 7 0 3 . 1979. M a r s l e n - W i l s o n , W i l l i a m a n d L o r r a i n e K. T y l e r . "Towards a P s y c h o l o g i c a l B a s i s f o r a Theory of Anaphora". O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r #9, C e n t e r f o r C o g n i t i v e S c i e n c e , MIT, 49 p p . 1 980.  1 32  M i l o n , J o h n P. "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f N e g a t i o n i n E n g l i s h by a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e L e a r n e r " i n TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 8, No. 2, pp. 137-143. 1974. Murphy, S a n d r a and L e e G u n d e r s o n . "Anaphora as a Measure of A u d i e n c e Awareness". ERIC [ 2 4 9 4 7 9 ] . 1985. O l s o n , D a v i d R. " C u l t u r e , T e c h n o l o g y and I n t e l l e c t " i n L a u r e n B. R e s n i c k ( e d ) The N a t u r e o f I n t e l l i g e n c e . New J e r s e y : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , Publishers. 1976. Peck, S a b r i n a . " C h i l d - C h i l d D i s c o u r s e i n Second L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) S e c o n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n ( o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1976). P e r k i n s , K y l e and D i a n e L a r s e n - F r e e m a n . "The E f f e c t of F o r m a l L a n g u a g e I n s t r u c t i o n on t h e O r d e r o f Morpheme A c q u i s i t i o n " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 2 5 , No. 2, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 4 4 . 1975. P o r t e r , J o h n H. "A C r o s s - S e c t i o n a l S t u d y o f Morpheme A c q u i s i t i o n i n F i r s t Language L e a r n e r s " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 27, No. 1, pp. 4 7 - 6 2 . 1977. Ravem, R o a r . "Two N o r w e g i a n C h i l d r e n ' s A c q u i s i t i o n o f E n g l i s h S y n t a x " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n ( o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1968). R e i n h a r t , Tanya. " D e f i n i t e NP A n a p h o r a and C-Command D o m a i n s " i n L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , V o l . 12, No. 4, pp. 605-636. 1981. R o s a n s k y , E l l e n J . "Methods a n d Morphemes i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n R e s e a r c h " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 26, No. 2, pp. 4 0 9 - 4 2 5 . 1976. Ross, John Robert. "On t h e C y c l i c N a t u r e of E n g l i s h P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n " i n D. A. R e i b e l and S. A. S c h a n e ( e d s ) Modern S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h , pp. 187-200. 1969. Schumann, J o h n H. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f P i d g i n i z a t i o n , C r e o l i z a t i o n and D e c r e o l i z a t i o n t o Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 28, No. 2, pp. 3 6 7 - 3 7 9 . 1978. S h e l d o n , Amy. "The R o l e o f P a r a l l e l Function i n the A c q u i s i t i o n of R e l a t i v e Clauses i n E n g l i s h " i n J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , V o l . 13, pp. 2 7 2 - 2 8 1 . 1974.  S o l a n , L. "The A c q u i s i t i o n o f S t r u c t u r a l R e s t r i c t i o n s on A n a p h o r a " i n S. T a v a k o l i a n (ed) Language A c q u i s i t i o n and L i n g u i s t i c T h e o r y , pp. 5 9 - 7 3 . 1981. Snow, C a t h e r i n e , N o r v a l S. H. S m i t h and Marian Hoefnagel-Hohle. "The A c q u i s i t i o n o f Some D u t c h M o r p h o l o g i c a l R u l e s " i n J o u r n a l of C h i l d L a n g u a g e , V o l . 7, pp. 5 3 9 - 5 5 3 . 1980. S t a u b l e , A n n - M a r i e E. "The P r o c e s s o f Decreolization: A Model f o r Second Language D e v e l o p m e n t " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 28, No. 1, pp. 29-54. 1978. Swain, M e r r i l l . "Methodology of Language Learning Studies". U n p u b l i s h e d p a p e r , Modern L a n g u a g e C e n t r e , O I S E , T o r o n t o . 1977. , N. Naiman a n d G. Dumas. "Aspects of t h e L e a r n i n g o f F r e n c h by E n g l i s h - S p e a k i n g 5 - Y e a r - O l d s " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n ( o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1972). T a r o n e , E l a i n e e t a l . "A D i s c u s s i o n o f t h e D u l a y a n d B u r t S t u d i e s " i n W o r k i n g P a p e r s on B i l i n g u a l i s m No. 4, p p . 57-70. 1974. , M e r r i l l S w a i n and Ann F a t h m a n . "Some L i m i t a t i o n s t o t h e C l a s s r o o m A p p l i c a t i o n s of C u r r e n t S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n R e s e a r c h " i n TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , V o l 18, No. 1, pp. 19-32. 1976. Wagner-Gough, J u d y . "Comparative S t u d i e s i n S e c o n d L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g " i n E. M. H a t c h ( e d ) Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n ( o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1974). and E. M. H a t c h . "The I m p o r t a n c e of I n p u t D a t a i n S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n S t u d i e s " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 2 5 , pp. 297-308 1976. Wode, H e n n i n g , J . B a h n s , H. Dedey a n d W. F r a n k . " D e v e l o p m e n t a l Sequence: An A l t e r n a t i v e A p p r o a c h t o Morpheme O r d e r " i n L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , V o l . 2 8 , No. 1, p p . 175-185. 1978. Y o s h i d a , M. "The A c q u i s i t i o n o f E n g l i s h V o c a b u l a r by a J a p a n e s e - S p e a k i n g C h i l d " i n E. M. H a t c h (ed) Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n (originally w r i t t e n i n 1976).  134  QUIZ  a)  What i s y o u r f i r s t  name?  b)  How o l d a r e you?  c)  Are you a MAN o r a WOMAN?  d)  I n what c o u n t r y were you born?  e)  What i s y o u r n a t i v e language?  f)  How many languages can you speak?  g)  What languages can you speak?  h)  How many languages have you studied?'  i)  What languages have you s t u d i e d ?  START:  (  Bill  John  either  ( 2) He sees t h e woman b e h i n d B i l l .  (  Bill  John  either  ( 3) John knows t h a t he i s good.  (  Bill  John  either  ( 4) A f t e r B i l l s t u d i e s , he p l a y s a game.  (  Bill  John  either  ( 5) B i l l sees the g i r l b e h i n d him.  (  Bill  John  either  ( 6) He i s q u i e t when John speaks.  (  Bill  John  either  (  Bill  John  either  ( 8) B i l l sees the box under him.  (  Bill  John  either  ( 9) He i s unhappy when B i l l i s s i c k .  (  Bill  John  either  (10)  John t h i n k s t h a t he_ i s g o i n g .  (  Bill  John  either  (11)  Under B i l l , he sees a penny.  (  Bill  John  either  (1)  <  7  )  John goes t o the d o c t o r when he i s s i c k .  A f t e r John eats b r e a k f a s t , he reads a book.  135 (12)  When he gets a c o o k i e , John i s happy.  (  Bill  John  either  (13)  He t h i n k s t h a t John i s l e a v i n g .  (  Bill  John  either  (14)  When he watches  (  Bill  John  either  (15)  Behind John, he hears a bus.  (  Bill  John  either  (16)  He does homework a f t e r John l e a v e s .  (  Bill  John  either  (17)  B i l l hears a r a d i o n e a r him.  (  Bill  John  either  (18)  A f t e r he s t u d i e s , John watches  (  Bill  John  either  (19)  He i s unhappy t h a t John i s coming.  (  Bill  John  either  (20)  John i s unhappy t h a t he i s s t u d y i n g .  (  Bill  John  either  (21)  When John watches  (  Bill  John  either  (22)  Near B i l l , he hears a dog.  (  Bill  John  either  (23)  He i s happy t h a t B i l l  (  Bill  John  either  (24)  A f t e r he e a t s d i n n e r , B i l l  (  Bill  John  either  (25)  John speaks t o t h e man near him.  (  Bill  John  either  (26)  When B i l l  (  Bill  John  either  (27)  Behind B i l l , he sees t h e t e a c h e r .  (  Bill  John  either  (28)  He knows t h a t John i s b i g .  (  Bill  John  either  (29)  B i l l knows t h a t he i s s i c k .  (  Bill  John  either  (30)  He p l a y s hockey when John comes.  (  Bill  John  either  (31)  When he goes t o s c h o o l , John p l a y s hockey.  (  Bill  John  either  (32)  Bill  (  Bill  John  either  (33)  When B i l l  (  Bill  John  either  (34)  Near John, he speaks t o the t e a c h e r .  (  Bill  John  either  (35)  He knows t h a t B i l l  (  Bill  John  either  (36)  He eats d i n n e r a f t e r B i l l  (  Bill  John  either  (37)  John h e a r s t h e c a r b e h i n d him.  (  Bill  John  either  FINISH.  television, B i l l  i s happy.  television.  a movie, he_ i s q u i e t .  i s h e l p i n g the teacher. goes t o bed.  goes home, he h e l p s  mother.  i s happy t h a t he i s w a t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n . gets candy, he_ i s good.  i s right. goes home.  136  FIGURE Percentages Using Five (1) (2) "(3)  1  o f I n g r a m a n d S h a w ' s Sub j e c t s P a t t e r n s Grouped A c c o r d i n g t o : Use o f Coreference Use o f Precedence Use o f luminance '  100 r  90 -  89 -  J  3;0'-3";ll  1  L  !  4;0'-4;ll  5;0-5;ll  6?0-6-;ll  AGE  Use'of Use ,of Use o f  GROUPS  Coreference ( P a t t e r n I) Precedence (Patterns I I , Dominance '(Patterns IV,  (reprinted by permission of  author)  III) V)  ,  7;0-7;ll  137  FIGURE 2 Percentage o f Noncoreferential, C o r e f e r e n t i a l and Optional Response For Seven Construction Types By Control Group  CONSTRUCTION TiPES  Norieoreferential"Response C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Clpticfrial^-Pvesponse -  — o —  138  FIGURE 3 Percentage of Noncoreferential, Coreferential and Optional Response For Seven Construction Types By Experimental Group  1Q.Q, 90: i-  6,0: 50 40 30 20! 10 0 #4  #1  #6  _i  i_  #7  #3  #2-  CONSTRUCTION'TVPES  Noricoreferential Response Coreferential Response Optional- Response  M c  #5  FIGURE 4a Percentage o f Noncoreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Beginning Level Polish, Cantonese, Vietnamese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  llOOr 90 80  60 50 h 40 30' 20 10 r  #4  #1  #6  #7  #3'  CONSTRUCTION TiPES  /Beginner P o l i s h ' Beginfier Can tones e Beginner,, cVdiefenarnes e Blginner Miscellaneous 1  #2  #5  FIGURE 4b Percentage o f N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven Construction Types By Intermediate L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  100>r  #4  #1  #6  #7  #3'  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  #2-  #5  FIGURE 4c Percentage of Noncoreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Advanced Level Polish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  100 90 • 80 70 60 50 ' 40 "30 '20 10 0 #4  #1  #6'  #7'  #3  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  #2  #5  FIGURE 5a Percentage o f Coreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Beginning Level Polish, Cantonese, Vietnamese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  100 r 9,0 -  8,0 -  \ 7,0-  \  0 I  I  I  I  #5  #2  #7  ,#3  1  #6,  CONSTRUCTION TiPES  Beginner Pol-ish Beginner Cantonese Beginner Vietnamese Beginner Miscellaneous  !  #1  ^  •  #4  FIGURE 5b Percentage o f C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups  0 #5  .#2  #7  #3  #6  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Intermediate P o l i s h Intermediate Cantonese Intermediate Vietnamese Intermediate Japanese Intermediate Miscellaneous  #1.  #4  FIGURE 5c Percentage of Coreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Advanced Level Polish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  lOBr  #5  #2-  #7  #3  #6  #1  #4  CONSTRUCTION TrPES  Advanced Polish Advanced ^Cantonese Advanced •Vietnamese Advanced Japanese Advanced Miscellaneous  : : : : :  ' . , .. > ^ t  v  FIGURE 6a Percentage o f Optional Response F o r Seven Construction Types By Beginning L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  #3  #7  #2  #5  -#6  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Beginner Beginner Beginner Beginner  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Miscellaneous  .#1  #4  FIGURE 6b Percentage o f Optional Response F o r Seven Construction Types By Intermediate L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  #3  #7  #2  #5  #6  #1  #4  CONSTRUCTION TiPES  Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  : : : : :  —. •>.>>>  FIGURE 6 c Percentage Of O p t i o n a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By Advanced L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese andM i s c e l l a n e o u s Native!'Language Groups  100  •9.0  80  7P  60  50  40  30  20  10  0 #3  #7  #2  #5  #6  :  #1  CONSTRUCTION T i P E S  Advanced P o l i s h Advanced Cantonese Advanced'Vietnamese Advanced Japanese Advanced' M i s c e l l a n e o u s  : : : : :  —— -»-»-*  #4  FIGURE 7a Percentage o f Noncoreferential Response F o r Seven Construction Types By P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  1001<?0  #4  #1  #6  ,#7  .#3  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  #2  #5  FIGURE 7b Percentage o f C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For Seven Construction Types By P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  100.90 -  #5  #2  #7  #3  #6  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous  i »> » >  #1  #4  FIGURE 7c Percentage o f Optional Response For Seven Construction Types By Polish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups  100  V  90 -  80 70 60 50 40 -  #3  #7  #2  #5  #6'  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese . Miscellaneous  #1  #4  FIGURE 8a Percentage o f Noncoreferential Response F o r Seven Construction Types By Control, Beginning L e v e l , Intermediate L e v e l , and Advanced L e v e l Groups  #4  #1  #6  #7  #3  CONSTRUCTION TYPES  Control. Beginner Intermedfate Advanced  : — C •: — 6 — : — I — : — A —  #2  #5  152  F I G U R E 8b Percentage o f C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response F o r Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By C o n t r o l , Beginning Level, Intermediate Level, and Advanced L e v e l Groups  J  #5  #2-  #7  I  #3  I  #6  CONSTRUCTION T Y P E S  Control Beginner Intermediate Advanced  !  L  #1  #4  FIGURE 8c Percentage o f Optional Response F o r Seven Construction Types By C o n t r o l , Beginning Level, Intermediate Level, and Advanced L e v e l Groups  100. 90 8 0 •• 70 -  #3-  #r  #2'.  #5'  #e  CONSTRUCTION' T Y P E S  Control Beginner Intermediate Advanced  : — c : — g, — : — I — : —/\—  #1  #4 (  154  FIGURE 9 Percentage o f Experimental Subjects D i s p l a y i n g T e n Common P a t t e r n s o f R e s p o n s e At Each E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  50  45  40  35  30  25  20  15  10  5  0 Beg.  Int.  ENGLISH-LANGUAGE  Pattern Pattern Pattern Pattern Pattern  1 2 3 4 5  : : : : :  —  ®  —  —  ©  —  — ® —€>— —  ©  —  :  Adv.  ERDFICIENCi LEVEL  Pattern 6 Pattern 7 Pattern 8 Pattern, 9 P a t t e r n 10  — ® —  F I G U R E 10 Percentage o f P o l i s h and Cantonese Subjects D i s p l a y i n g T e n Conmon P a t t e r n s o f R e s p o n s e A t Each E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  C15Q .  Beg,.  Int.  Adv.  POLISH  Pattern Pattern Pattern Pattern Pattern  1 2 3 4 5  : : : : :  —  ©  —  — © — — © — - © — .  Beg.  Int.  '  Pattern 6 : Pattern 7 : Pattern 8 ': Pattern 9 : P a t t e r n 10 :  CANTONESE  —(£>— —  ©  —  —<D— —  ©  —  —©—  Adv  FIGURE  At  11  Percentage o f Experimental Subjects Displaying Four Major Patterns Each E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  50  45  40  35 -  30 -  20  1-5  10  5  0 Beg.  Int.  Adv:  E N G L I S H LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY L E V E L  Pattern 1 (co-occurence strategy) P a t t e r n s 2 , 3 , A\ 5 ( p r e c e d e n c e s t r a t e g y ) P a t t e r n s 6 , 7, 8 , 9 (dominance s t r a t e g y ) P a t t e r n 10 ( n a t i v e s p e a k e r s t r a t e g y )  F I G U R E 12 Percentage o f P o l i s h and Cantonese Subjects D i s p l a y i n g Four Major Patterns A t Each E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l  Beg,  Int.  POLISH  Adv.  Beg.  Int.  Adv.  CANTONESE  Pattern 1 (co-dccurence strategy) Patterns 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 (precedence strategy) P a t t e r n s 6 , 7, 8 , 9 (dominance s t r a t e g y ) P a t t e r n 10 ( n a t i v e s p e a k e r s t r a t e g y )  X. APPENDIX I  TABLE 6A Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV. N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  3. 78571 3. 8571 4 4. 00000 4. 33333  1 .12171 .86444 .90749  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  3. 75000 4. 1 0000 3. 1 6667 3. 85714 4. 36000  1 .73205 .99443 1 .94079 1 .34519 .95219  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  4. 26923 4. 36364 4. 09091 3. 00000 4. 68750  1 .34336 .67420 1 .51357 1 .54919 .60208  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  4. 85000  .36635  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  4. 17157  1 .16812  204  .81650  1 58  1 59  TABLE 6B Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  2 .71429 1 .64286 .00000 2 .22222  1 .72888 1 .78054 .00000 1 .39560  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .68750 .70000 1 .16667 .85714 .92000  1 .53704 .67495 1 .83485 1 .06904 1 .15181  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .96154 1 .36364 1 .18182 .16667 1 .18750  1 .50946 1 .43337 1 .25045 .40825 1 .27639  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  .30000  .47016  20  1 .35294  1 .45979  204  CONTROL ENGLISH ENTIRE SAMPLE  1 60  TABLE 6C Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #3 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  2 .21429 2 .71429 1 .25000 2 .16667  1 .42389 1 .63747 1 .25831. 1 .42457  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .43750 2 .60000 1 .83333 1 .71429 1 .96000  1 .20934 .84327 1 .32916 1 .25357 1 .48549  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .19231 1 .72727 1 .36364 1 .16667 1 .37500  1 .13205 • 1.42063 1 .02691 .98319 1 . 14746  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH ENTIRE SAMPLE  .45000  .82558  20  1 .65196  1 .36149  204  161  TABLE 6D Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #4 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  4. 071 43 3. 92857 4 .00000 4. 00000  1.14114 .99725 1 .41421 .97014  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  3. 43750 3. 70000 3. 33333 4. 00000 4. 32000  1.59034 1.15950 1.50555 1.15470 .80208  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  4. 42308 4. 18182 4. 36364 3. 50000 4. 81 250  1.06482 1 . 16775 1.50151 1 .87083 .40311  26 r1  CONTROL ENGLISH  4. 95000  .22361  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  4. 1 8627  1.13806  204  14 4 4 18  .1  11  6 16  1 62  TABLE 6E Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #5 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .64286 1 .00000 1 . 00000 1 .27778  1.15073 1.56893 2.00000 1.17851  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .56250 .10000 .33333 .14286 .28000  .72744 .31623 .51640 .37796 .45826  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .50000 .72727 .18182 .16667 .18750  .64807 1.00905 .40452 .40825 .40311  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .00000  .00000  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .54412  .92210  204  1  TABLE 6F Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  3 .78571 2 .35714 2 .50000 2 .66667  1 .31140 1 .54955 1 .73205 1 .18818  14 14 4  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  3 .25000 2 .60000 2 .00000 2 .00000 2 .84000  1 .61245 1 .71270 1 .26491 1 .91485 1 .62481  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  3 .50000 3 .27273 2 .63636 2 .00000 4 .12500  1 .44914 1 .48936 1 .96330 1 .89737 1 .31022  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  4 .20000  1 .28145  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  3 .12255  1 .61266  204  18  63  TABLE 6G Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .92857 2 .14286 .00000 2 .16667  1 .81720 1 .70326 .00000 1 .68907  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .25000 1 .30000 1 .50000 1 .71 429 1 .64000  1 .39044 1 .33749 1 .87083 2 .05866 1 .38082  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .92308 1 .90909 .27273 1 .33333 .75000  1 . 16355 1 .70027 .46710 1 .96638 1 .29099  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  .55000  .88704  20  1.32353  1.50965  204  CONTROL ENGLISH ENTIRE SAMPLE  1 65  TABLE 7A Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  .85714 .85714 .75000 .38889  1 .23146 .66299 .95743 .77754  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .18750 .80000 1.66667 . 14286 .52000  .4031 1 1.03280 1.96638 .37796 .82260  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .07692 .54545 .09091 .66667 . 12500  .27175 .68755 .30151 .81650 .34157  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .00000  .00000  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .41176  .79224  204  1 66  TABLE 7B Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .50000 3. 00000 4. 75000 2. 05556  1 .16024 1 .83973 .50000 1 .62597  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .81 250 3. 1 0000 3. 66667 2. 571 43 3. 76000  1 .55858 1 .72884 1 .75119 2 .07020 1 .30000  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .50000 3. 00000 3. 00000 3. 66667 2. 87500  1 .30384 1 .84391 1 .00000 1 .21106 1 .78419  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  3. 90000  1 .20961  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  2. 76471  1 .70295  204  1 67  TABLE 7C Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #3 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .57143 1 .71429 3 .75000 2 .38889  1 .45255 1 .63747 1 .25831 1 .28973  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  2 .18750 1 .80000 3 .00000 2 .28571 2 .60000  1 .721 1 9 1 .22927 1 .26491 1 .60357 1 .47196  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .30769 2 .81818 2 .36364 2 .16667 2 . 12500  1 .66779 1 .94001 1 .68954 .75277 1 .70783  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  1 .30000  1 .49032  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  2 .05882  1 .59941  204  1 68  TABLE 7D Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #4 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  .71429 .71429 .50000 .83333  .99449 .91387 1 .00000 .98518  14 14 4 18  .37500 .90000 1.50000 .28571 .44000  .61914 1 .28668 1 .64317 .48795 .76811  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .07692 .72727 .18182 .50000 .06250  .27175 1 .19087 .40452 .54772 .25000  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .00000  .00000  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .44118  .82538  204  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  169  TABLE 7E Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #5 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  2. 21 429 3. 71 429 4. 00000 3. 33333  1 .47693 1 .77281 2 .00000 1 .08465  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  3. 43750 4. 00000 4. 00000 3. 8571 4 4. 44000  1 .36473 1 .24722 .63246 1 .34519 .82057  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  3. 1 9231 3. 81818 4. 09091 4. 66667 3. 87500  1 .13205 1 .40130 .83121 .81650 1 .36015  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  4. 30000  .92338  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  3. 73529  1 .31251  204  TABLE 7F Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  .42857 1 .85714 2 .00000 1 .50000  .64621 1 .61041 1 .82574 1 .09813  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .50000 1 .70000 2 .00000 1 .42857 1 .40000  .73030 1 .94651 1 .54919 • 1 .51186 1 .55456  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .65385 1 .54545 1 .00000 1 .66667 .56250  .89184 1 .57249 1 .18322 1 .86190 1 .09354  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  .25000  .71635  20  1 .06863  1.34098  204  CONTROL ENGLISH ENTIRE SAMPLE  171  TABLE 7G Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e C o r e f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  2 .21429 2 .21429 4 .75000 2 .05556  1 .96815 1 .92867 .50000 1 .731 1 1  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  2 .68750 3 .10000 3 .50000 2 .42857 2 .52000  1 .70171 1 .85293 1 .87083 2 .14920 1 .66132  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  2 .38462 2 .36364 3 .18182 1 .83333 2 .93750  1 .62670 1 .80404 1 .601 1 4 1 . 16905 2 .01556  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  2 .00000  1 .58944  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  2 .51961  1 .76015  204  TABLE 8A Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 LEVEL/LANGUAGE BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  MEAN .28571 .28571' .00000 .22222  STD. DEV.  N  .46881 .61125 .00000 .54832  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .06250 . 10000 .16667 1.00000 .04000  1 .76895 .31623 .40825 1 .41 421 .20000  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .65385 .09091 .72727 1.33333 .18750  1.32491 .30151 1.27208 1.96638 .54391  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .15000  .36635  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .38725  .96339  204  1 73  TABLE 8B Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  .64286 .35714 .25000 .66667  .92878 .63332 .50000 1 .28338  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .50000 1 .20000 .16667 1 .57143 .32000  1 .75119 1 .87380 .40825 2 .07020 .74833  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .53846 .63636 .72727 1 .16667 .93750  1 .30325 1 .02691 .90453 .98319 1 .34009  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .80000  1 .00525  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .86275  1 .24797  204  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  174  TABLE 8C Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #3 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .07143 .50000 .00000 .38889  1 .38477 1 .09193 .00000 .84984  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .37500 .60000 .16667 1 .00000 .44000  1 .36015 1 .26491 .40825 1 .52753 1 .08321  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  2 .50000 .45455 1 .27273 1 .66667 1 .50000  1 .79444 .82020 1 .55505 1 .21106 1 .59164  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  3 .25000  1 .58529  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  1 .26961  1 .61302  204  TABLE 8D Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #4 LEVEL/LANGUAGE BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  MEAN  STD.  DEV.  N  .21429 .35714 .25000 .16667  .42582 .84190 .50000 .38348  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1.18750 .40000 .16667 .71429 .20000  1 .64190 .69921 .40825 .75593 .40825  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .50000 .09091 .45455 1.00000 .12500  1 .06771 .30151 1 .21356 2 .00000 .34157  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .05000  .22361  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .36275  .87425  204  176  TABLE 8E Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #5 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .00000 .28571 .00000 .38889  .87706 .61125 .00000 .69780  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .00000 .80000 .33333 1 .00000 .28000  1 .21106 1 .13529 .81650 1 .41421 .67823  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .30769 .45455 .72727 .16667 .93750  1 .19228 .68755 .78625 .40825 1 .28938  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .70000  .92338  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .69608  .99049  204  STD. DEV.  N  •1 77  TABLE 8F Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  .64286 .78571 .50000 .77778  1 .27745 1 . 18831 1 .00000 1 .21537  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .25000 .70000 .83333 1 .42857 .76000  1 . 65328 1 .33749 1 .60208 1 .90238 1 .33167  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  .84615 .18182 1 .36364 1 .33333 .31250  1 .40548 .40452 1 .56670 1 .75119 .79320  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  .55000  .94451  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  .78431  1 .29514  204  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 78  TABLE 8G Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 LEVEL/LANGUAGE  MEAN  STD. DEV.  N  .85714 .64286 .25000 .77778  1 .51186 .92878 .50000 1 .16597  14 14 4 18  INTERMEDIATE POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .06250 .60000 .00000 .85714 .84000  1 .23659 .96609 .00000 1 .57359 1 .57268  16 10 6 7 25  ADVANCED POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE JAPANESE MISCELLANEOUS  1 .69231 .72727 1 .54545 1 .83333 1 .31250  1 .64364 1 .10371 1 .57249 1 .72240 1 .77834  26 1 1 1 1 6 16  CONTROL ENGLISH  2 .45000  1 .70062  20  ENTIRE SAMPLE  1 .15686  1 .51345  204  BEGINNING POLISH CANTONESE VIETNAMESE MISCELLANEOUS  

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.831.1-0078319/manifest

Comment

Related Items