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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1985_A8 T34.pdf [ 7.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078319.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078319+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078319.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078319+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078319+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078319+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078319 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078319.txt
Citation
1.0078319.ris

Full Text

THE ACQUISITION OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF PRONOMINALIZATION BY ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS by BOB TAKAGAKI A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n 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 c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY ;OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL 26, 1985 © BOB TAKAGAKI, 1985 z In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Education The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date April 26, 1985 DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT The study p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s paper i s a second language study of'""the a c q u i s i t i o n 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 by a d u l t l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h . I t i s a p a r t i a l r e p l i c a t i o n of Ingram and Shaw's (1981) f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n study on the same t o p i c . One hundred 'and e i g h t y f o u r s u b j e c t s and twenty c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d a w r i t t e n t a s k t h a t i n v o l v e d making a n a p h o r i c assignments t o pronouns i n t h i r t y f i v e t e s t s e n t e n c e s , 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 t y p e s . A n a l y s i s of the d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t the two s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s of precedence and dominance p l a y e d major r o l e s i n the a n a p h o r i c assignments made by a l l s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , 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 i n s t r u m e n t a l i n d e l i n e a t i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s i n the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s . A comparison of the response p a t t e r n s d i s p l a y e d by the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s s u b j e c t s and those d i s p l a y e d by Ingram, and Shaw's s u b j e c t s r e v e a l e d a number of d i f f e r e n c e s . These d i f f e r e n c e s s u g g ested t h a t the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s was not i n v a r i a n t and h i g h l y s e q u e n t i a l i n n a t u r e , but dynamic and h i g h l y c r e a t i v e , a l l o w i n g a g r e a t d e a l of l a t i t u d e i n terms of the p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s employed. T a b l e of Co n t e n t s ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i i LIST OF CHARTS X I . THE PROBLEM 1 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..4 A. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 4 B. PREVIOUS RESEARCH 13 I I I . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 2 7 A. SUBJECTS 27 B. TEST ITEMS 29 C. EXPERIMENTAL TASK 32 D. SCORING 34 E. NULL HYPOTHESES 3 5 F. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 36 G. NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 37 IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS 38 A. GENERAL COMMENTS 38 B. STATISTICAL FINDINGS 40 C. NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: COMMON PATTERNS OF RESPONSE 57 V. DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 65 A. DISCUSSION OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 65 B. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMON PATTERNS OF RESPONSE .83 C. COMPARISONS WITH THE INGRAM AND SHAW STUDY ...101 V I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 109 A. SUMMARY 109 B. CONCLUSIONS 114 C. LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY 119 D. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 125 V I I . BIBLIOGRAPHY 127 V I I I . QUIZ 134 IX. FIGURES 136 X. APPENDIX I 1 58 i v LIST OF TABLES T a b l e 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 the Ingram and Shaw Study 17 T a b l e ' 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 S u b j e c t s For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types In the Ingram and Shaw Study 20 T a b l e 3. Mean Number of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Responses For One Hundred C h i l d S u b j e c t s For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types In the Ingram and Shaw Study 21 T a b l e 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 For E i g h t y - S i x C h i l d r e n i n the Ingram and Shaw Study, 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 For Seven Const r u c t i o n s 2 2 T a b l e 5. T e s t Items and C o n s t r u c t i o n Types Employed i n the P r e s e n t Study 31 T a b l e s 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 the 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 s #1-7 APPENDIX I T a b l e s 7a~7g. Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 s #1-7 APPENDIX I T a b l e s 8a-8g. Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1-7 APPENDIX I T a b l e 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 the Dependent V a r i a b l e E f f e c t 40 T a b l e 10a. C o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type 49 T a b l e 10b. C o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on the C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type 50 T a b l e 10c. C o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on the O p t i o n a l Response Type 51 v Table 11a. C o n t r a s t s f o r the Native Language Background E f f e c t on the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type 52 Table 11b. C o n t r a s t s f o r the Native Language Background E f f e c t on the C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type... 53 Table 11c. C o n t r a s t s f o r the Native Language Background E f f e c t on the O p t i o n a l Response Type 54 Table 12a. 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 the Noncoref erent i a l Response Type 55 Table 12b. 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 the Coref erent i a l Response Type 56 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 the O p t i o n a l Response Type 57 Table 13. Ten P a t t e r n s of Response Revealed By the Present Study 58 Table 14. Comparison of Present Study's Data with Ingram and Shaw's Data on the Noncoref erent i a l Response Type 102 v i LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e 1. P e r c e n t a g e s of Ingram and Shaw's S u b j e c t s U s i n g 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 of C o r e f e r e n c e , (2) Use of Pr e c e d e n c e s , (3) Use of Dominance 1 36 F i g u r e 2. F i g u r e 3 F i g u r e 4a, F i g u r e 4b. F i g u r e 4c F i g u r e 5a, Perc e n t a g e 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 Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By C o n t r o l Group 1 37 Pe r c e n t a g e 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 Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By E x p e r i m e n t a l Group , 1 38 Perc e n t a g e of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By B e g i n n i n g L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups , Pe r c e n t a g e of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For 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 , Pe r c e n t a g e of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For 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 and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups P e r c e n t a g e of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By B e g i n n i n g L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups 1 39 1 40 141 1 42 v i i F i g u r e 5b. F i g u r e 5c F i g u r e 6a F i g u r e 6b, F i g u r e 6c F i g u r e 7a. F i g u r e 7b, F i g u r e 7c. F i g u r e 8a. Percentage of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For 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 , 1 43 Percentage of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For 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 and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups , 1 44 Percentage of O p t i o n a l Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By B e g i n n i n g L e v e l P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e Language Groups 1 45 Percentage of O p t i o n a l Response For 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 , 1 46 Percentage of O p t i o n a l Response For 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 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 For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types 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 For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types 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 For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types 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 50 Percentage of N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By C o n t r o l , B e g i n n i n g L e v e l , I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l and Advanced L e v e l Groups , 151 v i i i F i g u r e 8b, Fi g u r e 8c Fi g u r e 9, Fi g u r e 10. Percentage of C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By C o n t r o l , Beginning L e v e l , Intermediate L e v e l and Advanced L e v e l Groups 1 52 Percentage of O p t i o n a l Response For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types By C o n t r o l , Beginning L e v e l , Intermediate L e v e l and Advanced L e v e l Groups , 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 of Response 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 1 54 Percentage of P o l i s h and Cantonese Subjects D i s p l a y i n g Ten Common Pat t e r n s of Response 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 1 55 Fi g u r e 11. Percentage of Experimental Subje c t s D i s p l a y i n g Four Major P a t t e r n s 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 1 56 Fi g u r e 12. Percentage 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 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 57 ix LIST OF CHARTS Cha r t 1a. Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 84 Ch a r t 1b. Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 84 Ch a r t 2. 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 85 Ch a r t 3. Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 86 C h a r t 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 88 Ch a r t 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 90 C h a r t 6a. Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 91 C h a r t 6b. Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 91 Chart 7a. Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 94 x C h a r t 7b. Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 94 C h a r t 8. 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 95 C h a r t 9a. Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 98 C h a r t 9b. Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 98 C h a r t 10. Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 99 x i I. THE PROBLEM Pronominal r e f e r e n c e r e f e r s to the assignment of a r e f e r e n t to a pronoun. For example, upon hearing the i s o l a t e d sentence, "Mickey Mouse ate b r e a k f a s t before he went out", one would normally a s s i g n the r e f e r e n t "Mickey Mouse" to the pronoun "he". However, upon hearing the sentence, "He ate b r e a k f a s t before Mickey Mouse went out", one would, under normal circumstances, a s s i g n a r e f e r e n t other than "Mickey Mouse" to the pronoun. The reason, or reasons, why Mickey Mouse i s the l i k e l y r e f e r e n t f o r the pronoun i n the former sentence, but not in the l a t t e r , has been the s u b j e c t of a great deal of i n q u i r y f o r l i n g u i s t s . The a c q u i s i t i o n process of a system of pronominal r e f e r e n c e has been the t o p i c of a number of research s t u d i e s , p r i m a r i l y i n f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n . Notwithstanding the c o n s i d e r a b l e body of r e s e a r c h data thus f a r obtained, the v a r i o u s l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s used to account f o r them and the p o s s i b l e developmental stages i n the a c q u i s i t i o n process that have been proposed, l i t t l e e f f o r t has been expended to u t i l i z e t h i s knowledge i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h . The research c o n t a i n e d i n these pages r e p r e s e n t s a f i r s t step towards remedying t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The present study i s a p a r t i a l r e p l i c a t i o n of Ingram and Shaw's (1981) f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n study of pronominal r e f e r e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t attempts to determine the e f f e c t s of two s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s , precedence and 1 2 dominance, on the a c q u i s i t i o n of the E n g l i s h system of 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 l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h as a second language ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as ESL l e a r n e r s ) . T h i s s t u d y w i l l a d d r e s s the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e problems: (1) the n a t u r e of the 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 system of 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 between the f i r s t and second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s e s , and (3) the r o l e of language t r a n s f e r and/or i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s . F i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s have p r o v i d e d the impetus f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t body of second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h . For example, the l a r g e number of second language s t u d i e s on the a c q u i s i t i o n of g r a m m a t i c a l morphemes ( a t l e a s t 24, i n c l u d i n g B a i l e y , Madden and Krashen,1974; Dulay and B u r t , 1973, 1974a, 1974b,* 1974c, 1975; Fathman, 1975, 1979; Larsen-Freeman, 1975, 1976) was sp a r k e d m a i n l y by the f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s of Berko (1958), Brown (1973) and d e V i l l i e r s and 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 (1966)'S f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n s tudy on the development of the 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 s t u d i e s of C a n c i n o , Rosansky and Schumann (1978), G i l l i s and Weber (1976), M i l o n (1974) and Ravem (1968). Sheldon (1974)'S study on the a c q u i s i t i o n of E n g l i s h r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s by f i r s t 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 s t u d i e s ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1974; Gass and A r d , 1980). In almost a l l a r e a s of second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h - i n phonology ( B u r l i n g , 1959; C e l c e - M a r i a , 1975), i n d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s (Hatch, 1978; Wagner-Gough, 1974), 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 , 1978; Y o s h i d a , 1976), i n l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s ( A l l w r i g h t , 1975; F e l i x , 1975; Hakuta, 1976; Wagner-Gough, 1978; Wagner-Gough and H a t c h , 1976), e t c . - f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h has been h e a v i l y r e l i e d upon f o r c h o i c e of r e s e a r c h t o p i c , r e s e a r c h methodology, d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s p r o c e d u r e s , t h e o r i e s r e g a r d i n g language and language l e a r n i n g , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s , and so on. The p r e s e n t study a l s o draws h e a v i l y upon f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n d a t a , r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and methodology. T h i s i s because of the l a r g e l y e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e of the s t u d y . To the a u t h o r ' s knowledge, no o t h e r second language a c q u i s i t i o n study has taken q u i t e the same approach t o the t o p i c under i n q u i r y . I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS The l a d y laughed a t t h i s f a i r y because she (who?) o n l y had one boy. The l a d y had tw e l v e sons and t w e l v e d a u g h t e r s . One day she (who?) laughed at her (at whom?). She (who?) was angry and she (who?) f a s t e n e d her (whom?) b e s i d e a stream. ( P i a g e t , 1926, p. 121. From Ingram and Shaw, 1981) The p r e c e d i n g quote i l l u s t r a t e s the i s s u e c e n t r a l t o the p r e s e n t s t u d y . When does a pronoun r e f e r or not r e f e r t o a d e f i n i t e noun phrase? U s i n g a p u r e l y s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s , Langacker ( 1 9 6 9 ) 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 of c o n d i t i o n s under which p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n of one noun phrase (pronoun) by another ( d e f i n i t e noun phrase) was r e s t r i c t e d or b l o c k e d . Langacker suggested t h a t p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n was b l o c k e d when the f o l l o w i n g two c o n d i t i o n s were met: (1) pronoun precedes d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e , and (2) pronoun "commands" the d e f i n i t e noun phrase ("a node A 'commands' another node B i f (a) n e i t h e r A nor B dominates the o t h e r , and (b) the S-node t h a t most i m m e d i a t e l y dominates A a l s o dominates B." Langacker, p. 167). In a l l o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , a d e f i n i t e noun phrase may p r o n o m i n a l i z e a pronoun (note here the i m p l i c a t i o n 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 not o b l i g a t o r y ) . To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t , c o n s i d e r two examples: ( i ) He killed the mosquito which bit Algernon. ( i i ) Algernon killed the mosquito which bit him. ( L a n g a c k e r , p. 168) 4 5. In sentence ( i ) p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i s b l o c k e d . The pronoun "he" cannot r e f e r t o the d e f i n i t e noun phrase " A l g e r n o n " , whereas i n sentence ( i i ) i t may. Sentences ( i ) and ( i i ) can be r e p r e s e n t e d by the f o l l o w i n g t r e e d i agrams: ( i ) . S . PRONOUN . . . S . . DEFINITE NP . ( i i ) . S . . DEFINITE NP S . PRONOUN . In sentence ( i ) the pronoun b o t h precedes and commands ( i e . i s " h i g h e r " i n the t r e e ) than the 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 . In sentence ( i i ) such i s not 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 examples: ( i i i ) Before he went out, Mickey Mouse ate breakfast. ( i v ) Before Mickey Mouse went out, he ate breakfast. In sentence ( i i i ) t he pronoun "he" precedes t he d e f i n i t e noun phrase "Mickey Mouse", but does not 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 . "He" can r e f e r t o "Mickey Mouse". In sentence ( i v ) the pronoun "he" commands the d e f i n i t e noun phrase "Mickey Mouse", but does not 6 pr 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 . In s e n t e n c e s ( i ) and ( i i i ) 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 , i f any t a k e s p l a c e , i s backwards. That i s , p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n goes from the d e f i n i t e noun phrase back t o the pronoun. Sentence ( i ) i s an i n s t a n c e of B l o c k e d Backwards P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d B l o c k e d Backwards). Sentence ( i i i ) i s an i n s t a n c e of Good Backwards P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d Backwards P r o ) . Sentences ( i i ) and ( i v ) a r e i n s t a n c e s of Good Forwards P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d Forwards P r o ) . That i s , 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 i s f o r w a r d s , from d e f i n i t e noun phrase t o the pronoun, which a p p e a r s f u r t h e r down the sentence s t r i n g . Other 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 which i t i s b l o c k e d ( L a s n i k , 1976; R e i n h a r t , 1981; Ross, 1969). Though t h e r e a re d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n as t o the e x t e n t t o which the pronoun must be " h i g h e r up" i n the 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 and l a r g e , t h e s e s t u d i e s c o n c u r i n the i n t e r p l a y of precedence and dominance as c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r s . The one n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s i s R e i n h a r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . She o f f e r s a r e s t r i c t i o n on p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n based s o l e l y on a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d of command r e l a t i o n , " 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 cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d as 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 nonpronoun i n i t s c-command domain 7 (a node A c-commands node B i f the 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 dominates B. The domain of a node A c o n s i s t s of a l l and o n l y the nodes c-commanded by A ) . ( R e i n h a r t , 1981). Of a l l the e x p l a n a t i o n s o f f e r e d , R e i n h a r t ' s v e r s i o n seems t o be the more v i a b l e s i n c e i t can account f o r c a s e s of B l o c k e d Forwards P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , whereas the o t h e r s do no t . R e c a l l t h a t s e n t e n c e s ( i i ) and ( i v ) a r e examples of Forwards P r o . C o n s i d e r sentence ( v ) : (v) Near Dan, he saw a snake. ( R e i n h a r t , 1981, p. 608) U s i n g 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 "Dan" and "he" can be c o r e f e r e n t i a l . However, our n a t i v e speaker i n t u i t i o n s t e l l us t h a t , a t l e a s t under normal c i r c u m s t a n c e s , c o r e f e r e n c e i s b l o c k e d . That i s , the pronoun "he" r e f e r s t o a r e f e r e n t o t h e r than "Dan". Sentence (v) i s an i n s t a n c e of B l o c k e d Forwards P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s ) . I urge the reader t o c o n s u l t R e i n h a r t ' s a r t i c l e f o r a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the o p e r a t i o n of her c-command r e s t r i c t i o n . The f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n d e a l t w i t h s y n t a c t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d t h e o r i e s r e g a r d i n g the l i n g u i s t i c f a c t s of p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e . A l t h o u g h the p r e s e n t s t u d y i s a l s o c o n c e r n e d w i t h the 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 r e f e r e n c e , i t does seem c l e a r t h a t syntax i s not the o n l y c o n s t r a i n t , nor can i t account f o r a l l the l i n g u i s t i c d a t a a v a i l a b l e , whether they a r e i n one's own speech or i n the speech of o t h e r s ( L u s t , L o v e l a n d and K o r n e t , 1980; L u s t , 1981). To put the p r e s e n t s t u d y i n prop e r 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 f a c t o r s 8 which may determine p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e . McCray (1979) p r e s e n t s the argument 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 depend c r i t i c a l l y on whether the pronoun o c c u r s i n what she terms a "semantic peak" w i t h i n the sentence or d i s c o u r s e . The semantic peak of a sentence i s not d e t e r m i n e d so much by i n t o n a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s as i t i s by d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s , such as t o p i c a l i z a t i o n and 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 semantic peaks can cause v i o l a t i o n s of 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 i z a t i o n . In t h i s she i s s u p p o r t e d by Kuno ( i n R e i n h a r t , 1981) and Carden ( p e r s o n a l communication) who a l s o r e c o g n i z e the p o t e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e of d i s c o u r s e and s e m a n t i c - p r a g m a t i c f a c t o r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s . Murphy and Gunderson (1985) undertook a study t h a t f o c u s s e d on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a n a p h o r i c judgements and a u d i e n c e awareness, t h a t i s , awareness of the person f o r whom a communication i s i n t e n d e d . They a n a l y z e d the w r i t i n g a s s i g n m e n t s of s t u d e n t s from grades 2 t o 11 and c o n c l u d e d t h a t the degree of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s made i n the w r i t i n g s of t h e i r s u b j e c t s was r e l a t e d t o the degree of a u d i e n c e awareness i n the w r i t e r . Those s u b j e c t s who showed a h i g h e r sense of a u d i e n c e awareness tended t o produce more a p p r o p r i a t e and complex forms of a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s . M a r s l e n - W i l s o n and T y l e r (1980) conducted a s e r i e s of e x p e r i m e n t s on anaphora, t a k i n g a p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c approach. 9 They c o n c l u d e d t h a t " p r a g m a t i c i n f l u e n c e " p l a y s the dominant r o l e i n 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 h e i r b a s i c premise i s t h a t the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of messages i s the fundamental g o a l of the speech p r o c e s s i n g a c t . In o r d e r f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o be made, t h r e e s o u r c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n must be s i m u l t a n e o u s l y p r o c e s s e d by the h e a r e r : a l e x i c a l or semantic s o u r c e , a s t r u c t u r a l or s y n t a c t i c s o u r c e , and an i n t e r p r e t a t i v e or p r a g m a t i c s o u r c e . Though each sou r c e of i n f o r m a t i o n may fa v o u r a d i f f e r e n t a n a p h o r i c assignment i n a g i v e n s e n t e n c e , the f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s based on pr a g m a t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The a u t h o r s s t a t e , ... the l i s t e n e r can indeed 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 , and may d e l a y commitment to any s i n g l e one of them u n t i l p r a g m a t i c i n f e r e n c i n g , r e l a t i v e t o the d i s c o u r s e and the w o r l d , c o n f i r m s one p a r t i c u l a r assignment and r u l e s out any o t h e r s , (p. 34) ) There a r e two p o i n t s t o be made about the M a r s l e n - W i l s o n and T y l e r s t u d y . F i r s t , the n o t i o n s 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 can be h e l d i n abeyance 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 can be s i m u l t a n e o u s l y " c a r r i e d a l o n g " , w i t h o u t commitments t o any s i n g l e one w h i l e an u t t e r a n c e i s b e i n g h e a r d , c o n t r a s t s s h a r p l y w i t h the c o n c l u s i o n s reached by o t h e r s e m a n t i c - p r a g m a t i c s t u d i e s (Caramazza, G r o b e r , Garvey and Y a t e s , 1977; Caramazza and Gupta, 1979). Second, the sen t e n c e s 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 n a t u r e , s u g g e s t i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the responses of the s u b j e c t s were somehow b i a s e d i n the d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n . 10 Caramazza,. Grober, Garvey and Yates (1977) and Caramazza and Gupta (1979) c o n d u c t e d a number of s t u d i e s i n which they measured the time i t took t h e i r s u b j e c t s t o make a n a p h o r i c 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 semantic f e a t u r e of v e r b s , " i m p l i c i t c a u s a l i t y " , i n d e t e r m i n i n g c o r e f e r e n t i a l a s s i g n m e n t s t o pronouns. I m p l i c i t c a u s a l i t y r e f e r s t o a f e a t u r e of c e r t a i n v e r b s t h a t " s e l e c t s one noun or the o t h e r as the p o s s i b l e i n s t i g a t o r or c a u s a l source f o r a s e r i e s of e v e n t s " (Caramazza, Grober, Garvey and Y a t e s , 19, p. 601). For example, c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g two s e n t e n c e s : ( v i ) Jane angered Mary because she had stolen a tennis racquet . ( v i i ) Jane hit Mary because she had stolen a tennis racquet. (Caramazza, Grober, Garvey and Y a t e s , 1977) A l t h o u g h the two se n t e n c e s d i f f e r i n o n l y one r e s p e c t , the main v e r b s employed, the 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 of the pronoun i n sentence ( v i ) would be "Jane", whereas the p r e f e r r e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n sentence ( v i i ) would be "Mary". In sentence ( v i ) "Jane" i s the i n s t i g a t o r of the s e r i e s of e v e n t s d e s c r i b e d i n the se n t e n c e . In sentence ( v i i ) "Mary" i s the 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 a n a p h o r i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can be h e l d i n abeyance, i m p l i c i t c a u s a l i t y 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 , as e a r l y as the second word i n the se n t e n c e . 11 The " i m p l i c i t c a u s a l i t y " s t u d i e s f o c u s s e d on two k i n d s of main v e r b s , those t h a t b i a s e d c o r e f e r e n t i a l a s signments t o the f i r s t NP i n the main c l a u s e , such as sentence ( v i ) , and those t h a t b i a s e d c o r e f e r e n t i a l a s s i g n m e n t s t o the second NP i n the main c l a u s e , as i n sentence ( v i i ) . Then, f o r each v e r b , p a i r s of sentences were c o n s t r u c t e d . One sentence would c o n t a i n a s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e 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 of the main v e r b , such as sentence ( v i i i ) , which a p p a r e n t l y c o n t a i n s a main v e r b , " t e l e p h o n e d " , t h a t b i a s e s c o r e f e r e n t i a l a s s i g n m e n t s t o the f i r s t NP i n the main c l a u s e . ( v i i i ) John telephoned Bill because he wanted some i n forma lion. The second sentence c o n t a i n e d a s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e t h a t was i n 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 of the same main v e r b , such as sentence ( i x ) . ( i x ) John telephoned Bill because he withheld some infor mati on. S u b j e c t s were then exposed t o a number of sentence p a i r s and were asked t o make a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s t o the pronouns i n each s e n t e n c e . S u b j e c t s ' r e a c t i o n t i m e s were r e c o r d e d . The r e s u l t s showed 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 s e n t e n c e s t h a t c o n t a i n e d s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s 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 of the main v e r b were made f a s t e r than 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 sen t e n c e s t h a t c o n t a i n e d s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s i n 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 of the main v e r b . The a u t h o r s c o n c l u d e d t h a t the semantic 12 f e a t u r e of i m p l i c i t c a u s a l i t y was an i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g c o r e f e r e n t i a l a s s i g n m e n t s . However, l e a v i n g a s i d e the c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n of how the " n a t u r a l b i a s " of the main v e r b s were d e t e r m i n e d , t h e r e i s an i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t o c o n s i d e r i n r e g a r d s t o t h e s e s t u d i e s . The sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n s employed i n v o l v e d e x c l u s i v e l y s u b o r d i n a t e "because" c l a u s e s , which not o n l y c o m p r i s e a r a t h e r s m a l l subset of the t o t a l p o s s i b l e range of sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s , but p o s s i b l y i n v o l v e o b l i g a t o r y r e c o u r s e t o p r a g m a t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , such as c a u s a l i t y , i n o r d e r f o r any k i n d of a n a p h o r i c assignment t o be made. The 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 the p o s s i b i l i t y of f a c t o r s o t h e r than precede and command r e l a t i o n s t o account f o r a n a p h o r i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e y have l o o k e d a t semantic and p r a g m a t i c f a c t o r s , as w e l l as o v e r a l l d i s c o u r s e f a c t o r s and semantic 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 re not 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 does seem c l e a r t h a t c o n s t r a i n t s on a system of 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 not u n r e a s o n a b l e t o suggest t h a 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 i n v o l v e a c o m b i n a t i o n of s y n t a c t i c and n o n - s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s t h a t i n t e r a c t i n a way t h a t i s , as y e t , u n c l e a r . However, no matter how d e s i r a b l e a g l o b a l approach t o the a n a l y s i s may be, i t i s not c l e a r as t o whether such an approach i s indeed p o s s i b l e . N e e d l e s s to say, such an u n d e r t a k i n g i s beyond the scope of the p r e s e n t s t u d y . 13 B. PREVIOUS RESEARCH A number of f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s have been und e r t a k e n t o determine how the 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 r e f e r e n c e i n E n g l i s h a re a c q u i r e d by c h i l d r e n . One of the f i r s t of the s e s t u d i e s was conducted by Chomsky (1969). In t e s t i n g the degree of awareness of n o n - c o r e f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between pronoun and d e f i n i t e noun phrase i n 40 c h i l d r e n , aged 5 t o 10 y e a r s , she c o n c l u d e d t h a t the two c o n d i t i o n s , precedence and dominance, d i d i n d e e d p l a y c r u c i a l r o l e s i n b l o c k i n g c o r e f e r e n c e and t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , c h i l d r e n seemed t o a c q u i r e the a d u l t system a t a r e l a t i v e l y u n i f o r m age. L u s t , L o v e l a n d and Kornet (1980) co n d u c t e d a s e r i e s of ex p e r i m e n t s w i t h 80 c h i l d r e n , aged 3;5 t o 7;5 y e a r s , and a l s o found t h a t precedence and dominance p l a y e d v i t a l r o l e s i n 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 a l s o made two a d d i t i o n a l p o i n t s . F i r s t , the p r a g m a t i c s of a g i v e n sentence ( i e . the c o n t e x t ) c o u l d d e t e r m i n e whether the pronoun and the d e f i n i t e noun phrase 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 or d i d not r e f e r t o each o t h e r . S e c o n d l y , t h e i r s u b j e c t s showed a p r e f e r e n c e f o r Forwards Pro over Backwards P r o . In o t h e r 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 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s than i n th o s e i n v o l v i n g Backwards P r o . T h i s l a s t 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 study u n d e r t a k e n by S o l a n (1981). H i s study a g a i n c o n f i r m e d the i n f l u e n c e of precedence and dominance f o r a group of 36 14 c h i l d r e n , aged 5 t o 7 y e a r s . In a d d i t i o n , S o l a n found t h a t 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 d e t e r m i n i n g c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s . P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i n se n t e n c e s where pronoun and d e f i n i t e noun phrase appeared i n the same c l a u s e tended t o be b l o c k e d more o f t e n than i n se n t e n c e s where pronoun and d e f i n i t e noun phrase appeared i n s e p a r a t e c l a u s e s . Take, f o r example, the f o l l o w i n g two s e n t e n c e s : ( x) Bill watched hi m during John's run. ( x i ) Bill watched hi m while John ran. S o l a n s u g g e s t s t h a t i n sente n c e ( x ) , where "him" and "John's" appear w i t h i n the same c l a u s e , c o r e f e r e n c e tends t o be b l o c k e d , whereas i n sentence ( x i ) , where "him" and "John" appear i n d i f f e r e n t c l a u s e s , c o r e f e r e n c e i s not b l o c k e d . F l y n n (1980) and Lu s t (1981 ) conducted s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s e s of p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n which were language s p e c i f i c . They argued t h a t the 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 (PBD) of p a r t i c u l a r languages d e t e r m i n e s p r e f e r e n c e s f o r e i t h e r f o r w a r d s or backwards 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 the major 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 c l a u s e s , a d v e r b i a l s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s , s e n t e n t i a l c o m p l e m e n t a t i o n s , e t c . In a language where the 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 r e c u r s i v e d e v i c e s i s r i g h t - b r a n c h i n g . In a s t u d y of 69 c h i l d r e n , aged 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 the PBD of the E n g l i s h language c o u l d e x p l a i n the 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 Forwards P r o . In a second language study on anaphora, F l y n n 1 5 (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 Japanese 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 . She found c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s i n the responses made by each group. A f t e r u n d e r t a k i n g an e r r o r a n a l y s i s of the d a t a , she c o n c l u d e d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d i n both the r a t e and p a t t e r n of a c q u i s i t i o n of anaphora between the two language groups. She a t t r i b u t e d these d i f f e r e n c e s t o the f a c t t h a t the 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 the PBD i n E n g l i s h , whereas the PBD i n Japanese d i d n o t . In a nother f i r s t language study of pronominal r e f e r e n c e , Goodluck (1981) found, as p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s d i d , t h a t precedence and dominance were c r u c i a l f a c t o r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g the c h i l d ' s c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s . A l s o , j u s t as L u s t , L o v e l a n d and Kornet (1980) and S o l a n (1981) had r e p o r t e d , Goodluck found t h a t c h i l d r e n tended t o b l o c k Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s more than Forwards Pro ones. In her c o n c l u s i o n s , she h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the c h i l d ' s p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e system i s a d u l t - l i k e from the o u t s e t and t h a t n o n - a d u l t - l i k e r esponses i n v o l v e d p r i m a r i l y c a s e s of Backwards P r o , s u g g e s t i n g something unique about those c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Thus f a r a g r e a t d e a l of d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n on the c h i l d ' s p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e system and the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e i t s a c q u i s i t i o n had been o b t a i n e d . However, t h e r e was l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was e x p l a n a t o r y i n n a t u r e . In an attempt t o shed more l i g h t on why c h i l d r e n produce n o n - a d u l t - l i k e r esponses and on the p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e of 1 6 d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s i n the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s , Ingram and Shaw (1981) undertook a p a r t i a l r e p l i c a t i o n of Chomsky's (1969) s t u d y . The Ingram and Shaw study i n c o r p o r a t e d a number of s i g n i f i c a n t improvements over the o r i g i n a l s t u d y . F i r s t , the number and age range of t h e i r s u b j e c t s were expanded. Second, the number of c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s t o be t e s t e d was i n c r e a s e d from t h r e e , as i n Chomsky's s t u d y , t o seven (see T a b l e 1 ) . Chomsky l o o k e d a t Backwards P r o , Forwards Pro and B l o c k e d Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Ingram and Shaw l o o k e d at Backwards P r o , t h r e e v a r i a t i o n s of Forwards P r o , two v a r i a t i o n s of B l o c k e d Backwards and a B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n , f o r a t o t a l of seven. T h i r d , the p r a g m a t i c i n f l u e n c e s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k were c o n s i d e r e d and m i n i m i z e d . And, f o u r t h , a d u l t responses t o the t e s t items were o b t a i n e d i n a p i l o t s tudy i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e both n o r m a t i v e and c o m p a r a t i v e d a t a and a means of c o n s t r u c t i n g a more r e l i a b l e s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s . 1 7 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 the Ingram and Shaw Study CONSTRUCTION #1 ( B l o c k e d Back) He t h i n k s Donald i s l e a v i n g . Who t h i n k s Donald i s l e a v i n g ? He doesn't c a r e t h a t Mickey i s g o i n g . Who doesn't c a r e ? He was g l a d t h a t Donald got the candy. Who was g l a d ? He i s sad t h a t Mickey i s l e a v i n g . Who i s sad? He knows t h a t Donald i s hungry. Who knows Donald i s hungry? CONSTRUCTION #2 (Backwards Pro) When he went t o the s t o r e , Donald f e l l down. Who went t o the s t o r e ? A f t e r he t i e d h i s shoe, Mickey was happy. Who t i e d h i s shoe? W h i l e he c r o s s e d the s t r e e t , Donald was s c a r e d . Who c r o s s e d the 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 took a nap. Who a t e l u n c h ? When he broke the d i s h , Donald was sad. Who broke the d i s h ? CONSTRUCTION #3 (Forwards Pro) Mickey knows he i s happy. Who i s happy? Donald hopes t h a t he w i l l win the p r i z e . Who does Donald hope w i l l win the p r i z e ? M ickey i s a f r a i d t h a t he might f a l l down. Who might f a l l down? Donald t h i n k s he i s the f a s t e s t r u n n e r . Who does Donald t h i n k i s the f a s t e s t runner? Mickey 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 Back) He went t o s c h o o l when Donald 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 Mickey 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 Donald came back. Who p l a y e d b a l l ? He c r i e d when Mickey got l o s t . Who c r i e d ? He ran f a s t w h i l e Donald y e l l e d . Who ran f a s t ? CONSTRUCTION #5 (Forwards Pro) When Micke 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 Donald a t e b r e a k f a s t , he ran home. Who ran 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 the dog. Who f e d the dog? While Donald was a t the movie, he was sad. Who was sad? B e f o r e M i c k e y went home, he a t e a hot dog. Who a t e a hot dog? CONSTRUCTION #6 ( B l o c k e d Forwards) Under Mic k e y he found a penny. Who found a penny? In f r o n t of Donald he stepped on a bug. Who stepped on a bug? B e s i d e M i c k e y he saw the f i r e m a n . Who saw the f i r e m a n ? Near Donald he c o u l d see a r a b b i t . Who c o u l d see a r a b b i t ? B ehind M i c k e y he heard a c a r honk. Who heard a c a r honk? CONSTRUCTION #7 (Forwards Pro) Micke y saw candy a l l around him. Who was the candy around? Donald saw the wagon near him. Who was the wagon near? Mickey heard a bear b e h i n d him. Who was the bear behind? Mickey jumped on the s t o o l next t o him. Who was the s t o o l next t o ? Mickey dropped the rock next t o him. Who was the rock next t o ? ( r e p r i n t e d by p e r m i s s i o n of the a u t h o r ) 19 As i n Chomsky's s t u d y , Ingram and Shaw used a game s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g two d o l l s , Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Each s u b j e c t was t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . F i v e t o k ens of each of the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s , f o r a t o t a l of 35 s t a t e m e n t s , were p r e s e n t e d o r a l l y t o the s u b j e c t s (see T a b l e 1). A f t e r each statement was p r e s e n t e d , the c h i l d was asked t o p r o v i d e the r e f e r e n t f o r the pronoun. Responses were noted and' marked as b e i n g e i t h e r c o r e f e r e n t i a l or n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l . The e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k was a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a c o n t r o l group of 20 a d u l t s . The purpose of t h i s was t o d e t e r m i n e a d u l t response p a t t e r n s and t o e s t a b l i s h a s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e f o r r a t i n g the c h i l d r e n ' s r esponses on each i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e . Ingram and Shaw c o n s i d e r e d Chomsky's s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s t o be too s e v e r e . In Chomsky's s t u d y , a s u b j e c t was c o n s i d e r e d t o have a c q u i r e d a B l o c k e d Backwards r u l e o n l y i f t h a t s u b j e c t responded n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l l y t o a l l t o k ens of t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e . That i s , she u t i l i z e d a 100% c r i t e r i o n l e v e l . By t e s t i n g a d u l t s , Ingram and Shaw hoped t o determine whether a 100% c r i t e r i o n l e v e l was, i n f a c t , the a p p r o p r i a t e one t o use. The c o n t r o l group r e s u l t s showed t h a t a d u l t s do show s t r o n g p r e f e r e n c e s f o r c o r e f e r e n t i a l and 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 depending upon the sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n type (see T a b l e 2 ) . T h i s i s i n c o n t r a s t t o Langacker's s u g g e s t i o n t h a t c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s , where a l l o w e d , a r e not o b l i g a t o r y . However, on no c o n s t r u c t i o n type d i d a d u l t performance r e a c h the 100% l e v e l . U s i n g t h e s e d a t a , Ingram and Shaw c a l c u l a t e d 20 a c r i t e r i o n l e v e l t h a t would p e r m i t judgements r e g a r d i n g a s u b j e c t ' s response p a t t e r n a t a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . T h i s was a 60% c r i t e r i o n l e v e l . At t h i s l e v e l , i f t h r e e or more responses out of f i v e on a c o n s t r u c t i o n type were c o r e f e r e n t i a l , the s u b j e c t was c o n s i d e r e d t o have a c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n . I f two or fewer responses were c o r e f e r e n t i a l , the s u b j e c t was s c o r e d as h a v i n g a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n . Note, however, t h a t a 3 out of 5 c r i t e r i o n l e v e l i s not u n l i k e the k i n d of p r o p o r t i o n t h a t might be o b t a i n e d by chance or random re s p o n s e . 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 S u b j e c t s For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types In the Ingram And Shaw Study PROPORTION COREFERENTIAL CONSTRUCTION RESPONSE Forwards Pro (3) .93 (5) .90 (7) .84 Backwards Pro (2) .92 B l o c k e d Back (1) .01 (4) .05 B l o c k e d Forward (6) .14 ( r e p r i n t e d by p e r m i s s i o n of a u t h o r ) 21 The e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 100 c h i l d r e n , aged 3;0 t o 7;11 y e a r s . The r e s u l t s showed t h a t the t o t a l e x p e r i m e n t a l group's response p a t t e r n s t o the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s were, w i t h one e x c e p t i o n , s i m i l a r t o the a d u l t p a t t e r n (see 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 where c o r e f e r e n c e was p o s s i b l e ( i e . C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2,3,5 and 7) were p r e d o m i n a t e l y c o r e f e r e n t i a l , though the a c t u a l s c o r e s were not as h i g h as the a d u l t ones. S i m i l a r l y , the c h i l d r e n ' s r e s p o n s e s 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 and 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 , though not so c l e a r l y d e f i n e d as i n the a d u l t r e s p o n s e s . The o n l y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t e l i c i t e d a response a t v a r i a n c e w i t h the a d u l t d a t a , was the B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n , #6. The c h i l d r e n ' s r e sponses were h i g h l y c o r e f e r e n t i a l , as opposed t o the a d u l t s ' 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 . TABLE 3 Mean Number o f • C o r e f e r e n t i a l Responses For One Hundred C h i l d S u b j e c t s For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n Types In the Ingram and Shaw Study CONSTRUCTION MEAN NUMBER OF COREFERENTIAL RESPONSE Forwards Pro (3) .78 .80 .64 .53 .19 .28 .78 (5) (7) Backwards Pro (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 a u t h o r ) 22 Thus f a r the d a t a suggested t h a t the c h i l d r e n i n the study had a c q u i r e d Forwards and Backwards P r o , and t h a t they 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 P r o , as e v i d e n c e d by t h e i r n o n - a d u l t - l i k e responses to C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. In an e f f o r t t o d e t e r m i n e d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequences i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the a d u l t p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e system, Ingram and Shaw l o o k e d a t the d a t a i n more d e t a i l . They examined the response p a t t e r n s of each i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t i n o r d e r t o f i n d s h a r ed or common p a t t e r n s . T h e i r f i n d i n g s were i l l u m i n a t i n g . They found f i v e major 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 For E i g h t y - S i x C h i l d r e n i n the Ingram and Shaw Study 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 For Seven C o n s t r u c t i o n s CONSTRUCTIONS PATTERN #3 #5 #7 #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 I I . Use of Precedence .82 .82 .62 .76 .20 .74 .88 I I I . Use of Precedence .78 .83 .62 .26 .13 .16 .83 IV. Use of 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 of a u t h o r ) 23 P a t t e r n I, (n=7), i n v o l v e d the predominate use of a c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type, no matter what the c o n s t r u c t i o n . A p r i m i t i v e s t r a t e g y based on co-occurence seemed to be used here. The pronoun always r e f e r r e d to the d e f i n i t e noun phrase. T h i s i n d i c a t e d that the c h i l d was at l e a s t aware that pronouns do have antecedents. P a t t e r n s II and I I I , (combined n=36), i n v o l v e d the use of a co-occurence s t r a t e g y as w e l l as some awareness of the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by precedence. The major d i f f e r e n c e s between P a t t e r n II and III s u b j e c t s were in t h e i r responses to the Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n , #2, and the Blocked Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , #1 and 4. P a t t e r n II s u b j e c t s responded to the Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n i n an a d u l t - l i k e f a s h i o n , whereas the P a t t e r n I I I s u b j e c t s d i d not. However, P a t t e r n II s u b j e c t s d i d not seem to have a c q u i r e d the Blocked Backwards r u l e , whereas P a t t e r n III s u b j e c t s d i d . One e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r e d by the authors for these d i f f e r e n c e s was that P a t t e r n III s u b j e c t s , having a c q u i r e d a Blocked Backwards r u l e , began to o v e r g e n e r a l i z e the r u l e to a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s where the pronoun preceded the d e f i n i t e noun phrase, as i n C o n s t r u c t i o n #2. P a t t e r n II s u b j e c t s , however, had an immature grasp of the Blocked Backwards r u l e , hence t h e i r i n c o n s i s t e n t responses on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4. T h e i r a d u l t - l i k e response to the Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n was due more to a simple co-occurence s t r a t e g y than evidence of a b e t t e r awareness of the c o n s t r a i n t s on pronominal r e f e r e n c e . 24 P a t t e r n IV (n=37) i n v o l v e d the use of a dominance s t r a t e g y . S u b j e c t s grouped i n t o t h i s p a t t e r n responded t o b o th the Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n , #2, and the B l o c k e d Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , #1 and 4, i n an a d u l t - l i k e f a s h i o n , y e t c o n t i n u e d t o g i v e n o n - a d u l t - l i k e responses t o the B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n , #6. P a t t e r n V (n=6) r e p r e s e n t e d the a d u l t p a t t e r n where knowledge of the c o n s t r a i n i n g i n f l u e n c e s of precedence and dominance has been a c q u i r e d . Of the r e m a i n i n g 14 s u b j e c t s , one gave a l l 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 . I t c o u l d be argued t h a t t h i s s u b j e c t ' s s t r a t e g y i n making a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s does not d i f f e r from the s t r a t e g y employed by P a t t e r n I s u b j e c t s . In both c a s e s c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y , or n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y , i s d e t e r m i n e d by a s i m p l e c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y . Four o t h e r s u b j e c t s missed b e i n g c l a s s i f i e d i n t o one of the above f i v e p a t t e r n s by one too many or one t o o few c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s . Three s u b j e c t s s h a r e d a unique p a t t e r n of response i n which o n l y the Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s , #3, 5 and 7, r e c e i v e d c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s . T h i s p a t t e r n was i n t e r e s t i n g i n t h a t i t suggested the r a t h e r unexpected s i t u a t i o n of the s u b j e c t s h a v i n g a c q u i r e d the B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e b e f o r e h a v i n g a c q u i r e d the B l o c k e d Backwards r u l e - q u i t e i n c o n t r a s t t o the g e n e r a l t r e n d suggested by the main body of d a t a . F i n a l l y , the l a s t s i x s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d as i s o l a t e d c a s e s . T h e i r r esponses were not c l o s e 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 graph, r e v e a l e d a p o s s i b l e d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequence (see F i g u r e 1). A l t h o u g h a l l f i v e p a t t e r n s appeared i n a l l age groups, w i t h i n c r e a s i n g age, P a t t e r n s IV and V became more dominant and 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 terms, the Ingram and Shaw study suggested the f o l l o w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequence i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the E n g l i s h system of pron o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e . C h i l d r e n i n i t i a l l y employ a s i m p l e c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y i n making a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s . I f a pronoun c o - o c c u r s w i t h a d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e , then a c o r e f e r e n t i a l assignment i s made ( P a t t e r n I ) , or not made (as e v i d e n c e d by the s i n g l e s u b j e c t w i t h a l l 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 ) . Next, the c h i l d employs a precedence s t r a t e g y . When the pronoun 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 c o r e f e r e n c e i s a l l o w e d ( P a t t e r n s I I and I I I ) . S u b s e q u e n t l y the c h i l d d e v e l o p s an awareness of dominance or command r e l a t i o n s . The precede and command r e l a t i o n s a re used e f f e c t i v e l y f o r B l o c k e d Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , but a r e 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n s ( P a t t e r n I V ) . L a s t l y , the c h i l d a c q u i r e s the a d u l t system ( P a t t e r n V ) . The Ingram and Shaw study p r o v i d e s a framework w i t h i n which the 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 system of pr o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e by ESL l e a r n e r s can be s t u d i e d , i n s y n t a c t i c terms. In a d d i t i o n , the d a t a o b t a i n e d i n the 26 o r i g i n a l s tudy can be used t o compare the f i r s t and second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s e s . L a s t l y , by i n c o r p o r a t i n g s u b j e c t s from d i f f e r e n t n a t i v e language backgrounds, the o p p o r t u n i t y a r i s e s of d e t e r m i n i n g the i n f l u e n c e of n a t i v e language background on the second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s . I I I . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A. SUBJECTS Because the d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequence i n the a c q u i s t i o n of the E n g l i s h system of p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e and the e f f e c t of n a t i v e language on the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s were t o be ad d r e s s e d i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y , a minimum of t h r e 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 s ( B e g i n n i n g , I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced) and two d i s t i n c t n a t i v e language groups were r e q u i r e d . S t a t i s t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e an optimum number of 20 s u b j e c t s i n each c e l l , i e . 20 s u b j e c t s of the same n a t i v e language background a t the same l e v e l of E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y . Two n a t i v e language groups and t h r e e p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s would n e c e s s i t a t e 20 X 2 X 3 = 120 s u b j e c t s . For reasons t o be o u t l i n e d i n the LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY s e c t i o n , some of the f o r e g o i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s were i m p o s s i b l e t o a t t a i n . In the end, 184 a d u l t ESL s t u d e n t s , a l l e n r o l l e d i n the Manpower program of K i n g Edward Campus, s e r v e d as the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s i n the s t u d y . The s u b j e c t s ranged i n age from 18 t o 58 y e a r s , w i t h a mean age of 29.8 y e a r s . One hundred and one s u b j e c t s were male, 83 were female. The s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t e d 23 d i f f e r e n t n a t i v e language groups. Because of c e l l number c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , o n l y f o u r language groups 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 , Cantonese, Vietnamese and Japanese. A l l o t h e r language groups were combined t o 27 28 c r e a t e a f i f t h language group c a t e g o r y , M i s c e l l a n e o u s Languages. The breakdown f o r the d i f f e r e n t language groups and 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 i s as f o l l o w s : B e ginner P o l i s h : n=14 Beginner Cantonese: n=14 Beginner Vietnamese: n=4 Beginner Japanese: n=0 Beginner M i s c e l l a n e o u s : n=l8 Beginner Total=50 I n t e r m e d i a t e P o l i s h : n=l6 I n t e r m e d i a t e Cantonese: n=10 I n t e r m e d i a t e Vietnamese: n=6 I n t e r m e d i a t e Japanese: n=7 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 : n=25 Intermediate Total=64 Advanced P o l i s h : n=26 Advanced Cantonese: n=11 Advanced Vietnamese: n =11 Advanced Japanese: n=6 Advanced M i s c e l l a n e o u s : n=16 Advanced Total=70 TOTAL EXPERIMENTAL GROUP=184 E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l was det e r m i n e d by the Manpower Program's placement e x a m i n a t i o n s which 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 and f o r the Manpower 29 program's i n s t r u c t o r s . L a s t l y , 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 B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , s e r v e d as the c o n t r o l group. T h i s group's mean age was 26.25 y e a r s . Four were male and 16 were f e m a l e . I n c l u d i n g the c o n t r o l group, a t o t a l of 204 s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the s t u d y . B. TEST ITEMS As mentioned e a r l i e r , Ingram and Shaw's seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s c o v e r e d a l l f o u r 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 both 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 Ingram ( p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) , i n c o r p o r a t e d i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n 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 i n t e r e s t t o Ingram and Shaw, such as s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e t y p e s ( C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 vs #4), p o s t p o s e d vs preposed s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s ( C o n s t r u c t i o n #3 vs #5) and 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 ( C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and #5 vs #7). In o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n as much c o n s i s t e n c y as p o s s i b l e between the two s t u d i e s , i t was d e c i d e d t o employ a l l of the Ingram and Shaw c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s . The t e s t items used i n the study were c o m p r i s e d , w i t h minor changes, of those s e n t e n c e s employed i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . Because d o l l s were not u t i l i z e d i n t h i s s t u d y , the r e f e r e n t s , "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck", were 30 changed to two f i c t i t i o u s boys, " B i l l " and "John". A l s o , based on the r e s u l t s of two p i l o t s t u d i e s , a d d i t i o n a l changes were made to vocabulary, punctuation, verb type and verb t e n s i n g . There were f i v e tokens of each of the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n types t e s t e d , f o r a t o t a l of 35 t e s t items (Table 5). The f i r s t two t e s t items i n the study were dummy items and, a c c o r d i n g l y , ignored i n the a n a l y s i s . A l l 35 t e s t items were randomly ordered. The c o n s t r u c t i o n types covered were as f o l l o w s : C o n s t r u c t i o n #1: Blocked Backwards C o n s t r u c t i o n #2: Backwards Pro C o n s t r u c t i o n #3: Forwards Pro C o n s t r u c t i o n #4: Blocked Backwards C o n s t r u c t i o n #5: Forwards Pro C o n s t r u c t i o n #6: Blocked Forwards C o n s t r u c t i o n #7: Forwards Pro TABLE 5 Test Items and C o n s t r u c t i o n Types Employed i n the P r e s e n t Study (number i n b r a c k e t s i n d i c a t e s o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n ) CONSTRUCTION TYPE 1 ( B l o c k e d Back) (28) He knows t h a t John i s b i g . (35) He knows t h a t B i l l i s r i g h t . ( 1 9 ) He i s unhappy t h a t John i s coming. (23) He i s happy t h a t B i l l i s h e l p i n g the t e a c h e r . (13) He t h i n k s t h a t John i s l e a v i n g . CONSTRUCTION TYPE 2 (Backwards Pro) (31) When he goes t o s c h o o l , John p l a y s hockey. (24) A f t e r he e a t s d i n n e r , B i l l goes t o bed. (18) A f t e r he s t u d i e s , John watches t e l e v i s i o n . (14) When he watches t e l e v i s i o n , B i l l i s happy. (12) When he g e t s a c o o k i e , John i s happy. CONSTRUCTION TYPE 3 (Forwards Pro) ( 3) John knows t h a t he i s good. (29) B i l l knows t h a t he i s s i c k . (20) John i s unhappy t h a t he i s s t u d y i n g . (32) B i l l 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 . . (10) John 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 hockey when John comes. (36) He e a t s d i n n e r a f t e r B i l l goes home. (16) He does homework a f t e r John 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 John speaks'. CONSTRUCTION TYPE 5 (Forwards Pro) (26) When B i l l goes home, he h e l p s mother. ( 7) A f t e r John e a t s b r e a k f a s t , he reads 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 John watches a movie, he i s q u i e t . (33) When B i l l g e t s candy, he i s good. 32 CONSTRUCTION TYPE 6 ( B l o c k e d Forwards) (27) Behind B i l l , he sees the t e a c h e r . (15) Behind John, he hears a bus. (22) Near B i l l , he hears a dog. (34) Near John, he speaks t o the t e a c h e r . (11) Under B i l l , he sees a penny. CONSTRUCTION TYPE 7 (Forwards Pro) ( 5) B i l l sees the g i r l b e h i n d him. (37) John hears the c a r b e h i n d him. (17) B i l l h ears a r a d i o near him. (25) John speaks t o the man near him. ( 8) B i l l sees the box under him. C. EXPERIMENTAL TASK U n l i k e the Ingram and Shaw e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k , i n which t e s t items were p r e s e n t e d o r a l l y , w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t p r o v i d e d by the use of d o l l s , the p r e s e n t s t u d y u t i l i z e d a w r i t t e n t a s k f o r m a t . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s was t w o f o l d . F i r s t , i t was f e l t t h a t a w r i t t e n p r e s e n t a t i o n would f a c i l i t a t e comprehension on the s u b j e c t ' s p a r t , i n t h a t the t e s t items would be r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e f o r many r e a d i n g s i f r e q u i r e d (Carden, p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . S e c o n d l y , the w r i t t e n format o f f e r e d a f a s t e r and more manageable method of c o l l e c t i n g and a n a l y z i n g the d a t a . The 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 of 35 t e s t i t e m s , p l u s two dummy i t e m s . Each t e s t i t e m c o n t a i n e d an u n d e r l i n e d pronoun and a common name, e i t h e r " B i l l " or "John". Each t e s t 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 f o r the u n d e r l i n e d pronoun, the names of the two a c t o r s employed 33 ( i e . " B i l l " and "Jo h n " ) , and an o p t i o n f o r i n d i c a t i n g a m b i g u i t y of a n a p h o r i c assignment ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d t he " O p t i o n a l " r e s p o n s e ) . T h i s was a response o p t i o n not u t i l i z e d i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . The r a t i o n a l e f o r i t s i n c l u s i o n i s t h a t , a f t e r the f i r s t p i l o t s t u d y , i t was f e l t t h a t f o r c i n g s u b j e c t s t o make a n a p h o r i c assignments between 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 s u b j e c t ' s t a s k was t o c i r c l e the a p p r o p r i a t e r e f e r e n t f o r each u n d e r l i n e d pronoun (see "Quiz" f o r the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k ) . P r e - t a s k i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n s i s t e d of f o u r examples. They i n v o l v e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s not t e s t e d . They were: 1. John studies before he eats dinner. (Bill John either) 2. In front of him, Bill sees a truck. (Bill John either) 3. He talks to the girl in front of him. (Bill John either) 4. Bill sees him after school. (Bill John either) Any v o c a b u l a r y items not un 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 then asked, as a group, t o choose the a p p r o p r i a t e r e f e r e n t f o r each pronoun i n each s e n t e n c e . The d e c i s i o n of the m a j o r i t y of responses was c i r c l e d a c c o r d i n g l y . The f a c t t h a t d i f f e r e n t people made d i f f e r e n t a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s was s t r e s s e d . A l s o , i t was s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e r e were no " r i g h t " or "wrong" answers. The s t u d e n t s were t o l d t h a t they would r e c e i v e a "Quiz" c o n t a i n i n g s i m i l a r s e n t e n c e s and r e q u i r i n g a s i m i l a r method of res p o n s e . The s t u d e n t s were t o l d t h a t the 37 sentences were not i n any way r e l a t e d , but 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 t h a t 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 assignment t h a t i n v o l v e d o n l y one or b o t h of the two a c t o r s , " B i l l " and/or "John", and no o t h e r s . S t u d e n t s were asked i f they u n d e r s t o o d the t a s k . Any q u e s t i o n s from the s t u d e n t s were answered. The " Q u i z z e s " were handed o u t . W h i l e the t a s k was b e i n g c o m p l e t e d , 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 of c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the t a s k and v o c a b u l a r y items. The c o n t r o l group was g i v e n the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k i n e x a c t l y the same format as the e x p e r i m e n t a l group. D. SCORING Responses t o each t e s t i t e m were s c o r e d as a c o r e f e r e n t i a l response, a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response or an o p t i o n a l response (a c o r e f e r e n t i a l l y ambiguous r e s p o n s e ) . The t o t a l number of each of the t h r e e response t y p e s was t a l l i e d 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 example, a s u b j e c t may have had 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 responses f o r the f i v e t o k e n s of C o n s t r u c t i o n #1. The same s u b j e c t may have had no c o r e f e r e n t i a l , f o u r n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l and one o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s f o r the f i v e t o k e n s of C o n s t r u c t i o n #2. And so on. For each c o n s t r u c t i o n , the t o t a l number of 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 , by each s u b j e c t , was t h u s o b t a i n e d . In c a s e s where the s u b j e c t f a i l e d t o re s p o n d t o a t e s t i tem, any p r o p o r t i o n s of response t y p e s were c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number of each 35 response type by the t o t a l number of t e s t items a c t u a l l y c o m pleted. S c o r i n g on the b a s i s of c o r r e c t n e s s was not employed, s i n c e s y n t a c t i c n o t i o n s of c o r r e c t n e s s a re somewhat a r b i t r a r y a t the p r e s e n t time (eg. does one use Langa c k e r ' s or R e i n h a r t ' 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 i n o r d e r t o judge c o r r e c t n e s s ? ) . A l s o , the use of a " c o r r e c t n e s s " c r t i t e r i o n might p o s s i b l y cause i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s of the d a t a t o be o v e r l o o k e d , such as an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p a t t e r n , or s t r a t e g y , of re s p o n s e . R e c a l l t h a t Ingram and Shaw employed a 60% c r i t e r i o n l e v e l t o d e t e r m i n e whether a s u b j e c t had a response p r e f e r e n c e 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 s u b j e c t s c o r e d t h r e e or more of one response type f o r a g i v e n c o n s t r u c t i o n , then s/he was c l a s s i f i e d as h a v i n g a p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h a t response t y p e . The same 60% c r i t e r i o n l e v e l was employed i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . E. NULL HYPOTHESES The f o l l o w i n g n u l l h ypotheses were t e s t e d . A. There 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 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 on the 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 . B. There 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 n a t i v e language groups on the 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 . C. There 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n 36 t y p e s on the 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 . F. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Because of the breakdown of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s , the p r e s e n t study i n c o r p o r a t e d an u n b a l a n c e d , i n c o m p l e t e , f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n w i t h r e p e a t e d measures (Campbell and S t a n l e y , 1963). Because a c h o i c e of t h r e e d i f f e r e n t response o p t i o n s , 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 or o p t i o n a l , f o r each t e s t i t e m , a t h r e e way 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 w i t h r e p e a t e d measures was employed. 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 were the t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s . E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l , n a t i v e language background and c o n s t r u c t i o n type were the t h r e e independent v a r i a b l e s . E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l and n a t i v e language background were the b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r s . C o n s t r u c t i o n type was the w i t h i n / s u b j e c t s f a c t o r . 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 was employed t o d e t e r m i n e the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the dependent v a r i a b l e e f f e c t s . The 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 t e s t s were employed t o d e t e r m i n e t h o s e groups which d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r on each of the t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s . 3 7 G. NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS An e x a m i n a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p a t t e r n s of res p o n s e , a c r o s s a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s , was undertaken i n an e f f o r t t o determine common or shared p a t t e r n s of r e s p o n s e . As i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y , a t h r e e out of 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 the s u b j e c t ' s response type p r e f e r e n c e f o r each of the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s . Because the Ingram and Shaw study d i d not u t i l i z e an o p t i o n a l response t y p e , i t was d e c i d e d t o use the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type i n comparing the r e s u l t s of the two s t u d i e s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s l a y i n the f a c t t h a t 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 a r e w h o l l y r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t b l o c k c o r e f e r e n c e . W h i l e the p r e s e n t study a l l o w s a response type t h a t d e s i g n a t e s a m b i g u i t y of pr o n o m i n a l 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 procedure would not have an impact upon the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses o b t a i n e d . Each s u b j e c t ' s o v e r a l l response 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 thus 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 the shared p a t t e r n s of response r e v e a l e d i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . The p a t t e r n s of s u b j e c t s which d i d not f a l l i n t o any of the Ingram and Shaw p a t t e r n s were a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y . I f two or more s u b j e c t s s h a r e d a common p a t t e r n , i t was c l a s s i f i e d as a new shared p a t t e r n . I f a s u b j e c t ' s p a t t e r n was found t o be unique, w i t h no o t h e r s u b j e c t showing a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n , i t was c l a s s i f i e d as an I s o l a t e d Case. IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS A. GENERAL COMMENTS The e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k was s a t i s f a c t o r i l y c ompleted by the 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 out of 50 B e g i n n i n g l e v e l s u b j e c t s d i d not respond t o a t l e a s t one t e s t i t e m . S i x out of 64 I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s u b j e c t s d i d not respond t o a t l e a s t one t e s t i t e m . Two out of 70 Advanced l e v e l s u b j e c t s d i d not respond t o a t l e a s t one t e s t i t e m . More than 99.5% of the t o t a l number of t e s t items i n v o l v e d i n the e n t i r e s t u d y was c o mpleted. The C o n t r o l group's r e s p o n s e s a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e #2. Note t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s a r e a r r a n g e d i n o r d e r 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 responses t o a l l the b l o c k e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s (#1, 4 and 6 ) . However, on none of t h e s e 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 r esponses reach a 100% l e v e l . T h i s i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h the Ingram and Shaw f i n d i n g s . C o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e s were q u i t e h i g h f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2 and 5. However, C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7 had r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n s of o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s . T h i s r e s u l t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t . On the one hand, i t seems t o i n d i c a t e , as Ingram and Shaw p o i n t e d o u t , t h a t , f o r c e r t a i n c o n s t r u c t i o n s , c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses a r e h i g h l y o b l i g a t o r y . On the o t h e r hand, i t a l s o seems t o i n d i c a t e , as Langacker s u g g e s t e d , t h a t , f o r o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s , 38 39 c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses a re n o n - o b l i g a t o r y . The data suggests t h a t preposed v s . po s t p o s e d s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s and i n t e r v s . i n t r a - c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s may p l a y s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e s i n the o b l i g a t o r y n a t u r e of the re s p o n s e . Upon an e x a m i n a t i o n of the C o n t r o l group 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 l e v e l i s not always the a p p r o p r i a t e one. The d a t a suggest t h a t , i n s o f a r as the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type i s c o n c e r n e d , a s t r i c t e r c r i t e r i o n l e v e l be a p p l i e d t o C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4 (a 4/5 c r i t e r i o n l e v e l ) . I n s o f a r as the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type i s c o n c e r n e d , the da t a suggest a s t r i c t e r c r i t e r i o n l e v e l be a p p l i e d t o C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2, 5 and, p o s s i b l y , #3 (a 4/5 c r i t e r i o n l e v e l ) . However, i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e c omparisons between the two s t u d i e s , i t was d e c i d e d t o u t i l i z e Ingram and Shaw's 3/5 c r i t e r i o n l e v e l t o dete r m i n e common p a t t e r n s of res p o n s e . The t o t a l e x p e r i m e n t a l group's r e s p o n s e s t o the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k a re g i v e n i n F i g u r e #3. There a re two remarks t o be made on comparing the e x p e r i m e n t a l group's r e s u l t s w i t h the C o n t r o l group. F i r s t , a l t h o u g h the e x p e r i m e n t a l group's n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p a t t e r n r o u g h l y p a r a l l e l s t h a t of the C o n t r o l group, on no c o n s t r u c t i o n i s i t as w e l l pronounced. Second, the e x p e r i m e n t a l group's o p t i o n a l response p a t t e r n i s much l e s s pronounced than t h a t of the C o n t r o l group. T h i s might i n d i c a t e a l a c k of awareness of the p o s s i b i l i t y of a m b i g u i t y i n making a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s . 40 B. STATISTICAL FINDINGS A t h r e e way 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 u t i l i z i n g 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 was performed on the d a t a . Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from the t h r e e way 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 a r e g i v e n i n Appendix I . R e s u l t s of 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 f o r main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s a r e g i v e n 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 the Dependent V a r i a b l e E f f e c t DEPENDENT APPROX. HYPOTH. ERROR SIG. OF VARIABLE F. D. F. D. F. •F. L e v e l 4.20 9.00 557.00 .000** Lang. 4.10 1 2.00 557.00 .000** Contype 141 .78 1 8.00 172.00 .000** L e v e l X Lang. 1.17 • 21.00 557.00 .266 L e v e l X Contype 3.94 54.00 512.00 .000** Lang. X Contype 1.81 72.00 682.00 .000** L e v e l X Lang. X Contype 1 .30 126.00 1192.00 .017* * s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 l e v e l of conf idence ** s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .01 l e v e l of conf i d e n c e ' L e v e l ' = E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l 'Lang.' = N a t i v e Language Background 'Contype' = C o n s t r u c t i o n Type 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 , N a t i v e Language Background e f f e c t , C o n s t r u c t i o n Type e f f e c t , E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l 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 N a t i v e Language Background 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 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . The E n g l i s h 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 Language Background 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 a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . 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 by N a t i v e Language Background i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was the o n l y i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t d i d not r e a c h s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The presence of the s i g n i f i c a n t three-way i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t 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 and s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s cannot be f u l l y e v a l u a t e d w i t h o u t a c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n of the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . T h e r e f o r e , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s w i l l f o c u s f i r s t on t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n . ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL BY NATIVE LANGUAGE BACKGROUND BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE INTERACTION EFFECT F i g u r e s 4, 5 and 6 p r e s e n t the r e s u l t s of each n a t i v e language group, 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 f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s on the 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 s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . F i g u r e 4a p r e s e n t s the 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 on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r B e g i n n i n g P o l i s h , B e g i n n i n g Cantonese, B e g i n n i n g Vietnamese, B e g i n n i n g 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 . F i g u r e 4b p r e s e n t s the 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 sponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r I n t e r m e d i a t e P o l i s h , I n t e r m e d i a t e Cantonese, I n t e r m e d i a t e Vietnamese, 42 I n t e r m e d i a t e Japanese 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 group s u b j e c t s . F i g u r e 4c p r e s e n t s the 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 sponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r Advanced P o l i s h , Advanced Cantonese, Advanced Vietnamese, Advanced Japanese and Advanced M i s c e l l a n e o u s group s u b j e c t s . Note t h a t , a t a l l 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 , the 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 response f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s r o u g h l y a p p r o x i m a t e s t h a t of the C o n t r o l group ( i e . 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 response on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 4 and 6; low p r o p o r t i o n on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2, 3, 5 and 7 ) . 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 i n v a r y i n g degrees from each o t h e r i n terms of the 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 . At the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l , one n a t i v e language group i s m i s s i n g ( t h e B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Japanese g r o u p ) . A l s o , a t the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l , the Vietnamese group d i s p l a y s a v e r y d i f f e r e n t r esponse p a t t e r n from the o t h e r groups. I t i s a response p a t t e r n t h a t i s e x t r e m e l y n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e . F i g u r e 5a 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 seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r B e g i n n i n g P o l i s h , B e g i n n i n g Cantonese, B e g i n n i n g Vietnamese, B e g i n n i n g 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 . F i g u r e 5b 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 sponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r I n t e r m e d i a t e P o l i s h , I n t e r m e d i a t e Cantonese, I n t e r m e d i a t e Vietnamese, I n t e r m e d i a t e Japanese 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 group 43 s u b j e c t s . F i g u r e 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 sponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r Advanced P o l i s h , Advanced Cantonese, Advanced Vietnamese, Advanced Japanese and Advanced M i s c e l l a n e o u s group s u b j e c t s . . Note t h a t , a t a l l t h r e 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 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 response f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s r o u g h l y a p p r o x i m a t e s t h a t of the C o n t r o l group ( i e . h i g h on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2 and 5; medium on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7; and low on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 4 and 6 ) . Note a l s o t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n t ypes d i f f e r i n v a r y i n g degrees from each o t h e r i n terms of 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 . A g a i n , t h e r e a r e no s u b j e c t s i n the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Japanese c e l l . A l s o , a t the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l , note the low o v e r a l 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 response d i s p l a y e d by the P o l i s h group and the r e l a t i v e l y 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 response d i s p l a y e d by the Vietnamese group. Both P o l i s h and Vietnamese language groups d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m s e l v e s from the o t h e r n a t i v e language groups a t the I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced l e v e l s as w e l l . The I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l P o l i s h group, a t a l l t h r e 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 s , d i s p l a y s a response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 t h a t i s o p p o s i t e t o t h a t of most o t h e r groups. The P o l i s h group shows an i n c r e a s e i n 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 , whereas most o t h e r n a t i v e language groups show a d e c r e a s e . The I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l Vietnamese group c o n t i n u e s t o d i s p l a y the h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n 44 of c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p onse. F i g u r e 6a p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l responses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r B e g i n n i n g P o l i s h , B e g i n n i n g Cantonese, B e g i n n i n g Vietnamese, B e g i n n i n g 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 . F i g u r e 6b p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l responses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r I n t e r m e d i a t e P o l i s h , I n t e r m e d i a t e Cantonese, I n t e r m e d i a t e Vietnamese, I n t e r m e d i a t e Japanese 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 group s u b j e c t s . F i g u r e 6c p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r e s ponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r Advanced P o l i s h , Advanced Cantonese, Advanced Vietnamese, Advanced Japanese and Advanced M i s c e l l a n e o u s group s u b j e c t s . Note t h a t , u n l i k e the C o n t r o l group, the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r e s ponse, a t a l l t h r e 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 s , shows a f l a t t e n e d e f f e c t a c r o s s a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s . The C o n t r o l group 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 response 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 C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2, 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 seem to d i f f e r i n v a r y i n g degrees from each o t h e r i n terms of the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l response r e s p o n s e , depending upon n a t i v e language group and E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l . Note t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r esponse between c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s appears t o be more pronounced a t the Advanced l e v e l than a t any o t h e r . 45 A g a i n , t h e r e a r e no s u b j e c t s i n the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Japanese c e l l . At the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l , P o l i s h and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups show q u i t e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s i n the p r o p o r t i o n of response on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 5. T h i s s i t u a t i o n r e p e a t s i t s e l f a t the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 2. At the Advanced l e v e l note the d i s p a r i t y i n response between the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups, e s p e c i a l l y on C o n s t r u c t i o n #3. Even though the two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s may be a r e s u l t of the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n j u s t d e s c r i b e d , i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g t o examine 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 EFFECT F i g u r e 7 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of each n a t i v e language group f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s on the 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 t y p e s . F i g u r e 7a p r e s e n t s the 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 on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s 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 s u b j e c t s . Note t h a t a l l n a t i v e language groups d i s p l a y a response p a t t e r n t h a t r o u g h l y p a r a l l e l s t h a t of the C o n t r o l group. However the 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 response on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 i s lower than t h a t of the C o n t r o l group. The amount of d i s p e r s i o n i n the 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 esponse between n a t i v e language groups i s g r e a t e s t on 46 C o n s t r u c t i o n s #67 7 and 2. On C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 the P o l i s h group shows the 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 response and the Japanese group shows the l o w e s t . On C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 the Vietnamese group a g a i n d i s p l a y s a response t h a t i s e x t r e m e l y n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e . On C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 the P o l i s h group shows the 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 response and the Vietnamese group shows the l o w e s t . F i g u r e 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 responses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s 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 s u b j e c t s . W i t h the e x c e p t i o n of the 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 response t h a t r o u g h l y p a r a l l e l s t h a t of the C o n t r o l group. The P o l i s h 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 C o n s t r u c t i o n s #5 and 2, and the Vietnamese group d i s p l a y s r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n s on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #7 and 3. In g e n e r a l , the Cantonese, Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups d i s p l a y v e r y s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n s of response a c r o s s a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s . There seems t o be some weakening of t h i s s i m i l a r i t y on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4. F i g u r e 7c p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r esponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s 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 s u b j e c t s . Once a g a i n , the o p t i o n a l response i s seen to have the 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 t y p e s . Of the t h r e e response t y p e s , the o p t i o n a l response i s the most d i s s i m i l a r 47 from the C o n t r o l group r e s p o n s e s . The P o l i s h and Japanese groups show h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s of o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s a c r o s s a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s than the o t h e r n a t i v e language groups. ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE INTERACTION EFFECT F i g u r e 8 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of 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 f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s on the 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 s . F i g u r e 8a p r e s e n t s the 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 sponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r the C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s and Advanced, I n t e r m e d i a t e and B e g i n n i n g l e v e l g roups. Note the neat o r d e r i n g of each l e v e l f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #4, 1 and 6. By and l a r g e , the C o n t r o l group d i s p l a y s the 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 , f o l l o w e d by the Advanced, I n t e r m e d i a t e and B e g i n n i n g l e v e l s . On C o n s t r u c t i o n s #7, 3, 2 and 5 t h i s o r d e r i n g i s s y m m e t r i c a l l y r e v e r s e d . F i g u r e 8b 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 sponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r the C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s and Advanced, I n t e r m e d i a t e and B e g i n n i n g l e v e l groups. Note t h a t the neat o r d e r i n g of 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 s d i s p l a y e d i n F i g u r e 8a i s l e s s pronounced h e r e . However, C o n t r o l and B e g i n n i n g l e v e l c o n t i n u e t o d i f f e r t he most. 48 F i g u r e 8c p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r esponses on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s f o r the C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s and Advanced, I n t e r m e d i a t e and B e g i n n i n g l e v e l groups. The C o n t r o l group d i f f e r s most from a l l 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 on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7. There i s l e s s of a d i f f e r e n c e on the o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s . CONSTRUCTION TYPE EFFECT A c o n t r a s t was undertaken t o d etermine which C o n s t r u c t i o n Types d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y , f o r each of the t h r e e response t y p e s . C o n t r a s t s f o r the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type are g i v e n i n T a b l e 10A. T a b l e 10A r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t 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 Types. 49 TABLE 10A C o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type CONSTRUCTIONS COEFF. STD. T-VALUE SIG. CONTRASTED ERR. OF T. #1 vs 2 2.02 .09 20.99 .000** #1 vs 3 2.02 .09 20.99 .000** #1 vs 4 2.02 .09 20.99 .000** #1 vs 5 2.02 .09 20.99 .000** #1 vs 6 2.02 .09 20.99 .000** #1 vs 7 2.02 .09 20.99 .000** #2 vs 3 -1 .04 . 1 1 -9.17 .000** #2 vs 4 -1 .04 . 1 1 -9.17 .000** #2 vs 5 -1 .04 .11 -9.17 .000** #2 vs 6 -1 .04 . 1 1 -9.17 .000** #2 vs 7 -1 .04 . 1 1 -9.17 .000** #3 vs 4 - .69 . 1 1 -6.29 .000** #3 vs 5 - .69 . 1 1 -6.29 .000** #3 vs 6 - .69 . 1 1 -6.29 .000** #3 vs 7 - .69 . 1 1 -6.29 .000** #4 vs 5 2.21 - .10 20.46 .000** #4 vs 6 2.21 . 1 0 20.46 .000** #4 vs 7 2.21 . 1 0 20.46 .000** #5 vs 6 -1 . 39 . 1 0 -12.91 .000** #5 vs 7 -1 .39 . 1 0 -12.91 .000** #6 vs 7 1 .36 . 1 3 10.10 .000** * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l of conf ** c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .01 l e v e l of conf C o n t r a s t s f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e 10B. Ta b l e 10B r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t 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 t y p e s except f o r the c o n t r a s t between C o n s t r u c t i o n #3 v s . C o n s t r u c t i o n #7. 50 TABLE 1 OB C o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on the C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type CONSTRUCTIONS COEFF. STD. T-VALUE SIG. CONTRASTED ERR. OF T. #1 vs 2 -1 .62 .09 -17.42 .000** #1 vs 3 -1 .62 .09 -17.42 .000** #1 vs 4 -1 .62 .09 -17.42 .000** #1 vs 5 -1 .62 .09 -17.42 .000** #1 vs 6 -1 .62 .09 -17.42 .000** #1 vs 7 -1 .62 .09 -17.42 .000** #2 vs 3 1.14 . 1 1 9.60 .000** #2 vs 4 1.14 . 1 1 9.60 .000** #2 vs 5 1.14 . 1 1 9.60 .000** #2 vs 6 1.14 . 1 1 9.60 .000** #2 vs 7 1.14 . 1 1 9.60 .000** #3 vs 4 -1.73 . 1 0 -16.14 .000** #3 vs 5 1 .77 . 1 0 16.48 .000** #3 vs 6 -1.04 . 1 2 - 8.35 .000** #3 vs 7 .24 . 1 2 1 .96 .051 #4 vs 5 -1.75 . 1 0 -16.70 .000** #4 vs 6 -1.75 . 1 0 -16.70 .000** #4 vs 7 -1 .75 .10 -16.70 .000** #5 vs 6 1 .77 . 1 1 '16.07 .000** #5 vs 7 1 .77 . 1 1 16.07 .000** #6 vs 7 -1 .03 . 1 2 - 7.93 .000** c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e C o n t r a s t s f o r the o p t i o n a l response type a r e g i v e n i n Table 10C. T a b l e 10C r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t 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 e xcept between C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 v s . C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. 51 TABLE IOC C o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t on the O p t i o n a l Response Type CONSTRUCTIONS COEFF. STD. T-VALUE SIG. CONTRASTED ERR. OF T. #1 vs 2 -.40 .09 -4.21 .000** #1 vs 3 -.40 .09 -4.21 .000** #1 vs 4 -.40 .09 -4.21 .000** #1 vs 5 -.40 .09 -4.21 .000** #1 vs 6 -.40 .09 -4.21 .000** #1 vs 7 -.40 .09 -4.21 .000** #2 vs 3 .56 . 1 0 5.18 .000** #2 vs 4 -.43 .10 -4.30 .000** #2 vs 5 -.33 .08 -3.92 .000** #2 vs 6 -.19 . 10 -1 .76 .079 #2 vs 7 . 38 . 1 1 3.50 .001** #3 vs 4 . 54 .10 5.08 .000** #3 vs 5 . 54 . 1 0 5.08 .000** #3 vs 6 .54 . 1 0 5.08 .000** #3 vs 7 .54 . 1 0 5.08 .000** #4 vs 5 -.45 .10 -4.44 .000** #4 vs 6 -.45 .10 -4.44 .000** #4 vs 7 -.45 . 1 0 -4.44 .000** #5 vs 6 -.39 .09 -4.28 .000** #5 vs 7 -.39 .09 -4.28 .000** #6 vs 7 -.36 . 1 2 -3.00 .003** c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e NATIVE LANGUAGE BACKGROUND EFFECT A c o n t r a s t was undertaken t o det e r m i n e which n a t i v e language backgrounds d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r each of the t h r e e response t y p e s . C o n t r a s t s f o r the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type a re g i v e n i n T a b l e 11A. T a b l e 11A r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the P o l i s h and Vietnamese groups, P o l i s h and Japanese g r o u p s , Cantonese and Vietnamese 52 groups, Cantonese and Japanese groups, Vietnamese and Japanese groups, Vietnamese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups and Japanese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups. TABLE 11 A C o n t r a s t s f o r the N a t i v e Language Background E f f e c t on the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type LANGUAGES COEFF. STD. T-VALUE SIG. CONTRASTED ERR. OF T, POLI/CANT - . 1 1 .44 - , .25 .796 POLI/VIET - 1 .39 .50 -2, .74 .007** POLI/JAPA -1 .64 .70 -2, .32 .021* POLI/MISC .03 .39 .08 .933 CANT/VIET - 1 .28 .56 -2, .26 .024* CANT/JAPA - 1 .83 .78 -2, .33 .021* CANT/MISC . 1 4 .46 .32 .749 VIET/JAPA 1 .43 .52 2, .73 .007** VIET/MISC - 1 .43 . 52 -2, .73 .007** JAPA/MISC 1 .83 .73 2, .48 .014* * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e 'POLI' = P o l i s h 'CANT' = Cantonese 'VIET' = Vietnamese 'JAPA' = Japanese 'MISC = M i s c e l l a n e o u s C o n t r a s t s f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e type are g i v e n i n T a b l e 11B. Ta b l e 11B r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the P o l i s h and Cantonese g r o u p s , the P o l i s h and Vietnamese groups, the P o l i s h and Japanese groups, the P o l i s h and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups, and t h e Vietnamese and Japanese groups. 53 TABLE 11B C o n t r a s t s f o r the N a t i v e Language Background E f f e c t on the C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type LANGUAGES COEFF. STD. T-VALUE SIG. CONTRASTED ERR. OF T, POLI/CANT 1 .89 .49 3. .79 .000** POLI/VIET 2 .70 .56 4. .75 .000** POLI/JAPA 1 .86 .78 2. .36 .019* POLI/MISC 1 .35 .43 3, .08 .002** CANT/VIET .80 .63 1 , .28 .202 CANT/JAPA - . 1 2 .87 - , . 1 4 .884 CANT/MISC - .54 .51 -1 , .05 .294 VIET/JAPA -1 .35 .58 -2, .31 . 022* VIET/MISC - .24 .89 - , .27 .786 JAPA/MISC - .48 .82 .58 . 557 * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e 'POLI* = P o l i s h 'CANT' = Cantonese 'VIET' = Vietnamese 'JAPA' = Japanese 'MISC = M i s c e l l a n e o u s C o n t r a s t s f o r the o p t i o n a l response type a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e 11C. Table 11C r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups, the P o l i s h and Vietnamese g r o u p s , the P o l i s h and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups and the Cantonese and Japanese groups. 54 TABLE 1IC C o n t r a s t s f o r the N a t i v e Language Background E f f e c t on the O p t i o n a l Response Type LANGUAGES COEFF. STD. T-VALUE SIG. CONTRASTED ERR. OF T. POLI/CANT -1 .73 .44 -3.91 .000** POLI/VIET -1 . 37 .50 -2.72 .007** POLI/JAPA - .23 .69 - .33 .737 POLI/MISC -1 .35 .38 -3.49 .001** CANT/VIET .36 .55 .64 .518 CANT/JAPA 1 .96 .78 2.51 .013* CANT/MISC .37 .45 .82 .409 VIET/JAPA .01 .51 .03 . 975 VIET/MISC 1.01 .79 1 .28 .199 JAPA/MISC -1 .34 .73 -1.84 .067 * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e 'POLI' = P o l i s h 'CANT' = Cantonese 'VIET' = Vietnamese 'JAPA' = Japanese 'MISC = M i s c e l l a n e o u s ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL EFFECT A c o n t r a s t was undertaken t o determine which 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 d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y , f o r each of the t h r e e response o p t i o n s . C o n t r a s t s f o r the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e 12A. Ta b l e 12A r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s 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 and between the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l and the C o n t r o l . No o t h e r l e v e l s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . 55 TABLE 12A 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Type LEVELS CONTRASTED COEFF. STD. ERR. T-VALUE SIG. OF T. BEG./I NT. BEG./ADV. BEG./CON. INT./ADV. INT./CON. ADV./CON. 1.18 .66 1 .22 -.24 .31 .55 .45 .41 .60 . 36 .61 .58 2.62 1 .59 2.01 -.65 . 50 .94 . 010** .111 .045* .513 .612 . 345 * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e 'BEG.' = B e g i n n i n g L e v e l 'INT.' = I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l 'ADV.' = Advanced L e v e l 'CON.' = C o n t r o l Group C o n t r a s t s f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type a re g i v e n i n T a b l e 12B. Ta b l e 12B r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l and the C o n t r o l and between the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l and the C o n t r o l . No o t h e r l e v e l s a r e found t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . 56 TABLE 12B 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 the C o r e f e r e n t i a l Response 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 * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e 'BEG.' - B e g i n n i n g L e v e l 'INT.' = I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l 'ADV.' = Advanced L e v e l 'CON.' = C o n t r o l Group The c o n t r a s t s f o r the O p t i o n a l response type are g i v e n i n T a ble 12C. Table 12C r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the B e g i n n i n g and Advanced l e v e l s , between the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l and the C o n t r o l , between the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l and the C o n t r o l , and between the Advanced l e v e l and the C o n t r o l . No o t h e r l e v e l s were found t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . 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 the O p t i o n a l Response Type LEVELS COEFF. STD. T-VALUE SIG. CONTRASTED ERR. OF T. BEG./INT. - .78 .44 -1.75 .081 BEG./ADV. -1 .25 .41 -3.03 .003** BEG./CON. -2.64 .63 -4.15 .000** INT./ADV. - .49 .36 -1 .34 .181 INT./CON. -2.34 .68 -3.43 .001** ADV./CON. -2 .00 .73 -2.74 .007** * c o n t r a s t s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l of 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 the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e 'BEG.' = B e g i n n i n g L e v e l 'INT.' = I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l 'ADV.' = Advanced L e v e l 'CON.' = C o n t r o l Group C. NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: COMMON PATTERNS OF RESPONSE Ingram and Shaw's 3/5 c r i t e r i o n l e v e l was employed t o d e t e r m i n e each i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t ' s response 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 t y p e s . As mentioned e a r l i e r (see s e c t i o n NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS) the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type was used t o d e t e r m i n e i n d i v i d u a l p a t t e r n s of r e s p o n s e . That i s , when a s u b j e c t s c o r e d t h r e e or more n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses on a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e , s/he was assumed t o have a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e . In a d d i t i o n t o a l l the major p a t t e r n s found i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y , f o u r new p a t t e r n s were r e v e a l e d f o r a 58 t o t a l of ten p a t t e r n s . These p a t t e r n s a c c o u n t e d f o r 169 or 92% of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s . The t e n p a t t e r n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Ta b l e 13. E q u i v a l e n t p a t t e r n s found i n the Ingram and Shaw study a re a l s o g i v e n . In o r d e r t o a v o i d c o n f u s i o n , the p a t t e r n s uncovered i n the p r e s e n t study w i l l be p r e s e n t e d i n A r a b i c numerals w i t h lower case l e t t e r s . Ingram and Shaw's p a t t e r n s a re p r e s e n t e d i n Roman numerals and upper case l e t t e r s . A d e s c r i p t i o n of each p a t t e r n , i n terms of c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s 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 response p r e f e r e n c e s , and the number of s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y i n g each p a t t e r n a r e p r e s e n t e d as w e l l . Ten TABLE 13 P a t t e r n s of Response R e v e a l e d By the P r e s e n t Study PRESENT STUDY'S PATTERNS INGRAM AND SHAW'S PATTERNS CONSTRUCTION TYPES WITH 3/5 NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7a 7b 8 9a 9b 1 Oa 10b IA 1 s u b j e c t I I I A n i l 8 3 s u b j e c t s IVA IVB VA VB I I A n i l n i l n i l n i l n i l n i l #1,2,3,4,5,6,7 7 #1,2,4 7 #1 2 #4 5 #1,2,3,4,6,7 8 #1,3,4 9 #1,3,4,7 4 #1,3,4,6 16 #1,3,4,6,7 6 #1,2,4,6,(7 o p t i o n a l ) 20 #1,4 24 #1,4,7 3 #1,4,6 46 #1,4,6 (one o t h e r 4 c o n s t r u c t o n ) TOTAL 169 59 P a t t e r n s 1a and 1b r e p r e s e n t the use of a c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y . A n a p h o r i c assignments a r e based s o l e l y on the c o - o c c u r e n c e of pronoun and d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e . P a t t e r n 2 r e p r e s e n t s the use of a precedence s t r a t e g y . N o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses a r e g i v e n o n l y when pronoun precedes d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e . P a t t e r n s 3, 4 and 5 r e p r e s e n t s t r a t e g i e s t h a t i n d i c a t e u t i l i z a t i o n , of v a r y i n g degrees of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , of both precedence and c o - o c c u r e n c e as c o n s t r a i n i n g 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 6, 7, 8 and 9 r e p r e s e n t s t r a t e g i e s , of v a r y i n g degrees of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , t h a t i n d i c a t e awareness of not o n l y the precedence c o n s t r a i n t , but a l s o the dominance c o n s t r a i n t . P a t t e r n 10 r e p r e s e n t s the n a t i v e - s p e a k e r s t r a t e g y . S u b j e c t s f a l l i n g i n t o each of the above t e n p a t t e r n s a r e as f o l l o w s : P a t t e r n 1a: 44*, 76, 78, 99, 125*, 146, 178, 184. P a t t e r n 1b : 27* , 29*, 39*, 47, 55, 67*, 68. P a t t e r n 2: 31 , 63, 69, 105, 126, 179, 202. P a t t e r n 3: 92, 1 62. P a t t e r n 4: 73, 106, 107, 124, 157. P a t t e r n 5: 21 , 30, 33, 46, 81, 111, 166, 192. P a t t e r n 6a : 40* , 51, 88, 94*, 115, 118, 123, 131, 142. P a t t e r n 6b : 24, 102*, 104, 127. P a t t e r n 7a : 37, 48, 66, 70, 75, 77*, 89, 96, 119, 133, 170, 171 180, 189, 194. P a t t e r n 7b : 38* , 56, 87, 128, 130, 185*. 60 P a t t e r n 8: 25, 59*, 79, 84, 86, 101, 110, 114, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 147, 148, 152, 155, 174, 176, 203. P a t t e r n 9a: 42, 45, 49, 61, 93, 98, 103, 113, 117, 121, 138, 150, 156, 159, 163, 165, 173, 175, 177, 186, 187, 188, 195, 204. P a t t e r n 9b: 36, 64, 83. P a t t e r n 10a: 22, 23, 26, 35, 50, 53, 54, 60, 65, 71, 72, 74, 80, 82, 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, 201. P a t t e r n 10b: 91, 116, 134, 160. A s t e r i s k s i n d i c a t e s u b j e c t s who were p l a c e d i n t h e above t e n p a t t e r n s , a l t h o u g h they d i d not a t t a i n a s t r i c t 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 t y p e s . S i n c e t h e i r o v e r a l l response p a t t e r n s i n d i c a t e d response p r e f e r e n c e s s i m i l a r enough t o a p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n , they were i n c l u d e d . A breakdown of these s u b j e c t s i s g i v e n below. Two missed out on bei n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 1a by one too 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 ( S u b j e c t s 44, 125). Four s u b j e c t s m issed out on b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 1b by one too few n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses ( S u b j e c t s 27, 29, 39, 67 ) . T h i s b r i n g s the t o t a l number of P a t t e r n 1 s u b j e c t s t o 15. Two s u b j e c t s m issed out on b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 6a by one too few n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses on one of t h e t h r e e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t r e c e i v e d 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 responses ( S u b j e c t s 40, 9 4 ) . One s u b j e c t 61 m i ssed out on b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 6b by one t o o many n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses on a c o n s t r u c t i o n o t h e r than the f o u r t h a t r e c e i v e d 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 responses ( S u b j e c t 102). T h i s b r i n g s the t o t a l number of P a t t e r n 6 s u b j e c t s t o 13. One s u b j e c t missed out on bei n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 7a by one too many n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses on a c o n s t r u c t i o n o t h e r than the f o u r t h a t r e c e i v e d 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 r esponses ( S u b j e c t 7 7). Two s u b j e c t s missed out on b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 7b by one too few n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses on one of the f i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t r e c e i v e d 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 r esponses ( S u b j e c t s 38, 185). T h i s b r i n g s the t o t a l number of P a t t e r n 7 s u b j e c t s t o 22. One s u b j e c t m issed out on be i n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 8 by one too many n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses on a c o n s t r u c t i o n o t h e r than the f i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t r e c e i v e d 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 responses ( S u b j e c t 5 9 ) . T h i s b r i n g s the t o t a l number of P a t t e r n 8 s u b j e c t s t o 20. L a s t l y , t h r e e s u b j e c t s m issed out on b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n P a t t e r n 10a by one too few n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses on one of the t h r e e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t r e c e i v e d 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 r esponses ( S u b j e c t s 132, 151, 154). T h i s b r i n g s the t o t a l number of P a t t e r n 10 s u b j e c t s t o 50. The r e m a i n i n g 15 s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d as i s o l a t e d c a s e s ( S u b j e c t s 28, 32, 34, 41, 43, 52, 57, 58, 62, 85, 95, 97, 108, 140, 167). They d i d not f i t i n t o any of the t e n 62 p a t t e r n s , nor d i d they d i s p l a y any p a t t e r n i n common. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e , however, t h a t n i n e of the i s o l a t e d c a s e s are B e g i n n i n g L e v e l s u b j e c t s , f o u r a r e I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l s u b j e c t s , and o n l y two are Advanced L e v e l s u b j e c t s . In o r d e r t o c a p t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequences i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the a d u l t p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e system, Ingram and Shaw p l o t t e d the pe r c e n t a g e of s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y i n g each p a t t e r n , a t each d i f f e r e n t age group i n t h e i r study (see F i g u r e #1). In a s i m i l a r e f f o r t t o c a p t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequences, the p e r c e n t a g e of e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y , showing each of the 10 p a t t e r n s of re s p o n s e , were p l o t t e d on a graph a c c o r d i n g t o E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l ( F i g u r e 9 ) . P a t t e r n 1 was r e l a t i v e l y h i g h a t the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l , but dropped r a p i d l y f o r I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced l e v e l s . P a t t e r n s 2, 3 and 4 were d i s p l a y e d by v e r y few s u b j e c t s i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . A l t h o u g h P a t t e r n 5 was r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e used by the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y , i t was used more by B e g i n n i n g l e v e l s u b j e c t s than by the o t h e r s . P a t t e r n 6 was used most by t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s u b j e c t s w h i l e P a t t e r n 7 seemed t o have been used by the same p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s a t a l l t h r e e l e v e l s . P a t t e r n 8 showed an i n c r e a s i n g p r o p o r t i o n 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 i n c r e a s e d . P a t t e r n 9 was used by the same p r o p o r t i o n of 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 u b j e c t s , but showed an i n c r e a s e i n use by Advanced l e v e l s u b j e c t s . L a s t l y , P a t t e r n 10, the n a t i v e s p e a k e r p a t t e r n , was used by a s u r p r i s i n g l y 63 l a r g e number of s u b j e c t s at a l l t h r e 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 s . However, i t s use seemed t o i n c r e a s e as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i n c r e a s e d . In summary, the d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t those p a t t e r n s r e p r e s e n t i n g 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 , such as P a t t e r n s 1 - 5, a r e used more by s u b j e c t s a t the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l of E n g l i s h 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 t h a t r e p r e s e n t more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g i e s , such as P a t t e r n s 6 - 9, a r e used more by s u b j e c t s a t the I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced l e v e l s . The ten p a t t e r n s used i n F i g u r e 9 were used i n a comparison of n a t i v e language groups. Only the two l a r g e s t groups, the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups, were compared. T h i s comparison i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 10. Note t h a t the number of 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 r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . Any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s must thus be done w i t h c a u t i o n . B e g i n n i n g l e a r n e r s i n both language groups 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 than s u b j e c t s a t the I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced l e v e l s . P a t t e r n 2 was used by o n l y 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 l e v e l P o l i s h s u b j e c t s . No o t h e r s u b j e c t s used t h i s p a t t e r n . P a t t e r n 3 was used by a 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 and Advanced l e v e l Cantonese s u b j e c t s . No o t h e r s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y e d t h i s p a t t e r n . P a t t e r n 4 was 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 I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced l e v e l P o l i s h s u b j e c t s . No o t h e r s u b j e c t s used t h i s p a t t e r n . P a t t e r n 5 was used by 21% of the 64 B e g i n n i n g l e v e l P o l i s h s u b j e c t s but by a s m a l l e r p e r c e n t a g e of I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced l e v e l P o l i s h s u b j e c t s . P a t t e r n 5 was used by 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 and Advanced l e v e l Cantonese s u b j e c t s and by no I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l Cantonese s u b j e c t s . P a t t e r n 6 was used by a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of P o l i s h s u b j e c t s , at a l l t h r e e l e v e l s . However, i t seemed t o be used by a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of Cantonese s u b j e c t s , p e a k i n g a t the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l . P a t t e r n 7 was used most o f t e n by I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s u b j e c t s i n both language groups. However, the p r o p o r t i o n of use was h i g h e r f o r Cantonese s u b j e c t s . P a t t e r n 8 was d i s p l a y e d by o n l y the P o l i s h s u b j e c t s . I t s use i n c r e a s e d as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i n c r e a s e d . P a t t e r n 9 was used by a 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 and Advanced l e v e l P o l i s h s u b j e c t s . I t s use i n c r e a s e d as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i n c r e a s e d . However, a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of Cantonese s u b j e c t s seemed t o use P a t t e r n 9. The h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of i t s use by B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Cantonese s u b j e c t s c o n t r a s t s w i t h the p r o p o r t i o n o b t a i n e d by the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l P o l i s h s u b j e c t s . P a t t e r n 10 was used by a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s i n b oth groups. I t s use i n c r e a s e d as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i n c r e a s e d . V. DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS A. DISCUSSION OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS REJECTION OF NULL HYPOTHESES 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 f o r c e d r e j e c t i o n of the t h r e e n u l l h ypotheses: A. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between 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 on t h e i r 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 . B. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between n a t i v e language groups on t h e i r 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 . C. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s on the s u b j e c t s ' 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 . In summary, 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 y i e l d e d the f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s : 1 . an 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 ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .000 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e ) 2. a N a t i v e Language Background E f f e c t ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .000 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e ) 3. a C o n s t r u c t i o n Type E f f e c t ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .000 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e ) 4. an E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l 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 ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .000 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e ) 5. a N a t i v e Language Background By C o n s t r u c t i o n Type 65 66 I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .000 l e v e l of conf i d e n c e ) 6. an E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l By N a t i v e Language Background 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 ( s i g n i f i c a n t at the .017 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e ) Of a l l the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , indeed of a l l the e f f e c t s , the o n l y one t h a t d i d not a t t a i n s i g n i f i c a n c e was 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 by N a t i v e Language Background i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . Subsequent a n a l y s i s of the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , and the c o n t r a s t s u n dertaken f o r the main e f f e c t s s u g g e s t e d , i n the case of the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , and r e v e a l e d , i n the case of the main e f f e c t s , those s p e c i f i c 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 , n a t i v e language groups, c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s and c o m b i n a t i o n s t h e r e o f which d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r on the t h r e e response t y p e s . That i t was not p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n m e a n i n g f u l s t a t i s t i c a l c o n t r a s t s f o r any of the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i s a d e f i n i t e drawback t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s . However, t h e r e i s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t a m e l i o r a t e s the s i t u a t i o n . C o n s i d e r the f a c t t h a t a l l of the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n v o l v e d the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type e f f e c t . R e c a l l the ten common p a t t e r n s of response d i s c u s s e d i n the NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS s e c t i o n . The ten p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e d from each o t h e r i n terms of c e r t a i n response b i a s e s f o r d i f f e r e n t s u b s e t s of the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s employed 67 i n the s t u d y . A l s o , most of the ten p a t t e r n s were obse r v e d i n 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 language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s , and i n a l l f i v e n a t i v e language groups. When each of the t h r e 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 s , or each of the f i v e n a t i v e language groups c o n s i s t s of s u b j e c t s who d i s p l a y as many.as t e n d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of response ( i e . responses t o d i f f e r e n t s u b s e t s of the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s ) , one c l u e 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 e f f e c t s i s found. 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 and each n a t i v e language group c o n t a i n s u b j e c t s who d i s p l a y d i f f e r e n t response b i a s e s f o r the same c o n s t r u c t i o n s . These response b i a s e s are 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 p o s s i b l y i n d i c a t e v a r y i n g degrees of s e n s i t i v i t y t o s y n t a c t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s such as precede and command r e l a t i o n s , i n t e r v s . i n t r a 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 t o be a d d r e s s e d s h o u l d d e a l l e s s w i t h why one p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n type d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a n o t h e r , but more w i t h why one p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n of response d i f f e r s 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 s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n and main e f f e c t s i s g i v e n 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 by N a t i v e Language Background 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 There was a wide d i s p a r i t y i n 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 f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s 68 between n a t i v e language groups and between 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 ( F i g u r e s 4a, b and c ) . A l l c o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type main e f f e c t on the n o n 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 . These r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the i n h e r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s . R e c a l l t h a t t h e r e was o n l y one B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n , #6. There were two B l o c k e d Backwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , #1 and 4, however they d i f f e r e d i n terms of s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e t y p e . There was o n l y one Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n , #2. There were t h r e e Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s , #3, 5 and 7. However they d i f f e r e d i n terms of p o s i t i o n i n g of s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s and i n terms 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 . A l l s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d f o r the N a t i v e Language Background main e f f e c t i n v o l v e d e i t h e r the Vietnamese and/or the Japanese groups (see T a b l e 11A). A r e v i e w of F i g u r e s 4a, b and c r e v e a l why t h i s i s so. F i r s t , the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Japanese group i s m i s s i n g . Second, the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Vietnamese group d i s p l a y s an e x t r e m e l y d e v i a n t p a t t e r n ( F i g u r e 4 a ) , as does the Advanced l e v e l Japanese group ( F i g u r e 4 c ) . These p a t t e r n s a r e u n r e l i a b l e because of the s m a l l n i n each of these two n a t i v e language groups. F i g u r e s 4a, b and c r e v e a l t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , 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 i n c r e a s e s , the 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 f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s a p p r o x i m a t e s t h a t of the c o n t r o l group ( i e . h i g h p r o p o r t i o n 69 of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 4 and 6; low p r o p o r t i o n f o r #2, 3, 5 and 7 ) . However, a c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n of the f i g u r e s r e v e a l s two f u r t h e r p o i n t s . F i r s t , the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Vietnamese group's d r a m a t i c a l l y low 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 response on a l l the c o n s t r u c t i o n 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 ( C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2, 3, 5 and 7) c o u l d tend t o c r e a t e an o v e r a l l B e g i n n i n g l e v e l response t h a t more c l o s e l y a p p r o x i m a t e s the Advanced l e v e l ' s . Second, the c l u s t e r i n g of B e g i n n i n g l e v e l r e sponses i n the 80% range on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4, as opposed t o the r e l a t i v e l y g r e a t e r amount of d i s p e r s i o n i n the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l ' s responses on the same c o n s t r u c t i o n s , a l s o tends to c r e a t e a response t h a t i s more l i k e the Advanced l e v e l ' s . These two p o i n t s may account f o r the r a t h e r anomalous f i n d i n g s o b t a i n e d i n the 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 main e f f e c t , where B e g i n n e r s were found t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from I n t e r m e d i a t e s on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response (see T able 12A). That the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l showed a g r e a t e r d i s p e r s i o n of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4 may be due t o the f a c t t h a t the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l had the h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y i n g e i t h e r P a t t e r n 3 or 4. These p a t t e r n s had low p r o p o r t i o n s of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses on C o n s t r u c t i o n #4 and 1, r e s p e c t i v e l y . There was a wide d i s p a r i t y 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 reponse f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s , 70 between n a t i v e language groups and between 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 ( F i g u r e s #5a, b and c ) . A l l c o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type main e f f e c t on the 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 f o r the c o n t r a s t between C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7. One reason f o r the s i m i l a r i t y between t h e s e two c o n s t r u c t i o n s may be the f a c t t h a t b o t h i n v o l v e Forwards P r o . W i t h r e g a r d to the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d f o r the N a t i v e Language Background main e f f e c t on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type (Table 11A), F i g u r e s 5a, b and c r e v e a l why the P o l i s h group c o n t r a s t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h a l l o t h e r n a t i v e language groups. I t d i s p l a y e d the l o w e s t 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 almost a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s , a t a l l 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 . In a d d i t i o n , on C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 the P o l i s h c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e was o p p o s i t e t o t h a t of most o t h e r groups, i n c r e a s i n g i n p r o p o r t i o n r a t h e r than d e c r e a s i n g . The s i g n i f i c a n t Vietnamese-Japanese c o n t r a s t may have been caused, once a g a i n , by the m i s s i n g B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Japanese group and the s m a l l n i n both groups. F i g u r e s 5a, b and c r e v e a l t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , 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 i n c r e a s e 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 response f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s a p p r o x i m a t e s t h a t of the c o n t r o l group ( h i g h on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2 and 5; medium on #3 and 7; low on #1, 4 and 6 ) . The Vietnamese group, w i t h i t s 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 r e sponses on almost a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s a t both 71 the 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 , does seem t o be a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d 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 main e f f e c t ( Table 12B). However, i t must be noted t h a t most language groups at both 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 do d i s p l a y a g e n e r a l l y lower 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 esponses on C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 and a h i g h e r 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 on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4, than e i t h e r the Advanced l e v e l or the C o n t r o l group. J u s t as i n the case of the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l and c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e s , t h e r e i s a c l e a r d i s p a r i t y , though not as g r e a t , i n 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 f o r a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s , between n a t i v e language groups and between 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 ( F i g u r e s #6a, b and c ) . A l l c o n t r a s t s f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type main e f f e c t on the o p t i o n a l response type a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e , e x c e p t i n g the c o n t r a s t between C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2 and 6. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o te t h a t C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 i s a Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n whereas C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 i s a B l o c k e d Forwards 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 t h i s a r e u n c l e a r . However, c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t the o p t i o n a l response was l i t t l e used on any c o n s t r u c t i o n by the e x p e r i m e n t a l group as a whole and c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 was the l e a s t w e l l p r o c e s s e d of the t h r e e b l o c k e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s , i t i s not u n l i k e l y t h a t some element of chance may have p l a y e d a p a r t i n t h i s f i n d i n g . 72 The N a t i v e Language Background main e f f e c t c o n t r a s t s r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s between P o l i s h - C a n t o n e s e , P o l i s h - V i e t n a m e s e , P o l i s h - M i s c e l l a n e o u s and Cantonese-Japanese groups on the o p t i o n a l response type (see T a b l e 11C). The s i g n i f i c a n t P o l i s h - C a n t o n e s e c o n t r a s t seems t o have been caused i n l a r g e p a r t by the extreme d i f f e r e n c e s i n response between the Advanced l e v e l s of the two groups on C o n s t r u c t i o n #3, the Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h a p o s t p o s e d " t h a t " c l a u s e ( F i g u r e 6 c ) . The s i g n i f i c a n t P o l i s h - M i s c e l l a n e o u s c o n t r a s t may have been caused by the d i s c r e p a n c i e s between th e s e two groups at the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 2, and a t the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 5. ( F i g u r e s 6b and 6a, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The s i g n i f i c a n t P o l i s h - V i e t n a m e s e and Cantonese-Japanese c o n t r a s t s may have been due t o the r a t h e r d e v i a n t responses d i s p l a y e d by the Vietnamese and Japanese groups, both of which a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the o t h e r n a t i v e language groups by the s m a l l e r number of s u b j e c t s i n each. Of the t h r e e response t y p e s , the e x p e r i m e n t a l group's o p t i o n a l response i s the most d i s s i m i l a r from the c o n t r o l group d a t a , which showed medium-high p r o p o r t i o n s on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7; low p r o p o r t i o n s on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #2, 5, 6, 1 and 4. I t i s the l e a s t used, and l e a s t w e l l used response t y p e . I t does not seem u n u s u a l , t h e r e f o r e , t o f i n d t h a t 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 c o n t r a s t s on the o p t i o n a l response 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 B e g i n n i n g l e v e l 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 from the Advanced l e v e l . T h i s seems t o be a r e s u l t of the low p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r esponses on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4 by a l l n a t i v e language groups a t the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l and the h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r esponses on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7 by most n a t i v e language groups at the Advanced l e v e l ( F i g u r e s 6a and 6c, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . N a t i v e Language Background 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 By and l a r g e , a l l n a t i v e language groups show a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p a t t e r n t h a t i s s i m i l a r t o t h e C o n t r o l ( F i g u r e #7a). 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 responses on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4. There i s a n o t i c e a b l e d e c l i n e i n the p r o p o r t i o n of response on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. T h i s i s an e x p e c t e d f i n d i n g i n view of the f a c t t h a t C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 i s a B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , i s more d i f f i c u l t t o p r o c e s s than the B l o c k e d Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s . The 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 response f o r the r e s t of the c o n s t r u c t i o n s i s r e l a t i v e l y low. The n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p a t t e r n a c r o s s a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e r o u g h l y s i m i l a r f o r a l l n a t i v e language groups. However, t h e r e a r e some n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s . On C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 the P o l i s h group shows the 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 s whereas the 74 Japanese group shows the l o w e s t . On C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 the Vietnamese group g i v e s a v e r y n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e response whereas the o t h e r n a t i v e language groups d i s p l a y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s of t h i s r e s p onse. And on C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 the P o l i s h and Vietnamese groups d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m s e l v e s by g i v i n g , r e s p e c t i v e l y , the h i g h e s t and lowest 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 . I t appears t o be the case t h a t the P o l i s h , Vietnamese and Japanese groups' responses on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #6, 7 and 2 account f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language Background 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 f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language main e f f e c t on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e . Because t h e s e groups are so d i s s i m i l a r i n terms of c e l l s i z e , the P o l i s h group h a v i n g one of the l a r g e s t and the Vietnamese and Japanese groups h a v i n g the s m a l l e s t , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t these r e s u l t s . An attempt a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may b e s t be conducted a f t e r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the d i s c u s s i o n s on the o t h e r two response t y p e s . I t i s e a s i e r t o d e t e c t those n a t i v e language groups which c o n t r i b u t e d t o the s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language Background 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 N a t i v e Language Background main e f f e c t on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type ( F i g u r e #7b). The P o l i s h group 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 c o r e f e r e n t i a l response on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #5, 2 and 6. The Vietnamese group 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 response on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #7 and 3. However, a g a i n because of the 75 unequal c e l l s i z e , c a u t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s . One p o i n t t h a t b e a r s n o t i n g , however, i s the d i s s i m i l a r i t y 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 response between the P o l i s h group, on the one hand, and the Cantonese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s g r o u p s , on the o t h e r , on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4. T h i s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g , c o n s i d e r i n g these t h r e e groups are the l a r g e s t and the most s i m i l a r i n terms of numbers. We w i l l r e t u r n t o t h i s p o i n t i n a subsequent s e c t i o n . The o p t i o n a l response d i s p l a y s the l e a s t v a r i a b i l i t y of a l l t h r e e response t y p e s ( F i g u r e #7c). As mentioned numerous ti m e s p r e v i o u s l y , i t i s the l e a s t used of the t h r e e response t y p e s . I t appears t h a t the P o l i s h group, a g a i n , a c c o u n t s f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language Background 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 the s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language main e f f e c t on the o p t i o n a l response t y p e . I t d i s p l a y s a r e l a t i v e l y 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 r esponse on a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s . The Japanese group d i s p l a y s a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n . However, once a g a i n , because of unequal c e l l s i z e , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s d i f f i c u l t . Note a g a i n , however, the d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s between the P o l i s h group and the Cantonese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s g roups. In summary, the s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language Background 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 the s i g n i f i c a n t N a t i v e Language main e f f e c t apppear t o have been due t o the l a r g e s t and s m a l l e s t n a t i v e language groups i n the s t u d y . W h i l e the weaknesses i n the d e s i g n of the study a r e t h u s 76 r e v e a l e d , t h e r e are s u f f i c i e n t i n d i c a t i o n s i n the data t o w arrant 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 , the d i s c r e p a n c i e s between the P o l i s h group and the Cantonese and M i s c e l l a n e o u s groups on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l and o p t i o n a l response bears f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h i s p o i n t w i l l be a d d r e s s e d i n the d i s c u s s i o n on the N a t i v e Language Background Main E f f e c t . E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l 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 The n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response r e s u l t s of 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 on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e #8a. Note the neat o r d e r i n g of each l e v e l f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #4, 1 and 6. By and l a r g e the c o n t r o l group d i s p l a y s the 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 , f o l l o w e d by t h e Advanced, I n t e r m e d i a t e and B e g i n n i n g l e v e l s . On C o n s t r u c t i o n s #7, 3, 2 and 5 t h i s o r d e r i n g i s s y m m e t r i c a l l y r e v e r s e d . The c o n t r a s t between the C o n t r o l and B e g i n n i n g l e v e l i s the most pronounced and appears t o account f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l 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 as w e l l as the s i g n i f i c a n t 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 e f f e c t on the 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 mentioned e a r l i e r , the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t o b t a i n e d between the 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 the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response seems t o have been due t o the unexpected n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e response of the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Vietnamese group and by the 77 d i f f e r e n c e s i n response 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 and 4. The c o r e f e r e n t i a l response r e s u l t s of 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 on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s are g i v e n i n F i g u r e #8b. Note t h a t the heat o r d e r i n g of the l e v e l s i s l e s s pronounced h e r e . The B e g i n n i n g l e v e l and C o n t r o l c o n t i n u e t o d i f f e r the most. The s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d between the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l and the C o n t r o l on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response (Table 12B) seems t o have been caused by t h e i r d i v e r g e n c e i n response on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #7, 3, 6, 1 and 4. The o p t i o n a l response r e s u l t s of 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 on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e #8c. A l l l e v e l s d i f f e r from each o t h e r on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7. T h i s p o s s i b l y a c c o u n t s f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d between the C o n t r o l and a l l 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 on the o p t i o n a l response type ( T a b l e 12C), as w e l l as the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t 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 ( T able 12C). In summary, on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p 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 , i n i t s e l f , seems t o have a c c o u n t e d f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l 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 the s i g n i f i c a n t 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 e f f e c t on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e . On the c o r e f e r e n t i a l and o p t i o n a l response t y p e s , an i n t e r a c t i o n 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 and c o n s t r u c t i o n t y pe seems t o 78 have a c c o u n t e d f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n and main e f f e c t s o b t a i n e d . L a s t l y , the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type appears t o be the most r o b u s t of the t h r e e response t y p e s . C o n s t r u c t i o n Type Main E f f e c t C o n t r a s t s undertaken f o r the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type e f f e c t r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type (Table 10A). I t r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , except #3 v s . 7, on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type (Table 10B). F i n a l l y , i t r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , except #2 v s . 6, on the o p t i o n a l response type (Table 10C). As mentioned e a r l i e r , these r e s u l t s are i n k e e p i n g w i t h the 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 t y p e s . N a t i v e Language Background Main E f f e c t C o n t r a s t s u ndertaken f o r the N a t i v e Language Background e f f e c t r e v e a l e d a number of s i g n i f i c a n t n a t i v e language c o n t r a s t s . For the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e , a t o t a l of seven s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s , out of a t o t a l of t e n , were o b t a i n e d ( T a b l e 11A). T h i s was the l a r g e s t number of s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d f o r any of the t h r e e response t y p e s . For the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e , f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s were o b t a i n e d ( T a b l e 11B). On the o p t i o n a l response t y p e , 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 o b t a i n e d 79 ( T a b l e 1 1C). The f o r e g o i n g c o n t r a s t s must be i n t e r p r e t e d c a u t i o u s l y . As mentioned e a r l i e r , the l a r g e s t and s m a l l e s t n a t i v e language groups, P o l i s h , Vietnamese and Japanese, seem t o account f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d . However, a c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n of the 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 p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s d e s i g n , t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the N a t i v e Langage Background e f f e c t does p l a y a r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g the responses of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s . Note t h a t the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups, two of the l a r g e s t groups i n the s t u d y , d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l and o p t i o n a l response c o n t r a s t s . F u r t h e r m o r e , even though the two groups' c e l l s i z e s a r e r o u g h l y comparable, the Cantonese group was i n v o l v e d i n f a r fewer s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s w i t h o t h e r n a t i v e language groups than the P o l i s h group, f o u r as opposed t o n i n e . I f unequal c e l l s i z e was, by i t s e l f , the reason why s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s were o b t a i n e d , one would n o r m a l l y assume t h a t the l a r g e s t groups i n the s t u d y s h o u l d tend not t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r , nor s h o u l d they d i f f e r from each o t h e r i n c o n t r a s t s made w i t h o t h e r language groups. However, such i s not the c a s e . C o n s i d e r one more p o i n t . A l t h o u g h the language c o n t r a s t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h r e e t a b l e s , each p r e s e n t i n g the c o n t r a s t s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r response t y p e , i t must be remembered t h a t the t a b l e s do not r e p r e s e n t t h r e e d i s c r e t e 80 " t e s t s " , but r a t h e r one t e s t i n which t h r e e r e sponse o p t i o n s are p o s s i b l e . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the t h r e e t a b l e s l i e s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between them, r a t h e r than i n t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n each. The best example t o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t i s i n comparing, once a g a i n , the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups a c r o s s a l l t h r e e t a b l e s . Note t h a t i n r e g a r d s to the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type both groups d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the Vietnamese and Japanese groups, but not from each o t h e r ( T a b l e 11A) . The f a c t t h a t both P o l i s h and Cantonese groups d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the same n a t i v e language groups can s i m p l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o unequal c e l l s i z e s . A f t e r a l l , the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups a r e much l a r g e r than any o t h e r n a t i v e language group. However, on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response c o n t r a s t the 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 g r o u p s , i n c l u d i n g the Cantonese group, whereas the Cantonese group does not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from any o t h e r language group except the P o l i s h group (Table 11B). Can t h i s f i n d i n g a l s o be a t t r i b u t e d t o unequal c e l l s i z e s ? I t would be i n c o n s i s t e n t t o make such a c l a i m , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e performance of both groups on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e . 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 Cantonese groups' c o n t r a s t s w i t h o t h e r n a t i v e language groups on the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type? One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups u t i l i z e 81 the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type i n q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t manner. S i m i l a r l y , on the o p t i o n a l response c o n t r a s t , the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each 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 c o n t r a s t s o b t a i n e d by e i t h e r group are w i t h m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e language groups (Table 11C). That i s , a s i d e from each o t h e r , the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups do not o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s w i t h the same language groups. Once a g a i n , unequal c e l l s i z e s does not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y account f o r these d a t a , c o n s i d e r i n g both groups' performances on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l and c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e s . In summary, the d a t a suggest a p o s s i b l e s i m i l a r i t y between P o l i s h and Cantonese s u b j e c t s i n u t i l i z a t i o n of the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e , but d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s on the o t h e r r e sponse t y p e s . 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 E f f e c t By and l a r g e , the c o n t r a s t s undertaken 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 y i e l d e d r e s u l t s t h a t are i n k e e p i n g w i t h the r a t h e r o b v i o u s p r e d i c t i o n t h a t the lower E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l r esponses would tend t o d i f f e r more from the c o n t r o l group responses than the advanced E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l r e s p o n s e s . T h i s i s seen most c l e a r l y on the c o n t r a s t s f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e , where b o t h 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 d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the C o n t r o l group, but the Advanced l e v e l d i d not (Table 12B). 82 On the o p t i o n a l response t y p e , a l l 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 d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the C o n t r o l group. However, the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l 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 from the Advanced l e v e l (Table 12C). T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t , w h i l e Advanced s u b j e c t s c l e a r l y do not g i v e n a t i v e s p e a k e r - t y p e responses on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e sponse, they a r e n o n e t h e l e s s d i s t i n c t enough t o d i s t i n g u i s h them from B e g i n n i n g l e v e l s u b j e c t s . Remembering the r a t h e r low 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 g i v e n t o any c o n s t r u c t i o n by the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t the o p t i o n a l r e s ponse i s one t h a t e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s , of whatever p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l , a r e r e l u c t a n t t o u t i l i z e . T h i s may be because the n o t i o n of p o s s i b l e a m b i g u i t y of p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e i s a s o p h i s t i c a t e d one and a c q u i r e d l a t e i n the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s . C o n t r a s t s f o r the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type y i e l d e d an anomalous f i n d i n g . In keeping w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n , the B e g i n n i n g l e v e l d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the C o n t r o l group, 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 from the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l ( T a b l e 12A). T h i s l a s t r e s u l t was an u nexpected one. However, as i n d i c a t e d i n the d i s c u s s i o n on 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 By N a t i v e Language Background 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 , t h i s anomalous f i n d i n g can be a t t r i b u t e d t o the d e v i a n t B e g i n n i n g l e v e l Vietnamese group's n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response and the d i f f e r e n c e i n 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 response between B e g i n n i n g and I n t e r m e d i a t e 83 l e v e l s on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4. B. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMON PATTERNS OF RESPONSE Each of the ten common p a t t e r n s of response mentioned i n the NON-STATISTICAL ANALYSIS s e c t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d below w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of the s t r a t e g i e s t h a t might have been employed t o produce them. P a t t e r n 1 T h i s p a t t e r n i s based 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 d i v i d e d i n t o two subgroups. P a t t e r n 1a i s the same as Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n IA. In t h i s p a t t e r n the s u b j e c t ' s r e sponses a r e a l l c o r e f e r e n t i a l ones. When pronoun and d e f i n i t e noun phrase c o - o c c u r , a n a p h o r i c assignments are a u t o m a t i c a l l y made (Ch a r t 1a). P a t t e r n 1b i s the same as one of Ingram and Shaw's s u b j e c t s who gave a l l 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 . I t i s not q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from P a t t e r n 1a. Once a g a i n , a c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y seems t o be a p p l i e d . When pronoun and d e f i n i t e noun phrase c o - o c c u r , the 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 i s b l o c k e d (Chart 1b). 84 CHART 1A Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back II B l o c k e d Forwards 3 5 7 2 1 4 6 NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTI AL 0 - 2 . 3 - X X X X X X X RESPONSE 5 CHART 1B Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o Backwards P r o Bl o c k e d Back ii B l o c k e d Forwards 3 5 7 2 1 4 6 NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X The f a c t t h a t the two subgroups of P a t t e r n 1 y i e l d t o t a l l y o p p o s i t e a n a p h o r i c judgements i s not an i m p o r t a n t c o n c e r n , s i n c e , i n both c a s e s , judgements are made s o l e l y on co'-occurence. I t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t such f a c t o r s as i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n , amount and n a t u r e of exposure t o the 85 t a r g e t language and n a t i v e language background p l a y r o l e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g the s p e c i f i c a n a p h o r i c assignment made when a co - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y i s employed. A co-occurence s t r a t e g y i s the s i m p l e s t one. I t does not i n v o l v e r e c o u r s e t o any o t h e r s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t , nor does i t seem t o i n v o l v e r e c o u r s e t o n o n - s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s , such as semantic, p r a g m a t i c or l e x i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h i s p a t t e r n i s the same as Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n I I I A . The s u b j e c t i s u s i n g a precedence s t r a t e g y . When pronoun 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 i s b l o c k e d , hence n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses a r e g i v e n t o C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 2 and 4 (Chart 2 ) . The s e n s i t i v i t y t o the precedence c o n s t r a i n t suggests t h a t P a t t e r n 2 i s a r e f i n e m e n t on the P a t t e r n 1 s t r a t e g y . CHART 2 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response P a t t e r n 2 CONSTRUCTION TYPE NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 Forwards Pro 3 5 7 2 X X X ? ! II Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back X X X 4 6 B l o c k e d Forward X 86 P a t t e r n 3 Though t h i s p a t t e r n i s numbered s e q u e n t i a l l y a f t e r P a t t e r n 2, i t i s not c l e a r whether i t i s , i n f a c t , a p a t t e r n t h a t d e v e l o p s s u b s e q u e n t l y . T h i s c o n c e r n a p p l i e s t o P a t t e r n s 4 and 5 as w e l l . T h i s p a t t e r n i s the same as Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n I I A . The s u b j e c t c o r r e c t l y b l o c k s C o n s t r u c t i o n #1, but a l l o w s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n on a l l o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s (Chart 3 ) . Ingram and Shaw suggested t h a t P a t t e r n 3 i n d i c a t e d the use of a co- o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h some awareness of the precedence c o n s t r a i n t . I f Ingram and Shaw are c o r r e c t i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the c o n t i n u e d r e l i a n c e on a co - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y s u g g e s t s t h a t P a t t e r n 3, as w e l l as P a t t e r n s 4 and 5, are 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 P a t t e r n 2. CHART 3 Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 Forwards Pro 3 X X X X 5 7 Backwards Pro 2 B l o c k e d Back 1 4 B l o c k e d Forwards 6 X X X 87 P a t t e r n 4 T h i s i s a p a t t e r n not found i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . In t h i s p a t t e r n , the s u b j e c t g i v e s a c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t o a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , e x cept C o n s t r u c t i o n #4 (C h a r t 4 ) . The s u b j e c 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 . Note the s i m i l a r i t i e s between P a t t e r n 4 and P a t t e r n 3. In both c a s e s the s u b j e c t c o r r e c t l y b l o c k s one of the two B l o c k e d Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s , w h i l e 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 a l l o t h e r s . P a t t e r n 4 i n v o l v e s the same s t r a t e g y , or s t r a t e g i e s , as P a t t e r n 3. The d i f f e r e n c e between these two p a t t e r n s seems t o l i e i n the d i f f e r e n c e s i n response t o the d i f f e r e n t s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s i n v o l v e d i n the B l o c k e d Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s . P a t t e r n 3 s u b j e c t s w i l l c o r r e c t l y b l o c k c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h a s u b o r d i n a t e " t h a t " c l a u s e , w h i l e i n c o r r e c t y 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h a s u b o r d i n a t e "when" and " a f t e r " c l a u s e . P a t t e r n 4 s u b j e c t s do e x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e . A d i f f e r e n c e i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o v a r i o u s s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s appears t o be the f a c t o r t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s P a t t e r n 3 and 4. 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 Forwards Pro 3 5 7 2 X X X X X Tf Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back 4 6 X X B l o c k e d Forward P a t t e r n 5 T h i s i s a l s o a p a t t e r n not found i n the Ingrain and Shaw s t u d y . In t h i s p a t t e r n , the s u b j e c t g i v e s a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponse t o a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , e xcept C o n s t r u c t i o n #5 (C h a r t 5 ) . The s u b j e c t c o r r e c t l y a l l o w s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n on o n l y one c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s p a t t e r n does not appear t o be q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from e i t h e r P a t t e r n s 3 or 4. A c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y , combined w i t h some awareness of the precedence 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 the ty p e of response t h a t a P a t t e r n 1a s u b j e c t would d i s p l a y upon a c q u i s i t i o n of a more advanced s t r a t e g y . Because a P a t t e r n 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 sponses on a l l 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 of p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s would be r e v e a l e d by the appearance of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s ponses on a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I f 89 the precedence c o n s t r a i n t p l a y s a r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s , then the f i r s t appearance of n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses would occur w i t h the B l o c k e d Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s , e i t h e r C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 or 4. C o n s i d e r , n e x t , the t ype of response t h a t a P a t t e r n 1b s u b j e c t would d i s p l a y upon a c q u i s i t i o n of a more advanced s t r a t e g y . Because a P a t t e r n 1b s u b j e c t d i s p l a y s o n l y n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses on a l l 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 of p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s would be r e v e a l e d by the appearance of c o r e f e r e n t i a l responses on a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I f the precedence c o n s t r a i n t p l a y s a r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s , the f i r s t appearance of c o r e f e r e n t i a l r esponses would not be on a c o n s t r u c t i o n 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 , but on one t h a t i n v o l v e s 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 , e i t h e r C o n s t r u c t i o n #3, 5, 6 or 7. The f a c t t h a t P a t t e r n 5 s u b j e c t s d i s p l a 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 #5, and not 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 c l a u s e d i s t i n c t i o n ( i n the case of C o n s t r u c t i o n #5 v s . 3) as w e l l as an i n t e r v s . i n t r a c l a u s a l d i s t i n c t i o n ( i n the case of C o n s t r u c t i o n #5 vs 7. R e c a l l S o l a n ' s f i n d i n g t h a t i n t r a - c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s tended t o be b l o c k e d more than i n t e r - c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s . ) . 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X Forwards Pro 3 5 7 2 I! X X X X X Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back 4 6 B l o c k e d Forward P a t t e r n 6 T h i s p a t t e r n was, a g a i n , not found i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . 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 response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3 and 4. The B l o c k e d Backwards r u l e seems t o have been a c q u i r e d , but the B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e does n o t . A l s o , the s u b j e c t i s i n c o r r e c t l y 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 #3. P a t t e r n 6 i s d i v i d e d i n t o two subgroups, P a t t e r n 6a and P a t t e r n 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 p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3 and 4 (Chart 6A). P a t t e r n 6b 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 p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3, 4 and 7 (Chart 6B). 91 CHART 6A Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE Forwards P r o 3 5 7 Backwards Pro 2 B l o c k e d Back 1 4 Bl o c k e d Forward 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 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Forwards P r o CONSTRUCTION TYPE 3 5 Backwards P r o B l o c k e d Back ti B l o c k e d Forward NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X 7 2 1 4 6 X X X X X Note the r a t h e r p e c u l i a r s t a t u s of C o n s t r u c t i o n #7. In the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y , P a t t e r n I I I was d i v i d e d i n t o two subgroups, P a t t e r n s I I I A and I I I B . The d i s t i n c t i o n between the two p a t t e r n s was i n the response t o C o n s t r u c t i o n #7. Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n I I was s i m i l a r l y d i v i d e d i n t o two 92 subgroups, P a t t e r n s I I A and I I B . Once a g a i n , the d i f f e r e n c e s i n response t o C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 was the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two. Ingram and Shaw s t a t e , ... I t t u r n s out 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 than the o t h e r s i x c o n s t r u c t i o n s , and appears t o undergo i t s own autonomous development. 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 suggests an e x p l a n a t i o n . F i r s t , i t i n v o l v e s c l a u s e i n t e r n a l 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 caught up w i t h the a c q u i s i t i o n of r e f l e x i v e s . I t may be t h a t the p r o c e s s i n g of C o n s t r u c t i o n 7 a t any p o i n t i n development i s h i g h l y i n f l u e n c e d by the c h i l d ' s knowledge of r e f l e x i v e s . (Ingram and Shaw, 1981, p. 31 ) Whatever the reason f o r the p e c u l i a r s t a t u s of C o n s t r u c t i o n #7, i t s prominence i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the two subgroups of a p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n h o l d s t r u e f o r P a t t e r n 6, as w e l l as P a t t e r n 7, as w i l l be seen 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 appears t o have a d i s t i n c t i v e s t r u c t u r e from a l l o t h e r Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I t s t a n d s out i n P a t t e r n 7 as w e l l . By 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 C o n s t r u c t i o n #2, the Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n , P a t t e r n 6 s u b j e c t s appear t o be aware of the command c o n s t r a i n t . However, t h e i r p r o c e s s i n g of b o t h B l o c k e d Forwards and Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s i s i n c o m p l e t e . T h i s r e s u l t i s i n kee p i n g w i t h the Ingram and Shaw da t a which 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 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 a r e a c q u i r e d b e f o r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g f o r w a r d p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . 93 P a t t e r n 7 P a t t e r n 7 i s a n o ther new p a t t e r n r e v e a l e d by t h i s s t u d y . 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 response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3, 4 and 6. I t i s s i m i l a r t o the a d u l t p a t t e r n , i n t h a t Backwards P r o , B l o c k e d Backwards and B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s seem t o have been a c q u i r e d . However, the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n #3 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 6 and P a t t e r n 7. However, P a t t e r n 7 appears t o be a s t a g e subsequent t o P a t t e r n 6. T h i s i s because P a t t e r n 7 s u b j e c t s c o r r e c t l y b l o c k both B l o c k e d Back and B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s , a l t h o u g h they c o n t i n u e t o p r o c e s s C o n s t r u c t i o n #3 i n c o r r e c t l y . P a t t e r n 7 can a l s o be d i v i d e d i n t o two subgroups, P a t t e r n 7a and 7b. Once a g a i n , the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two subgroups l i e s i n d i f f e r e n c e s i n response t o C o n s t r u c t i o n #7. In P a t t e r n 7a t h e r e i s a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3, 4 and 6 ( C h a r t 7A). P a t t e r n 7b c h a r a c t e r i z e d a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p a t t e r n t o C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 (Chart 7B). CHART 7A Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Forwards Pro CONSTRUCTION TYPE 3 5 Backwards Pro Bl o c k e d Back B l o c k e d Forward NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X 7 2 1 4 6 X X X X X CHART 7B Response 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Forwards Pro CONSTRUCTION TYPE 3 5 Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back B l o c k e d Forward 7 2 1 4 6 NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X X 95 P a t t e r n 8 T h i s p a t t e r n i s the same as the p a t t e r n shown by t h r e e of Ingram and Shaw's s u b j e c t s , i n which a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e was shown towards C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 2, 4 and 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 response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 (Chart 8 ) . These s u b j e c t s appear t o have a c q u i r e d the B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e b e f o r e the B l o c k e d Backwards r u l e , as e v i d e n c e d i n the c o r r e c t bl.ocking of C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 s e n t e n c e s , but the i n c o r r e c t b l o c k i n g of C o n s t r u c t i o n #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 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTI AL RESPONSE Forwards Pro Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back T! B l o c k e d Forward 3 5 7 2 1 4 6 0 - 2 X X (X) 3 - 5 (X) X X X X P a t t e r n 8 s u b j e c t s c o r r e c t l y b l o c k b oth B l o c k e d Back and B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s . They a l s o c o r r e c t l y a l l o w p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n on a l l Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s . However, they i n c o r r e c t l y b l o c k the Backwards P r o c o n s t r u c t i o n , #2. Ingram and Shaw noted 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 t h i s p a t t e r n , c o n t r a r y 96 t o the evidence of the main body of d a t a , suggested a s i t u a t i o n i n which the c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g forwards p r o n i m i n a l i z a t i o n a r e a c q u i r e d b e f o r e those 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 . They suggested t h a t " t h e r e i s no reason why some c h i l d r e n wouldn't a c q u i r e the ( B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e ) b e f o r e the ( B l o c k e d Back r u l e ) , a p a r t from 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 based on markedness" (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 of P a t t e r n 8 i s t h a t i t i s not a p a t t e r n t h a t d e v e l o p s subsequent to P a t t e r n s 6 and 7, but i s , r a t h e r , a p a r a l l e l p a t t e r n . C o n s i d e r P a t t e r n s 6 and 7. These p a t t e r n s i n d i c a t e d c o r r e c t p r o c e s s i n g of B l o c k e d Back and Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s , i n the case of the for m e r , and c o r r e c t p r o c e s s i n g of B l o c k e d Back, Backwards Pro and B l o c k e d Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s , i n the case of the l a t t e r . In both p a t t e r n s , the Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n , #3, i s i n c o r r e c t l y p r o c e s s e d . In P a t t e r n 8, B l o c k e d Back, B l o c k e d Forwards and Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s a re c o r r e c t l y p r o c e s s e d . The Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n , #2, i s n o t . A c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between P a t t e r n s 6 and 7, on the one hand, and P a t t e r n 8, on the o t h e r , appears t o be a d i f f e r e n c e i n g e n e r a l p r o p e n s i t y towards e i t h e 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 or backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . P a t t e r n 6 and 7 s u b j e c t s appear t o have f o c u s s e d on p r o c e s s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 . P a t t e r n 8 s u b j e c t s appear t o have f o c u s s e d on p r o c e s s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g f o rwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . There 97 does not seem t o be any reason f o r p l a c i n g a s t r a t e g y t h a t c o n c e n t r a t e s on fo r w a r d s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n e i t h e r p r i o r t o or subsequent t o a s t r a t e g y t h a t c o n c e n t r a t e s on backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . They appear t o be d i f f e r e n t , but p a r a l l e l , 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 l e a r n e r . P a t t e r n 9 T h i s p a t t e r n i s the same as Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n IV. I t r e p r e s e n t s the c o r r e c t use of the B l o c k e d Backwards r u l e , i e . n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4, but l i t t l e or no awareness of the B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e , as e v i d e n c e d by a c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. T h i s p a t t e r n seems t o i n d i c a t e the emergence of a dominance r e l a t i o n . J u s t as Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n IV was d i v i d e d i n t o two subgroups, P a t t e r n 9 i s d i v i d e d i n t o two subgroups. P a t t e r n 9a 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 p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4 (C h a r t 9A). P a t t e r n 9b 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 p r e f e r e n c e t o C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 4 and 7 (Chart 9B). Ingram and Shaw suggest t h a t the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p a t t e r n f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 may be due t o some c l a u s e i n t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s , as suggested by Sol a n (see PREVIOUS RESEARCH s e c t i o n ) . P a t t e r n 9 appears t o be an o t h e r v a r i a t i o n of P a t t e r n s 6 and 7, i n t h a t a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 a r e p r o c e s s e d much b e t t e r than t h o s e t h a t i n v o l v e 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 . 9 8 CHART 9A Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Forwards Pro CONSTRUCTION TYPE 3 5 Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back B l o c k e d Forward NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X 7 2 1 4 6 X X X X X CHART 9B Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response Forwards Pro CONSTRUCTION TYPE 3 5 Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back tt B l o c k e d Forward 7 2 1 4 6 NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 X X X X X X P a t t e r n 10 T h i s p a t t e r n i s the same as Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n V. I t r e p r e s e n t s an a d u l t or near a d u l t - l i k e system of pro n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e . As i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y , t h i s p a t t e r n i s d i v i d e d i n t o two subgroups. P a t t e r n 10a i s the a d u l t system, 99 wherein 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 re g i v e n o n l y t o c o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 4 and 6 (C h a r t 10). P a t t e r n 10b s u b j e c t s showed a near a d u l t - l i k e response p r e f e r e n c e on a l l seven c o n s t r u c t i o n s . However, t h e r e was some weakening of the precedence and dominance c o n s t r a i n t s on o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s . The c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t o P a t t e r n 10b was the same as the one used f o r i n c l u s i o n i n Ingram and Shaw's P a t t e r n VB. I t was a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 4 and 6, and no more than 3 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n . Both F i g u r e s 9 and 10 show t h a t a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y e d t h i s p a t t e r n . CHART 10 Response P a t t e r n of 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 the N o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l Response CONSTRUCTION TYPE NUMBER OF NONCOREFERENTIAL RESPONSE 0 - 2 . 3 - 5 Forwards Pro 3 5 7 2 X X X X tl Backwards Pro B l o c k e d Back X X X B l o c k e d Forward 4 6 The t en common p a t t e r n s of response were grouped i n t o 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 were based on: (1) 100 a c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y ( P a t t e r n 1 ) , (2) a precedence s t r a t e g y ( P a t t e r n s 2, 3, 4 and 5 ) , (3) a d e v e l o p i n g command s t r a t e g y ( P a t t e r n s 6, 7, 8 and 9 ) , and (4) t h e a d u l t s t r a t e g y ( P a t t e r n 10). The p r o p o r t i o n s of e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s 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 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 a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e 11. Note t h a t both the co- o c c u r e n c e and precedence s t r a t e g i e s are d i s p l a y e d by a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s , but the tendency appears t o be one i n which t h e i r use d e c l i n e s w i t h i n c r e a s i n g E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y . The d e v e l o p i n g command s t r a t e g y i s employed by t h e l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s . I t s use seems t o i n c r e a s e w i t 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 . The a d u l t s t r a t e g y i s seen t o be u t i l i z e d by a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s . I t s use i n c r e a s e s 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 i n c r e a s e s . The f o u r major p a t t e r n s i n F i g u r e 11 were used t o compare the two n a t i v e language groups of i n t e r e s t , the P o l i s h and Cantonese groups. These d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 12. Note t h a t the co - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y i s employed by a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of both P o l i s h and Cantonese s u b j e c t s . A l s o , i t s use does seem t o d e c l i n e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y . The precedence s t r a t e g y i s employed by a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s i n both groups. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t , w h i l e the precedence s t r a t e g y seems t o d e c l i n e 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 i n c r e a s e s f o r the P o l i s h g r o u p , i t s use 101 seems t o i n c r e a s e 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 i n c r e a s e s f o r the Cantonese group. The d e v e l o p i n g command s t r a t e g y i n c r e a s e s q u i t e d r a m a t i c a l l y f o r the P o l i s h group 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 i n c r e a s e s . However, f o r the Cantonese group, i t peaks a t the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l and a c t u a l l y d e c l i n e s a t the Advanced l e v e l . The a d u l t s t r a t e g y appears to be u t i l i z e d by a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of P o l i s h s u b j e c t s a t a l l 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 . However, the o v e r a l l p a t t e r n of use a c r o s s a l l t h r e e l e v e l s appears t o be the same f o r both P o l i s h and Cantonese s u b j e c t s . A l t h o u g h the weaknesses i n the d e s i g n of the study make i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d i f f i c u l t , the d a t a show some i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between the two language groups. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of the s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e u n c l e a r because of the i n s u f f i c i e n c t d a t a on the p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n systems i n e i t h e r P o l i s h or Cantonese. C. COMPARISONS WITH THE INGRAM AND SHAW STUDY The d a t a i n F i g u r e s #2 and 3 a r e compared w i t h the Ingram and Shaw c o n t r o l group and e x p e r i m e n t a l group i n Ta b l e 14. For the purposes of comparing the r e s u l t s of the two s t u d i e s , o n l y the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response type r e s u l t s a r e g i v e n . T h i s i s because Ingram and Shaw d i d not employ an o p t i o n a l response t y p e . 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 PRESENT STUDY'S CONTROL PRESENT STUDY'S EXPT. GROUP INGRAM AND SHAW'S EXPT. GROUP Forwards P r o #3 #5 #7 Backwards Pro #2 B l o c k e d Back #1 #4 Bl o c k F o r w a r d #6 .07 . 10 .16 .08 .99 .95 .86 .09 .00 . 1 1 .06 .97 .99 .84 .36 . 1 2 .28 .29 .82 .82 .60 .22 .20 .36 .47 .81 .72 .22 A c o m p a r i s o n of the Ingram and Shaw c o n t r o l group d a t a w i t h t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s c o n t r o l group d a t a r e v e a l s a h i g h degree of s i m i l a r i t y . The one n o t i c e a b l e e x c e p t i o n i s on C o n s t r u c t i o n #5, a Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h a preposed s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e . The Ingram and Shaw c o n t r o l group showed a p r o p o r t i o n of .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 group showed a .00 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 . However, the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s c o n t r o l group gave a .14 p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r esponses on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between the two s t u d i e s ' c o n t r o l groups i s l e s s i n d i c a t i v e of r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups, and more an outcome of the d i f f e r e n t response o p t i o n s a l l o w e d i n 1 03 the p r e s e n t s t u d y . A l s o , t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y between the two c o n t r o l groups does seem t o support the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t c e r t a i n c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s , w i t h o u t a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t u a l c l u e s , do e l i c i t a response t h a t i n d i c a t e s a m b i g u i t y of pr o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e . The l i m i t a t i o n s of a p u r e l y s y n t a c t i c approach t o the problem i s made c l e a r h e r e . A comparison of the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s c o n t r o l group d a t a and the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l group d a t a r e v e a l s a c l o s e s i m i l a r i t y i n n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r o p o r t i o n s . W h i l e the e x p e r i m e n t a l group r e s u l t s were not as 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 , the t r e n d was towards 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 the Forwards and Backwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n s (#'s 3, 5, 7 and 2) and 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 the B l o c k e d c o n s t r u c t i o n s (#'s 1, 4 and 6) . The one p o i n t t o r a i s e r e g a r d i n g the c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l group comparison d e a l s w i t h C o n s t r u c t i o n #6, the B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n . R e c a l l t h a t , though Ingram and Shaw s i m i l a r l y found a c l o s e p a t t e r n i n g of t h e i r c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l groups' o v e r a l l r e s u l t s , t h e r e was one e x c e p t i o n , the comparison on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. Ingram and Shaw found t h a t t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t a l group d a t a showed a much lower 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 (.22) on t h i s 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 not the case i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Upon comparing the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l group and the Ingram and Shaw e x p e r i m e n t a l group, one f i n d s s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s of response 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 s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l group, as a whole, seems t o have a c q u i r e d the B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e , whereas Ingram and Shaw's e x p e r i m e n t a l group does n o t . Two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s suggest t h e m s e l v e s . F i r s t , the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l group may, as a whole, be a t a h i g h e r stage of development than the Ingram and Shaw s u b j e c t s . Or, s e c o n d l y , the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l group may be q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t language l e a r n e r s than the Ingram and Shaw s u b j e c t s . I t has a l r e a d y been noted t h a t the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l 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 of 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 the p r o c e s s i n g of the t e s t i t e m s . T h i s c e r t a i n l y p l a y s a major r o l e i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r the d i s c r e p a n c y noted above between the two s t u d i e s ' e x p e r i m e n t a l groups on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. The q u e s t i o n as t o whether the two e x p e r i m e n t a l groups r e p r e s e n t q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of language l e a r n e r s i s a more d i f f i c u l t one to r e s o l v e . A l l of the common p a t t e r n s of response o b t a i n e d i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y , i n c l u d i n g unexpected ones such as P a t t e r n 8, were e v i d e n c e d by the s u b j e c t s i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . However, 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 and 7. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s e new common p a t t e r n s of response a r e u n c l e a r . There a re two q u e s t i o n s which p r e s e n t t h e m s e l v e s . F i r s t , does the d i s c o v e r y of the new common p a t t e r n s of response c o n s t i t u t e p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t the f i r s t and second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s e s a re 105 d i s s i m i l a r ? And, second, does the d i s c o v e r y of the new common p a t t e r n s of response c o n s t i t u t e p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t f i r s t and second language l e a r n e r s a re q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of l e a r n e r s ? These are two f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n s . The d a t a o b t a i n e d i n the p r e s e n t study o f f e r s l i t t l e t o suggest t h a t the f i r s t and second language a c q u i s t i o n p r o c e s s e s a re ind e e d d i s s i l i m i a r ones. A l l ten common p a t t e r n s of r e s p o n s e , i n c l u d i n g the f o u r new p a t t e r n s , were i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n terms of the same s y n t a c t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . Co-occurence, precedence and command r e l a t i o n s , i n t e r v s . 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 , e t c . were a l l seen t o p l a y v i t a l r o l e s i n both the p r e s e n t study and the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . The f i r s t and second language a c q u i s i t i o n 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 o n b oth appear t o i n v o l v e r e c o u r s e t o the same s y n t a c t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . However, the f a c t t h a t new and d i f f e r e n t common p a t t e r n s of response were o b t a i n e d i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y does seem i n d i c a t i v e of r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between f i r s t and second language l e a r n e r s i n the 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 the same s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s . Take, f o r example, P a t t e r n s 3 and 4. P a t t e r n 3 was a p a t t e r n noted i n both the Ingram and Shaw study as w e l l as the p r e s e n t one. P a t t e r n 4 was noted i n o n l y the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Both p a t t e r n s seem t o have i n v o l v e d the use of a co- o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h some awareness of the precedence 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 . In P a t t e r n 4, o n l y C o n s t r u c t i o n #4 was b l o c k e d . I t was noted p r e v i o u s l y t h a t the 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 and 4 l a y i n the k i n d of s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e employed by both c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I t was suggested t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o d i f f e r e n t s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s appeared to be the f a c t o r t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y i n g these two p a t t e r n s . That the s u b j e c t s i n the p r e s e n t study showed a s e n s i t i v i t y t o a s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e which r e s u l t e d i n a new common p a t t e r n of response, and the Ingram and Shaw s u b j e c t s d i d no t , 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 the 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 s y n t a c t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n ( i e . s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e t y p e ) . The same argument c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o the o t h e r new common p a t t e r n s of r e s p o n s e , P a t t e r n s 5, 6 and 7. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e r e a r e o t h e r f a c t o r s which may account 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 p r e s e n t study and the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . The e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k d i f f e r s , a d u l t s u b j e c t s a r e used i n the former and c h i l d r e n i n t he l a t t e r , s u b j e c t s i n the p r e s e n t study have a l r e a d y a c q u i r e d one language, t h e r e i s a g r e a t d i v e r s i t y i n the makeup of the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s 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 , e t c . , and, as mentioned e a r l i e r , the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s sample g e n e r a l l y seems t o be a t a h i g h e r l e v e l of E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y than Ingram and Shaw's sample. However, by and l a r g e , the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n the p r e s e n t 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 and second language l e a r n e r s i n terms of p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s which w a r r a n t s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t the a c q u i s t i o n p r o c e s s i s not c o m p r i s e d of a p r e d e t e r m i n e d and i n v a r i a n t sequence of d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s , but a dynamic and c r e a t i v e p r o c e s s t h a t a l l o w s , w i t h i n the l i m i t s s e t by the Language 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. That i s , t h e r e does not seem t o be any reason why an a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r must i n i t i a l l y adopt a c o r e f e r e n t i a l c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y as opposed t o a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y . Nor does t h e r e seem t o be any reason why a B l o c k e d Forwards r u l e cannot be a c q u i r e d b e f o r e a B l o c k e d Backwards r u l e , even when the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by precede and command r e l a t i o n s a r e taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The d a t a s u g g e s t s t h a t language l e a r n e r s may r e a c h n a t i v e speaker p r o f i c i e n c y t h r o u g h a l i m i t e d number of a l t e r n a t i v e , but e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e , sequences of e v e n t s . In summary, the d a t a suggest t h a t i n the a c q u i s i t i o n 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 , a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s may i n i t i a l l y adopt one of two v a r i e t i e s of the c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y . They may 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 , P a t t e r n 1a, or they may make a l l n o n c o r e f e r e n i a l r e s p o n s e s , P a t t e r n 1b. P a t t e r n 1a may d e v e l o p i n t o P a t t e r n s 3 or 4, wherein 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 appear f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 or 4. P a t t e r n 1b may d e v e l o p i n t o P a t t e r n 5, wherein c o r e f e r e n t i a l 108 responses appear f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n #3. P a t t e r n s 3, 4 and 5 may then d e v e l o p i n t o P a t t e r n 2, a f u l l blown 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 r e s p o n s e s a r e g i v e n on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 2 and 4. P a t t e r n 2 might then d e v e l o p i n two d i r e c t i o n s . For some language l e a r n e r s , c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 a r e , f o r some r e a s o n , more s a l i e n t than c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g 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 . These language l e a r n e r s d i s p l a y such response p a t t e r n s as P a t t e r n 6, a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3 and 4, or P a t t e r n 7, a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 3, 4 and 6, or P a t t e r n 9, a n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response p r e f e r e n c e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1 and 4. Other language l e a r n e r s , however, may show a p r o p e n s i t y t o foc u s on tho s e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g 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 . These l e a r n e r s may d i s p l a y response p r e f e r e n c e s such as found i n P a t t e r n 8, wherein C o n s t r u c t i o n s #1, 2, 4 and 6 are b l o c k e d . F i n a l l y , both groups of language l e a r n e r s converge upon the n a t i v e speaker s t r a t e g y . V I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. SUMMARY The p r e s e n t study undertook a p a r t i a l r e p l i c a t i o n of the Ingram and Shaw (1981) study on pr o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e . The stud y was conducted i n an e f f o r t t o determine the 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 , precede and command r e l a t i o n s , on the a c q u i s i t i o n of the E n g l i s h system of 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 ESL l e a r n e r s . Two f u r t h e r problems were a d d r e s s e d . They were: (1) 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 between the f i r s t and second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s e s , and (2) the e f f e c t of n a t i v e language background on second language a c q u i s i t i o n . One hundred and e i g h t y f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s , r e p r e s e n t i n g 23 d i f f e r e n t n a t i v e language groups and t h r e e l e v e l s of E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y , were employed. A c o n t r o l group of 20 n a t i v e s p e a k e r s of E n g l i s h was a l s o used. The r e p l i c a t i o n was a p a r t i a l one, i n t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k was changed from an o r a l f o r m a t , as i n t h e o r i g i n a l s t u d y , t o a w r i t t e n one. A l s o , minor changes were made t o l e x i c a l i t e m s , p u n c t u a t i o n , v e r b type and t e n s e . A d d i t i o n a l changes 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 data a n a l y s i s p r o c e d u r e s . A l l the f o r e g o i n g changes were based upon the r e s u l t s of two p i l o t s t u d i e s and the s p e c i f i c needs of the p r e s e n t s t u d y . 109 1 1 0 T h i r t y f i v e 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 s entence c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s c o m p r i s e d the t e s t i n s t r u m e n t . The e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s t o make a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s t o pronouns i n each t e s t i t e m . C h o i c e of an t e c e d e n t f o r the pronoun was r e s t r i c t e d t o t h r e e o p t i o n s : an a c t o r whose name was c o n t a i n e d i n the t e s t i t e m , a d i f f e r e n t a c t o r whose name was not c o n t a i n e d i n the t e s t i t e m , or a response t h a t i n d i c a t e d a m b i g u i t y of r e f e r e n t . I f the s u b j e c t chose the name of the a c t o r c o n t a i n e d i n the t e s t item as the r e f e r e n t of the pronoun, s/he was s c o r e d as h a v i n g g i v e n a c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s e . I f the s u b j e c t chose the name of the a c t o r not c o n t a i n e d i n the t e s t i t e m as the r e f e r e n t of the pronoun s/he was s c o r e d as h a v i n g g i v e n 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 . I f the s u b j e c t i n d i c a t e d t h a t the r e f e r e n t of the pronoun c o u l d be e i t h e r of the two a c t o r s , s/he was s c o r e d as h a v i n g g i v e n an o p t i o n a l r e s p o n s e . Throughout the t a s k the names of o n l y two a c t o r s were employed. The f o l l o w i n g n u l l hypotheses were proposed i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y : A. There 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 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 on the 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 . B. There 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 n a t i v e language groups on the 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 . C. There 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n 111 t y p e s on the 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 . Over 99.5% of the t o t a l number of t e s t items i n the study was s a t i s f a c t o r i l y c o m p l e t e d . A 3 way 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 w i t h r e p e a t e d measures was performed on the d a t a . The t h r e e response o p t i o n s were the dependent v a r i a b l e s . E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l , n a t i v e language background and sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n type were the independent v a r i a b l e s . 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 was used t o determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the dependent v a r i a b l e s . The 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 t e s t s were employed t o determine t h o s e groups which d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r on each of the t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s . L a s t l y , an a n a l y s i s of i n d i v i d u a l and shared p a t t e r n s of response was u n d e r t a k e n u s i n g a 60% (3/5) c r i t e r i o n l e v e l on the n o n c o r e f e r e n t i a l response t y p e . The 3 way 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 r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n c e , a t the .01 l e v e l , 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 , N a t i v e Language Background and C o n s t r u c t i o n Type main e f f e c t s . I t a l s o r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n c e , a t the .01 l e v e l , 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 by C o n s t r u c t i o n Type and the N a t i v e Language Background 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 s . The three-way i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t ( E n g l i s h Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l by N a t i v e Language Background by C o n s t r u c t i o n Type) a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 l e v e l . 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 by N a t i v e Language 1 1 2 Background two-way i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t d i d not a t t a i n s i g n i f i c a n c e (.266). As a r e s u l t of these f i n d i n g s , the s t u d y ' s t h r e e n u l l hypotheses were r e j e c t e d . The 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 t e s t s were i n s t r u m e n t a l i n d e t e r m i n g the source of the s i g n i f i c a n t main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s noted above. The i n h e r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the seven c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s employed i n the study were seen t o be a major cause of a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s o b t a i n e d by the C o n s t r u c t i o n Type e f f e c t . The i n e q u a l i t y i n c e l l s i z e s was found t o be a major cause of a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s o b t a i n e d by the N a t i v e Language Background e f f e c t . R e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between 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 were seen to be the major cause of a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s o b t a i n e d by 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 . The a n a l y s i s of i n d i v i d u a l and shared p a t t e r n s of response r e v e a l e d 10 p a t t e r n s of r e sponse, a c c o u n t i n g f o r 92% of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s . When p r o p o r t i o n s of s u b j e c t s , a t each p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l , d i s p l a y i n g each of the 10 p a t t e r n s were a n a l y z e d , a d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequence appeared. P a t t e r n 1, r e p r e s e n t i n g the use of a c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y , was the dominant s t r a t e g y employed by B e g i n n i n g l e v e l s u b j e c t s , but became l e s s so as p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i n c r e a s e d . P a t t e r n s 3, 4 and 5, r e p r e s e n t i n g the use of a c o - occurence s t r a t e g y i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h some awareness of the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the precedence r e l a t i o n , showed, i n g e n e r a l , a g r a d u a l d e c l i n e i n use from B e g i n n i n g l e v e l t o 1 1 3 Advanced l e v e l . P a t t e r n 2, r e p r e s e n t i n g the use of a f u l l blown precedence s t r a t e g y , showed a d e c l i n e i n use from B e g i n n i n g t o Advanced l e v e l . P a t t e r n s 6, 7, 8 and 9, r e p r e s e n t i n g the use of a s t r a t e g y based on a d e v e l o p i n g awareness of the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by both the precedence and command r e l a t i o n s , i n c r e a s e d i n use from B e g i n n i n g t o Advanced l e v e l s . P a t t e r n 10, the a d u l t s t r a t e g y , was d i s p l a y e d by a s u r p r i s i n g l y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s and showed a g r a d u a l i n c r e a s e i n use from B e g i n n i n g t o Advanced l e v e l s . A comparison of the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s e x p e r i m e n t a l group and the Ingram and Shaw e x p e r i m e n t a l group r e v e a l e d t h a t the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s group appeared t o be a t a h i g h e r l e v e l of development than the o r i g i n a l s t u d y ' s group. T h i s was i n d i c a t e d by the d i f f e r e n c e s i n response between the two groups on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6. In a d d i t i o n , f o u r new common p a t t e r n s of response were uncovered by the p r e s e n t s t u d y , none of which appeared i n the Ingram and Shaw s t u d y . A comparison of the 10 common p a t t e r n s of r e s p o n s e , as d i s p l a y e d by two d i f f e r e n t n a t i v e language groups, P o l i s h and Cantonese, s u g g e s t e d , c o n t r a r y t o the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of n a t i v e language background as a f a c t o r i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n . However, due t o the f a c t t h a t l i t t l e l i t e r a t u r e i s a v a i l a b l e on the 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 , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n i n what way the p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e system of the mother language may have i n f l u e n c e d t h e 1 1 4 p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n response between th e s e two groups. B. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the f i n d i n g s of the p r e s e n t s t u d y , a number of c o n c l u s i o n s can be t e n t a t i v e l y drawn: 1) The s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t of precedence p l a y s a r o l e i n the a n a p h o r i c assignments made by a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . A l t h o u g h o n l y a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y e d a s t r a t e g y based s o l e l y on the precede r e l a t i o n ( P a t t e r n 2 ) , the i n f l u e n c e of the precedence c o n s t r a i n t on o t h e r s t r a t e g i e s i s d i f f i c u l t t o i g n o r e . Take, f o r example, P a t t e r n 5. P a t t e r n 5 s u b j e c t s b l o c k a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s e x c e p t C o n s t r u c t i o n #5, a Forwards Pro c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 are b l o c k e d . T h i s i s the p r e d i c t i o n i f the precedence c o n s t r a i n t i s a r e a l one. C o n s i d e r , a l s o , P a t t e r n 6 s u b j e c t s who b l o c k 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 #2 (Backwards P r o ) , #5 (Forwards Pro) and #6 ( B l o c k e d F o r w a r d s ) . Once a g a i n , a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 a r e b l o c k e d , e x c e p t i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n #2. T h i s e x c e p t i o n seems t o i n d i c a t e some awareness of the dominance c o n s t r a i n t . T h i s i s s u p p o r t e d by the p r o c e s s i n g of c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g 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 . Note t h a t a l l the c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t a r e b l o c k e d have the d e f i n i t e noun phrase i n the main c l a u s e , whereas a l l the c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t a r e a l l o w e d ( i n c l u d i n g the i n c o r r e c t p r o c e s s i n g of C o n s t r u c t i o n #6) have the pronoun i n the main 1 1 5 c l a u s e . Some n o t i o n of dominance i s c l e a r l y p l a y i n g a r o l e 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 f o r P a t t e r n 6 may be a s i m p l e r 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 i s a l l o w e d on c o n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t c o n t a i n preposed s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s or p h r a s e s . However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e c t o t h e r p a t t e r n s based on a s i m i l a r s t r a t e g y which may have d e v e l o p e d p r i o r t o or subsequent t o t h i s one. The main body of the da t a suggest the i n t e r p l a y of the precede and command r e l a t i o n s as d e t e r m i n a n t s of P a t t e r n 6. P a t t e r n 7 can s i m i l a r l y be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of the i n f l u e n c e of precedence. P a t t e r n 7 d i f f e r s from P a t t e r n 6 i n one r e s p e c t - C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 ( B l o c k e d Forwards) i s c o r r e c t l y b l o c k e d . However, S o l a n ' s f i n d i n g t h a t 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 tend t o be b l o c k e d more r e a d i l y than i n t e r - c l a u s a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , seems t o be the cause f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e between the two p a t t e r n s . L a s t l y , c o n s i d e r P a t t e r n 8. P a t t e r n 8 s u b j e c t s b l o c k a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s except #3 and 5 (both Forwards Pro 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 be c o n s i d e r e d t o be u s i n g a f u l l blown precedence s t r a t e g y i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h an awareness of the i n t e r v s . i n t r a c l a u s a l d i s t i n c t i o n ' (bo t h C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 5 i n v o l v e i n t e r - c l a u s a l 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 #6 and 7 i n v o l v e 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 ) . 2. The s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t of dominance p l a y s a r o l e i n the a n a p h o r i c 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 p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y i n g a p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g y t h a t i n v o l v e s r e c o u r s e t o both the precede and command r e l a t i o n s 116 was h i g h . P a t t e r n 10, the n a t i v e speaker s t r a t e g y , was d i s p l a y e d by a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s . The i n f l u e n c e of the dominance c o n s t r a i n t was e v i d e n t i n o t h e r p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s as w e l l . The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n on P a t t e r n 6 and 7 s u b j e c t s showed the r o l e of the dominance c o n s t r a i n t . 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 n e a t l y account f o r P a t t e r n 8. P a t t e r n 8 s u b j e c t s c l e a r l y use the precede and command r e l a t i o n s t o c o r r e c t l y p r o c e s s a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 . However, t h e i r p r o c e s s i n g of the B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s t i l l weak. 3. A d i s t i n c t p r e f e r e n c e f o r e i t h e r backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n or 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 i s shown by some a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . As mentioned e a r l i e r , some l e a r n e r s f o c u s on backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , as e v i d e n c e d by t h e i r 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 Pro and B l o c k e d Back c o n s t r u c t i o n s but 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g 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 . Other l e a r n e r s f o c u s 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 , as e v i d e n c e d by t h e i r 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 Forwards Pro and B l o c k e d Forwards c o n s t r u c t i o n s but n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r - l i k e responses t o c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 . T h i s was shown by the d i f f e r e n c e s d i s p l a y e d between P a t t e r n 6 and 7 s u b j e c t s ( p r e f e r e n c e f o r backwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ) and P a t t e r n 8 s u b j e c t s ( p r e f e r e n c e f o r forwards p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ) . Though t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n p r e f e r e n c e was not shown by a l l s u b j e c t s , the 1 1 7 d a t a suggest t h a t not a l l a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s w i l l a c q u i r e the B l o c k e d Back r u l e b e f o r e the B l o c k e d Forward r u l e . 4. A d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s do not show a marked p r e f e r e n c e f o r Forwards Pro over Backwards P r o . L u s t , L o v e l a n d and Kornet (1980), S o l a n (1981 ) and Goodluck (1981) c o n c l u d e d i n t h e i r s t u d i e s t h a t 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 on c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g 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 more than on c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 . However, c o n s i d e r the f a c t t h a t the precede r e l a t i o n , when u t i l i z e d , a u t o m a t i c a l l y b l o c k s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i n a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s 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 r e a l " p r e f e r e n c e " b e i n g shown here f o r a c o n s t r u c t i o n type? Or, 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 of a p a r t i c u l a r p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g y ? The d i s t i n c t i o n i s one i n p e r s p e c t i v e . 5. P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n tends t o be b l o c k e d more i n 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 i n i n t e r - c l a u s a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s . In t h i s , the p r e s e n t study c o n c u r s w i t h S o l a n ' s (1981) f i n d i n g . The i n f l u e n c e of the i n t r a v s . i n t e r c l a u s a l d i s t i n c t i o n was noted i n p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n s i n r e g a r d s t o P a t t e r n s 5, 7 8 and 9. 6. S u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e type p l a y s a r o l e i n the a n a p h o r i c 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 c l a u s e type was seen 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 and 4. 7. A d i s t i n c t i o n between pre-posed and p o s t - p o s e d s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s and ph r a s e s may p l a y a r o l e i n the a n a p h o r i c assignments made by some a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . The 1 1 8 pre-posed v s . p o s t - p o s e d c l a u s e d i s t i n c t i o n was seen t o p l a y a p o s s i b l e r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g 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 the r e s o l u t i o n of a n a p h o r i c a m b i g u i t y . W h i l e i t i s c l e a r t h a t pronouns are p o t e n t i a l l y ambiguous, i t does not seem l i k e l y t h a t a m b i g u i t y i s the i n t e n t of the v a s t m a j o r i t y of s p e a k e r s . When a pronoun i s g i v e n , a r e f e r e n t i s i n t e n d e d . The absence of c o n t e x t u a l c l u e s f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s t e s t items seems t o have r e s u l t e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of o p t i o n a l r esponses on C o n s t r u c t i o n s #3 and 7 by the C o n t r o l group. T h i s r e s u l t s u g g e s t s the i n t e r a c t i v e and complex n a t u r e of the 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 a c q u i s i t i o n l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h i n the 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 the 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 the f o u r new common p a t t e r n s of response r e v e a l e d by the p r e s e n t s t u d y . F a c t o r s such as age, e x p e r i e n c e , f o r m a l language t r a i n i n g , c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s , and the knowledge of a t l e a s t one o t h e r language may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s . 10. The study of pro n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e can p r o v i d e an a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t f o r l e a r n i n g more about the i n f l u e n c e of n a t i v e language background on second language a c q u i s t i o n . The a n a l y s i s of the common p a t t e r n s of response i n d i c a t e d t h a t f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s w a r r a n t e d . 11. A d u l t 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 language p r o f i c i e n c y 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 19 a n a p h o r i c 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 such as precede and command r e l a t i o n s , backwards v s . 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 , i n t e r v s . i n t r a - c l a u s a l s entence c o n s t r u c t i o n s , s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e t y p e and pre-posed v s . p o s t - p o s e d s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e and phrase c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e c a p a b l e of e x p l a i n i n g a l l of the s t r a t e g i e s employed. I n i t i a l l y , a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s employ a p r i m i t i v e s t r a t e g y based on c o - o c c u r e n c e i n making a n a p h o r i c a s s i g n m e n t s . They then i n c o r p o r a t e the s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s of precedence and dominance i n t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s . D i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n s i t i v i t y t o o t h e r s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s , such as backwards v s . 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 , i n t e r v s . i n t r a - c l a u s a l sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n s , s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e type and pre-posed v s . p o s t - p o s e d s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e and phrase c o n s t r u c t i o n s , a r e a l s o c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s t o the development of these 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 THE PRESENT STUDY A number of f a c t o r s l i m i t , t o some e x t e n t , the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , the q u e s t i o n of whether f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h can be j u s t i f i a b l y borrowed, i n any way, f o r the purposes of second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h , or v i c e v e r s a , i s s t i l l u n c l e a r . Some have v o i c e d the o p i n i o n t h a t too l i t t l e i s known about e i t h e r the f i r s t or second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s e s t o a l l o w c o m p a r i s o n s , even on the r e s e a r c h l e v e l 1 20 (Brown, 1973; Tarone e t a l . , 1974; Hakuta, 1976). Others have gone f u r t h e r and p o i n t e d out t h a t the v e r y m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and a n a l y t i c t o o l s employed i n any k i n d of language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h a re i n need of such r e f i n e m e n t t h a t f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s can o n l y be t e n t a t i v e and c o n d i t i o n a l (Chomsky, 1969; Tarone, Swain and Fathman, 1976; Hakuta and Can c i n o , 1977; Swain, 1977; Chun, 1978). The v a l i d i t y of u s i n g Ingram and Shaw's f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h as a model f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h i s u n c l e a r . However, the c o n t e n t i o n of the p r e s e n t s t u d y i s t h a t , h a v i n g d u l y noted these p o s s i b l e problems, i t does seem c l e a r t h a t v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t s may be l o s t or o v e r l o o k e d by not u t i l i z i n g , a t l e a s t on some l e v e l , the d e s i g n and f i n d i n g s of p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . As i n d i c a t e d i n the RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY c h a p t e r , a minimum of t h r e 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 s ( B e g i n n i n g , I n t e r m e d i a t e and Advanced) and two d i s t i n c t n a t i v e language groups were r e q u i r e d . A l s o , s t a t i s t i c a l 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 of twenty s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each c e l l . A minimum of 120 s u b j e c t s was thus r e q u i r e d . A f t e r a p p r o a c h i n g a number of E n g l i s h language i n s t i t u t i o n s i n Vancouver, i t became c l e a r t h a t , though most a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and program 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 s t u d e n t s f o r the s t u d y , the d e s i r e d numbers of 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 be o b t a i n e d from a s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n . An e f f o r t to p o o l the a p p r o p r i a t e number of s u b j e c t s from d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s was made d i f f i c u l t by the f a c t t h a t each i n s t i t u t i o n employed d i f f e r e n t methods 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 . The problem thus a r o s e as t o how t o d etermine whether s u b j e c t s taken from d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s were t r u l y a t the same l e v e l of E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y . I t was hoped t h a t a s e p a r a t e , s t a n d a r d i z e d 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 be a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a l l s u b j e c t s p r i o r t o the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k . However, c o n s i d e r i n g the l a r g e number of s u b j e c t s i n v o l v e d , r e s t r i c t i o n s on c l a s s r o o m time a l l o t e d f o r the r e s e a r c h , the h e s i t a t i o n on the p a r t of 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 e v a l u a t i v e t e s t i n g of t h e i r s t u d e n t s and the d i f f i c u l t y i n f i n d i n g or d e v i s i n g an E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i . e n c y t e s t s u i t e d t o the purpose, t h i s p r o v e d t o be i m p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r t a k e . For these r e a s o n s , i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s s h o u l d be drawn from a s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n . The Manpower program of K i n g Edward Campus bes t met the needs of the p r e s e n t s t u d y . However, even though 184 s u b j e c t s were thus o b t a i n e d , many of 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 by n a t i v e language group c e l l s f a i l e d t o r e a c h minimum numbers r e q u i r e d by s t a t i s t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h i s p r e s e n t e d a r e a l l i m i t a t i o n t o the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the s t u d y . Another l i m i t a t i o n of the p r e s e n t study l i e s i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of the s t u d y ' s sample. I t must be 1 22 remembered the s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n the Manpower program of K i n g Edward Campus ar e not n e c e s s a r i l y comparable t o s t u d e n t s found at o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s or i n the p u b l i c a t l a r g e , f o r t h a t m a t t e r . T h i s i s made c l e a r by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the s u b j e c t s employed i n the two p i l o t s t u d i e s , the s t u d e n t s a t Columbia C o l l e g e . S t u d e n t s at Columbia C o l l e g e tend t o be younger, b e t t e r s c h o o l e d and of a h i g h e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c l e v e l than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n the Manpower program. Purposes f o r s t u d y i n g 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 a t Columbia C o l l e g e a r e e n r o l l e d i n o r d e r t o e n t e r mainstream e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i n Canada. O t h e r s are s i m p l y s t u d y i n g E n g l i s h and 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 or a l e a v e of absence from s c h o o l or work i n t h e i r home c o u n t r i e s . Manpower program s t u d e n t s , however, a r e , f o r the most p a r t , new i m m i g r a n t s to Canada, concerned w i t h a c q u i r i n g s u r v i v a l s k i l l s 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 a r e a t t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups of s t u d e n t s . Columbia C o l l e g e s t u d e n t s pay t h e i r own t u i t i o n and a t t e n d v o l u n t a r i l y , which i s not the c a s e w i t h the m a j o r i t y of the Manpower program s t u d e n t s . Many of t h e s e s t u d e n t s have t h e i r t u i t i o n p a i d f o r by t h e i r e m ployers or the government and must a t t e n d c l a s s e s as a c o n d i t i o n f o r f u t u r e employment. Thus we f i n d d i f f e r e n c e s between th e two groups of s t u d e n t s i n terms of age, s c h o o l i n g , s o c i o e c o n o m i c l e v e l , m o t i v a t i o n and a t t i t u d e . These a r e the v e r y f a c t o r s t h a t have been suggested by some 1 23 t o have a d i r e c t b e a r i n g on the second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s (Schumann, 1978; S t a u b l e , 1978; Andersen, 1979). For t h e s e r e a s o n s , no c l a i m s are made r e g a r d i n g the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of the p r e s e n t s t u d y ' s sample. Another p o i n t r e g a r d i n g the l i m i t a t i o n s of the p r e s e n t study d e a l s w i t h the n a t u r e of the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k employed. The most o b v i o u s l i m i t a t i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k i s t h a t o n l y l i t e r a t e s u b j e c t s can be t e s t e d . I t i s u n c l e a r a t t h i s time e x a c t l y what k i n d of i m p l i c a t i o n s the mere f a c t of l i t e r a c y may have f o r t h i s s tudy. I t has been suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t l i t e r a c y c r e a t e s a h e i g h t e n e d sense of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness (Donaldson, 1978) and f o s t e r s b i a s e s i n terms of a p p r o a c h i n g problem s o l v i n g t a s k s ( O l s o n , 1976). A l s o , Krashen (1976) su g g e s t s t h a t f o r m a l language t r a i n i n g , t h a t i s , predominant use of the w r i t t e n medium f o r i n s t r u c t i o n , engenders d i f f e r e n t r a t e s and p a t t e r n s of second language a c q u i s i t i o n than i n f o r m a l language t r a i n i n g , t h a t i s , predominant r e l i a n c e on o r a l exposure f o r language l e a r n i n g . However, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t may be i n v o l v e d i n the i s s u e of l i t e r a c y and i t s e f f e c t on language l e a r n i n g , i t i s not c l e a r , a t the p r e s e n t t i m e , as t o how t h i s i s s u e can be a d d r e s s e d i n an e f f e c t i v e manner. The l a s t p o i n t t o be r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g the l i m i t a t i o n s of the p r e s e n t study r e l a t e s t o the l i m i t a t i o n s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s employed. The SPSS.X MANOVA ( 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 ) was employed i n the 1 2 4 p r e s e n t s t u d y . Because the SPSS.X MANOVA does not c u r r e n t l y p e r f o r m a complete s e t of post hoc or range t e s t s , i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n c o n t r a s t s f o r a l l p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s of groups w i t h i n each dependent v a r i a b l e , a number of s t a t i s t i c a l r uns had t o be un d e r t a k e n , thus i n c r e a s i n g the r i s k of e r r o r by a f a c t o r e q u a l t o the number of runs t a k e n . For example, i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n the c o n t r a s t s f o r a l l 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 , a t o t a l of t h r e e runs had t o be ex e c u t e d . The f i r s t run c o n t r a s t e d the c o n t r o l group w i t h a l l o t h e r l e v e l s . The second run c o n t r a s t e d the Advanced l e v e l w i t h a l l o t h e r l e v e l s , i n c l u d i n g the c o n t r o l . The t h i r d run c o n t r a s t e d the the I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l w i t h a l l o t h e r l e v e l s , i n c l u d i n g t he c o n t r o l . In t h i s way, a l l p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s 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 c o u l d be c o n t r a s t e d . However, such a p r o c e d u r e i n c r e a s e s the r i s k of e r r o r by a f a c t o r of t h r e e . In o r d e r t o c o n t r a s t a l l p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s of n a t i v e language groups, f o u r runs were e x e c u t e d , thus i n c r e a s i n g the r i s k of e r r o r by a f a c t o r of f o u r . The i n c r e a s e i n the r i s k of e r r o r caused by such p r o c e d u r e s was u n a v o i d a b l e but deemed n e c e s s a r y i n view of the o v e r a l l n a t u r e of the d a t a . Use of a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o t h e r than a MANOVA was deemed i n a p p r o p r i a t e and in a d e q u a t e . 1 25 D. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 1) I t i s recommended t h a t , f o r another study of the a c q u i s i t i o n 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 by ESL l e a r n e r s , the number of d i f f e r e n t sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n types i n v e s t i g a t e d be reduced. I t would be u s e f u l t o m a i n t a i n c o n s t r u c t i o n t y p e s t h a t i n v o l v e both Forwards and Backwards P r o , as w e l l as both B l o c k e d Forwards and B l o c k e d Backwards. However, because of the l a r g e number of p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s t h a t may 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 the d i f f i c u l t y i n s e p a r a t i n g t h e s e i n f l u e n c e s , i t i s suggested t h a t c l a u s e i n t e r n a l and c l a u s e e x t e r n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n s e p a r a t e s t u d i e s . In a d d i t i o n , s u b o r d i n a t e or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s of 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 i n s i m i l a r s t u d i e s of pronominal r e f e r e n c e , v e r b type be c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d i n order t o m i n i m i z e such p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n as verb t r a n s i t i v i t y and/or i n t r a n s i t i v i t y and the semantic f e a t u r e s of v e r b s . 3) I t i s recommended t h a t the number of tokens per c o n s t r u c t i o n t ype be i n c r e a s e d t o a t l e a s t 10. T h i s would h e l p t o b e t t e r d e f i n e and maximize the v a l i d i t y of c r i t e r i i o n l e v e l s . 4) I t i s recommended t h a t o r a l and w r i t t e n p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the 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 i n or d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i r i n f l u e n c e s on s u b j e c t response and a n a p h o r i c ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . 1 26 5) I t i s recommended t h a t more s t u d i e s on the 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 be undertaken t o p r o v i d e a framework f o r co m p a r i s o n s , as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g i n v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t would f a c i l i t a t e a n a l y s e s of the i n f l u e n c e s of n a t i v e language background on the second language a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s . 6) I t i s recommended t h a t a study on p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e be undertaken t h a t p l a c e s a paragraph or s t o r y . T h i s might h e l p t o c l a r i f y the e f f e c t s of c o n t e x t u a l and/or p r a g m a 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 i z a t i o n . V I I . BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l w r i g h t , R i c h a r d L. "Problems i n the Study of the Language Teacher's Treatment of L e a r n e r E r r o r " i n M. K. B u r t and H. C. Duly (eds) New D i r e c t i o n s i n Second Language L e a r n i n g , T eaching and B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D.C: TESOL, 1975. Andersen, Roger W. "The I m p o v e r i s h e d S t a t e of 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 Methodology ( o r : The L e f t o v e r s Are More N o u r i s h i n g Than The Main C o u r s e ) " i n Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m , No. 14, 1977. "Expanding 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 Language 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 Stephen 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. 235-243. 1974. Berko, J . "The C h i l d ' s L e a r n i n g of E n g l i s h Morphology" i n Word, No. 14, pp. 150-177. 1958. Brown, Roger. A F i r s t Language. Cambridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973. B u r l i n g , R o b b i n s . "Language Development of a Garo 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. Hatch (ed) Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: 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 1959). 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 R e s e a r c h . B o s t o n : Houghton 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 Edouard B e n i a k . " A c q u i s i t i o n of Some Grammatical Elements i n E n g l i s h and 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 Canadian S t u d e n t s " i n Canadian Modern Language Review, V o l . 34, pp. 505-524. 1978. C a n c i n o , H., E. Rosansky and J . Schumann. "The A c q u i s i t i o n of 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 Speakers" i n E. M. Hatch (ed) 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 1975). 1 27 Caramazza, A l f o n s o , E l l e n G r o b e r , C a t h e r i n e Garvey and Jack Y a t e s . "Comprehension of 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. 497-518. 1979. Carden, Guy. 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. C e l c e - M a r i a , M a rianne. "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. Hatch (ed) Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n (paper p r e s e n t e d a t the 1975 TESOL c o n f e r e n c e ) . 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 of Syntax i n C h i l d r e n from 5 t o 10. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT P r e s s , pp. 102-111. 1969. Chun, J u d i t h . "A Survey of R e s e a r c h i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n " i n The Modern Language J o u r n a l , V o l . 64, No. 3, pp. 287-296. 1980. C z i k o , Gary A. " D i f f e r e n c e s i n F i r s t and Second Language Reading: The Use of S y n t a c t i c , Semantic and D i s c o u r s e C o n s t r a i n t s " i n The Canadian Modern Language Review, pp. 473-489. Feb. 1978. d e V i l l i e r s , J i l l G. and 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 Study of the A c q u i s i t i o n of Grammatical Morphemes i n C h i l d Speech" i n J o u r n a l of 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. 267-278. 1973. Donaldson, M a r g a r e t . C h i l d r e n ' s Minds. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1978. Dul a y , H e i d i C. and M a r i n a K. B u r t . "Should We Teach C h i l d r e n S y n t a x ? " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 23, No. 2, pp. 245-258. 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 Second Language 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, pp. 129-136. 1974a. " N a t u r a l Sequences i n C h i l d Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n " i n E. M. Hatch (ed) 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 1974b. "A New P e r s p e c t i v e on the 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 Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 24, No. 2, pp. 253-278. 1974c. " C r e a t i v e C o n s t r u c t i o n i n Second Language L e a r n i n g and T e a c h i n g " i n M. K. Bu r t and H. C. Dulay (eds) New D i r e c t i o n s i n Second Language L e a r n i n g , Teaching 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 , Susan M. " I s Second Language L e a r n i n g L i k e the 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. Fathman, Ann K. "Language Background, Age and the Order of A c q u i s i t i o n of E n g l i s h S t r u c t u r e s " i n M. K. Bu r t and H. C. Dulay (eds) 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. "The V a l u e of Morpheme Order S t u d i e s f o r Second Language L e a r n i n g " i n Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m , No. 18, pp. 179-197. 1979. F e l i x , Sascha 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 p r e s e n t e d a t the T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l C h i l d Language Symposium, London, Sept. 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 (from LI t o L2) 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. Gass, Susan and J o s h A r d . "L2 Data: 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, pp. 443-452. 1980. G i l l i s , Mary and Rose-Marie Weber. "The Emergence of Sentence M o d a l i t i e s i n the E n g l i s h of Japanese-Speaking C h i l d r e n " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 26, No. 1, pp. 77-94. 1976. Goodluck, H. " C h i l d r e n ' s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Pronouns and N u l l NP's: S t r u c t u r e and S t r a t e g i e s " . U n p u b l i s h e d 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 Study of 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, pp. 321-353. 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. 47, pp. 294-316. 1977. Hatc 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 Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n " i n E. M. Hatch (ed) 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 C o lumbia. 1983. and C a t h e r i n e Shaw. "The Comprehension of P r o n o m i n a l R e f e r e n c e i n C h i l d r e n " . U n p u b l i s h e d paper, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o lumbia, 60 pp. 1981. K l i m a , E. S. and 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 the Speech of C h i l d r e n " i n J . Lyons and R. Wales (eds) P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c P a p e rs. E d i n b u r g h : E d i n b u r g h U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , pp. 183-208. 1966. Krash e n , Stephen D. "Formal and I n f o r m a l L i n g u i s t i c Environments i n Language L e a r n i n g and Language 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, pp. 157-168. 1976. " I s the ' N a t u r a l Order' an A r t i f a c t of the B i l i n g u a l Syntax Measure?" i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 28, No. 1, pp. 187-192. 1978. V i c t o r i a S f e r l a z z a , Lorna Feldman and Ann K. Fathman. " A d u l t Performance on the SLOPE T e s t : More Ev 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, pp. 145-152. 1976. L a n g a c k e r , Ronald W. "On P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n and the Chain of Command" i n D. A. R e i b e l and S. A. Schane (eds) Modern S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h . Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l , I n c . , pp. 160-186. 1969. Larsen-Freeman, Diane E. "The A c q u i s i t i o n of Grammatical 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, pp. 409-419. 1 975. "An E x p l a n a t i o n f o r the Morpheme A c q u i s i t i o n Order of Second Language L e a r n e r s " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 26, No. 2, pp. 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, pp. 1-22 1 976. Lee, Dong J a e . " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Morpheme Rank O r d e r i n g i n L2 R e s e a r c h " i n P. S. Dale and D. Ingram (eds) C h i l d Language. B a l t i m o r e : 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 Anaphora i n C h i l d Language: A P r e d i c t i o n f o r a U n i v e r s a l " 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 Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT P r e s s , pp. 74-96. 1981. , K. L o v e l a n d and R. K o r n e t . "The Development of C o r e f e r e n c e and Anaphora i n F i r s t Language: S y n t a c t i c and Pr a g m a t i c 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, pp. 217-249. 1980. McCray, A l e x a T. "The Semantics of Backward Anaphora". Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Tenth M e e t i n g of the N o r t h E a s t 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 of Ottawa, Nov. 2-4, 1979. Mace-Matluck, B e t t y J . "Order of A c q u i s i t i o n : Same or D i f f e r e n t i n F i r s t and Second Language L e a r n i n g ? " i n The Reading Teacher, V o l . 32, pp. 696-703. 1979. M a r s l e n - W i l s o n , W i l l i a m and 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 Paper #9, Ce 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 pp. 1 980. 1 32 M i l o n , John P. "The Development of N e g a t i o n i n E n g l i s h by a Second Language 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, Sandra and Lee Gunderson. "Anaphora as a Measure of Audience Awareness". ERIC [249479]. 1985. O l s o n , D a v i d R. " C u l t u r e , Technology and I n t e l l e c t " i n Lauren B. R e s n i c k (ed) The Nature of I n t e l l i g e n c e . New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , P u b l i s h e r s . 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 Language A c q u i s i t i o n " i n E. M. Hatch (ed) 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 1976). P e r k i n s , K y l e and Diane Larsen-Freeman. "The E f f e c t of Formal Language I n s t r u c t i o n on the Order of Morpheme 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 . 25, No. 2, pp. 237-244. 1975. P o r t e r , John H. "A C r o s s - S e c t i o n a l Study of 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. 47-62. 1977. Ravem, Roar. "Two Norwegian C h i l d r e n ' s A c q u i s i t i o n of E n g l i s h Syntax" i n E. M. Hatch (ed) 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 Anaphora and C-Command Domains" 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. Rosansky, E l l e n J . "Methods and 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. 409-425. 1976. Ross, John R o b e r t . "On the C y c l i c Nature 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. Schane (eds) Modern S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h , pp. 187-200. 1969. Schumann, John H. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p of 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. 367-379. 1978. Sheldon, Amy. "The R o l e of P a r a l l e l F u n c t i o n i n the A c q u i s i t i o n of R e l a t i v e C l a u s e s 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. 272-281. 1974. S o l a n , L. "The A c q u i s i t i o n of S t r u c t u r a l R e s t r i c t i o n s on Anaphora" 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 Theory, pp. 59-73. 1981. Snow, C a t h e r i n e , N o r v a l S. H. Smith and M a r i a n H o e f n a g e l - H o h l e . "The A c q u i s i t i o n of Some Dutch 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 Language, V o l . 7, pp. 539-553. 1980. S t a u b l e , Ann-Marie E. "The P r o c e s s of D e c r e o l i z a t i o n : A Model f o r Second Language Development" i n Language 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 L e a r n i n g S t u d i e s " . U n p u b l i s h e d paper, Modern Language C e n t r e , OISE, T o r o n t o . 1977. , N. Naiman and G. Dumas. "Aspects of the L e a r n i n g of Fr e n c h by E n g l i s h - S p e a k i n g 5-Year-Olds" i n E. M. Hatch (ed) 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 1972). Tarone, E l a i n e et a l . "A D i s c u s s i o n of the Dulay and B u r t S t u d i e s " i n Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m No. 4, pp. 57-70. 1974. , M e r r i l l Swain and Ann Fathman. "Some L i m i t a t i o n s t o the 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 Second Language 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, Judy. "Comparative S t u d i e s i n Second Language L e a r n i n g " i n E. M. Hatch (ed) 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. Ha t c h . "The Importance of Input Data i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n S t u d i e s " i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 25, pp. 297-308 1976. Wode, Henning, J . Bahns, H. Dedey and W. Frank. "Developmental Sequence: An A l t e r n a t i v e Approach t o Morpheme Order" i n Language L e a r n i n g , V o l . 28, No. 1, pp. 175-185. 1978. Y o s h i d a , M. "The A c q u i s i t i o n of E n g l i s h V o c a b u l a r by a Japa n e s e - S p e a k i n g C h i l d " i n E. M. Ha t c h (ed) 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 1976). QUIZ 134 a) What i s your f i r s t name? b) How o l d are you? c) Are you a MAN or a WOMAN? d) In what country were you born? e) What i s your native 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 studied? START: ( 1 ) John goes to the doctor when he i s s i c k . ( B i l l John ei t h e r ( 2) He sees the woman behind B i l l . ( B i l l John ei t h e r ( 3) John knows that he i s good. ( B i l l John e i t h e r ( 4) A f t e r B i l l studies, he plays a game. ( B i l l John e i t h e r ( 5) B i l l sees the g i r l behind him. ( B i l l John e i t h e r ( 6) He i s quiet when John speaks. ( B i l l John e i t h e r < 7 ) After John eats breakfast, he reads a book. ( B i l l John ei t h e r ( 8) B i l l sees the box under him. ( B i l l John e i t h e r ( 9) He i s unhappy when B i l l i s s i c k . ( B i l l John e i t h e r (10) John thinks that he_ i s going. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (11) Under B i l l , he sees a penny. ( B i l l John e i t h e r 135 (12) When he gets a cookie, John i s happy. ( B i l l John either (13) He thinks that John i s leaving. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (14) When he watches t e l e v i s i o n , B i l l i s happy. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (15) Behind John, he hears a bus. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (16) He does homework a f t e r John leaves. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (17) B i l l hears a radio near him. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (18) Aft e r he studies, John watches t e l e v i s i o n . ( B i l l John e i t h e r (19) He i s unhappy that John i s coming. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (20) John i s unhappy that he i s studying. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (21) When John watches a movie, he_ i s quiet. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (22) Near B i l l , he hears a dog. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (23) He i s happy that B i l l i s helping the teacher. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (24) After he eats dinner, B i l l goes to bed. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (25) John speaks to the man near him. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (26) When B i l l goes home, he helps mother. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (27) Behind B i l l , he sees the teacher. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (28) He knows that John i s b i g . ( B i l l John e i t h e r (29) B i l l knows that he i s si c k . ( B i l l John e i t h e r (30) He plays hockey when John comes. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (31) When he goes to school, John plays hockey. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (32) B i l l i s happy that he i s watching t e l e v i s i o n . ( B i l l John eit h e r (33) When B i l l gets candy, he_ i s good. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (34) Near John, he speaks to the teacher. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (35) He knows that B i l l i s r i g h t . ( B i l l John eit h e r (36) He eats dinner a f t e r B i l l goes home. ( B i l l John e i t h e r (37) John hears the car behind him. ( B i l l John e i t h e r FINISH. 136 FIGURE 1 P e r c e n t a g e s o f I n g r a m a n d S h a w ' s Sub j e c t s U s i n g F i v e P a t t e r n s G r o u p e d A c c o r d i n g t o : (1) U s e o f C o r e f e r e n c e (2) U s e o f P r e c e d e n c e "(3) U s e o f l u m i n a n c e ' 100 r 90 - 89 - J 1 L ! , 3 ; 0 ' - 3 " ; l l 4 ; 0 ' - 4 ; l l 5 ; 0 - 5 ; l l 6 ? 0 - 6 - ; l l 7 ; 0 - 7 ; l l AGE GROUPS U s e ' o f C o r e f e r e n c e U s e , o f P r e c e d e n c e U s e o f D o m i n a n c e ( P a t t e r n I ) ( P a t t e r n s I I , I I I ) ' ( P a t t e r n s I V , V ) ( r e p r i n t e d b y p e r m i s s i o n o f a u t h o r ) 137 FIGURE 2 Percentage of Noncoreferential, Coreferential and Optional Response For Seven Construction Types By Control Group CONSTRUCTION TiPES Norieoreferential"Response Coreferential Response Clpticfrial^-Pvesponse - — o — 138 1Q.Q, FIGURE 3 Percentage of Noncoref erential, Coreferential and Optional Response For Seven Construction Types By Experimental Group 90: i - 6,0: 50 40 30 20! 10 0 _i i_ #4 #1 #6 #7 #3 #2- #5 CONSTRUCTION'TVPES Noricoreferential Response Coreferential Response Optional- Response M c FIGURE 4a Percentage of 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' #2 #5 CONSTRUCTION TiPES /Beginner Polish ' Beginfier 1 Can tones e Beginner,, cVdiefenarnes e Blginner Miscellaneous FIGURE 4b Percentage of Noncoreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Intermediate Level P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups 100>r #4 #1 #6 #7 #3' #2- #5 CONSTRUCTION TYPES Intermediate P o l i s h Intermediate Cantonese Intermediate Vietnamese Intermediate Japanese Intermediate Miscellaneous FIGURE 4c Percentage of Noncoref erential 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 #2 #5 CONSTRUCTION TYPES Advanced Polish Advanced Cantonese Advanced Vietnamese Advanced Japanese Advanced Miscellaneous FIGURE 5a Percentage of 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 1 ! ^ • #5 #2 #7 ,#3 #6, #1 #4 CONSTRUCTION TiPES Beginner Pol-ish Beginner Cantonese Beginner Vietnamese Beginner Miscellaneous FIGURE 5b 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 R e s p o n s e 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 B y I n t e r m e d i a t e 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 a n d M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e L a n g u a g e G r o u p s 0 - #5 .#2 #7 #3 #6 #1. #4 CONSTRUCTION TYPES I n t e r m e d i a t e P o l i s h I n t e r m e d i a t e C a n t o n e s e I n t e r m e d i a t e V i e t n a m e s e I n t e r m e d i a t e J a p a n e s e 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 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 : ' t . , .  v > ̂  Advanced Miscellaneous : FIGURE 6a Percentage of Optional Response For Seven Construction Types By Beginning Level P o l i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups #3 #7 #2 #5 -#6 .#1 #4 CONSTRUCTION TYPES Beginner P o l i s h Beginner Cantonese Beginner Vietnamese Beginner Miscellaneous FIGURE 6b Percentage of Optional Response For Seven Construction Types By Intermediate Level Pol i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups #3 #7 #2 #5 #6 #1 #4 CONSTRUCTION TiPES Intermediate P o l i s h : Intermediate Cantonese : —. Intermediate Vietnamese : Intermediate Japanese : •>.>>> Intermediate Miscellaneous : FIGURE 6 c P e r c e n t a g e O f O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e 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 B y A d v a n c e d 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 a n d M i s c e l l a n e o u s N a t i v e ! ' L a n g u a g e G r o u p s 100 •9.0 80 7P 60 5 0 4 0 30 20 10 0 #3 #7 #2 #5 #6 :#1 #4 CONSTRUCTION T i P E S A d v a n c e d P o l i s h : A d v a n c e d C a n t o n e s e : — — A d v a n c e d ' V i e t n a m e s e : A d v a n c e d J a p a n e s e : -»-»-* A d v a n c e d ' M i s c e l l a n e o u s : FIGURE 7a Percentage of Noncoreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Pol i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups 1001- <?0 #4 #1 #6 ,#7 .#3 #2 #5 CONSTRUCTION TYPES Pol i s h Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous FIGURE 7b Percentage of Coreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Pol i s h , Cantonese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Miscellaneous Native Language Groups 100.- 90 - #5 #2 #7 #3 #6 #1 #4 CONSTRUCTION TYPES Pol i s h Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese Miscellaneous i » > » > FIGURE 7c Percentage of 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' #1 #4 CONSTRUCTION TYPES Polish Cantonese Vietnamese Japanese . Miscellaneous FIGURE 8a Percentage of Noncoreferential Response For Seven Construction Types By Control, Beginning Level, Intermediate Level, and Advanced Level Groups #4 #1 #6 #7 #3 #2 #5 CONSTRUCTION TYPES Control. : — C Beginner •: — 6 — Intermedfate : — I — Advanced : — A — 152 F I G U R E 8b 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 R e s p o n s e 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 B y C o n t r o l , B e g i n n i n g L e v e l , I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l , a n d A d v a n c e d L e v e l G r o u p s J I I ! L #5 #2- #7 #3 #6 #1 #4 CONSTRUCTION TYPES C o n t r o l B e g i n n e r I n t e r m e d i a t e A d v a n c e d F I G U R E 8 c P e r c e n t a g e o f O p t i o n a l R e s p o n s e 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 B y C o n t r o l , B e g i n n i n g L e v e l , I n t e r m e d i a t e L e v e l , a n d A d v a n c e d L e v e l G r o u p s 1 0 0 . 9 0 - 8 0 •• 70 - #3- #r #2'. #5' #e #1 #(4 CONSTRUCTION' T Y P E S C o n t r o l : — c B e g i n n e r : — g, — I n t e r m e d i a t e : — I — A d v a n c e d : — / \ — 1 5 4 FIGURE 9 P e r c e n t a g e o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S u b j e c t s 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 A t E a c h 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 50 4 5 4 0 35 30 2 5 2 0 15 10 5 0 B e g . I n t . : A d v . ENGLISH-LANGUAGE E R D F I C I E N C i L E V E L P a t t e r n 1 : — ® — P a t t e r n 6 P a t t e r n 2 : — © — P a t t e r n 7 P a t t e r n 3 : — ® - P a t t e r n 8 P a t t e r n 4 : — € > — P a t t e r n , 9 P a t t e r n 5 : — © — P a t t e r n 10 — ® — F I G U R E 10 P e r c e n t a g e o f P o l i s h a n d 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 T e n Conmon P a t t e r n s o f R e s p o n s e A t E a c h 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 C15Q . B e g , . I n t . A d v . B e g . I n t . A d v P O L I S H ' CANTONESE P a t t e r n 1 : — © — P a t t e r n 6 : — ( £ > — P a t t e r n 2 : — © — P a t t e r n 7 : — © — P a t t e r n 3 : P a t t e r n 8 ': —<D— P a t t e r n 4 : — © — P a t t e r n 9 : — © — P a t t e r n 5 : - © — . P a t t e r n 10 : —©— F I G U R E 11 P e r c e n t a g e o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S u b j e c t s D i s p l a y i n g F o u r M a j o r P a t t e r n s A t E a c h 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 5 0 4 5 40 35 - 30 - 20 1-5 10 5 0 B e g . I n t . A d v : E N G L I S H LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY L E V E L P a t t e r n 1 ( c o - o c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y ) 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 ( d o m i n a n c e 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 P e r c e n t a g e o f P o l i s h a n d 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 F o u r M a j o r P a t t e r n s A t E a c h 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 B e g , I n t . A d v . B e g . I n t . A d v . P O L I S H CANTONESE P a t t e r n 1 ( c o - d c c u r e n c e s t r a t e g y ) P a t t e r n s 2 , 3 , 4 , 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 ( d o m i n a n c e 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 and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #1 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 3. 78571 1 .12171 1 4 CANTONESE 3. 8571 4 .86444 14 VIETNAMESE 4. 00000 .81650 4 MISCELLANEOUS 4. 33333 .90749 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 3. 75000 1 .73205 1 6 CANTONESE 4. 1 0000 .99443 1 0 VIETNAMESE 3. 1 6667 1 .94079 6 JAPANESE 3. 85714 1 .34519 7 MISCELLANEOUS 4. 36000 .95219 25 ADVANCED POLISH 4. 26923 1 .34336 26 CANTONESE 4. 36364 .67420 1 1 VIETNAMESE 4. 09091 1 .51357 1 1 JAPANESE 3. 00000 1 .54919 6 MISCELLANEOUS 4. 68750 .60208 16 CONTROL ENGLISH 4. 85000 .36635 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 4. 17157 1 .16812 204 1 58 1 59 TABLE 6B Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #2 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 2 .71429 1 .72888 1 4 CANTONESE 1 .64286 1 .78054 1 4 VIETNAMESE .00000 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .22222 1 .39560 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .68750 1 .53704 1 6 CANTONESE .70000 .67495 10 VIETNAMESE 1 .16667 1 .83485 6 JAPANESE .85714 1 .06904 7 MISCELLANEOUS .92000 1 .15181 25 ADVANCED POLISH 1 .96154 1 .50946 26 CANTONESE 1 .36364 1 .43337 1 1 VIETNAMESE 1 .18182 1 .25045 1 1 JAPANESE .16667 .40825 6 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .18750 1 .27639 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .30000 .47016 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 1 .35294 1 .45979 204 1 60 TABLE 6C Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 2 .21429 1 .42389 1 4 CANTONESE 2 .71429 1 .63747 1 4 VIETNAMESE 1 .25000 1 .25831. 4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .16667 1 .42457 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .43750 1 .20934 16 CANTONESE 2 .60000 .84327 10 VIETNAMESE 1 .83333 1 .32916 6 JAPANESE 1 .71429 1 .25357 7 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .96000 1 .48549 25 ADVANCED POLISH 1 .19231 1 .13205 26 CANTONESE 1 .72727 • 1 .42063 1 1 VIETNAMESE 1 .36364 1 .02691 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .16667 .98319 6 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .37500 1 . 14746 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .45000 .82558 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 1 .65196 1 .36149 204 161 TABLE 6D Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #4 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 4. 071 43 1.14114 1 4 CANTONESE 3. 92857 .99725 .1 4 VIETNAMESE 4 . 00000 1 .41421 4 MISCELLANEOUS 4. 00000 .97014 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 3. 43750 1.59034 1 6 CANTONESE 3. 70000 1.15950 1 0 VIETNAMESE 3. 33333 1.50555 6 JAPANESE 4. 00000 1.15470 7 MISCELLANEOUS 4. 32000 .80208 25 ADVANCED POLISH 4. 42308 1.06482 26 CANTONESE 4. 18182 1 . 16775 r 1 VIETNAMESE 4. 36364 1.50151 11 JAPANESE 3. 50000 1 .87083 6 MISCELLANEOUS 4. 81 250 .40311 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH 4. 95000 .22361 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 4. 1 8627 1.13806 204 1 62 TABLE 6E Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #5 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 1 .64286 1.15073 1 4 CANTONESE 1 .00000 1.56893 1 4 VIETNAMESE 1 . 00000 2.00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .27778 1.17851 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH .56250 .72744 1 6 CANTONESE .10000 .31623 10 VIETNAMESE .33333 .51640 6 JAPANESE .14286 .37796 7 MISCELLANEOUS .28000 .45826 25 ADVANCED POLISH .50000 .64807 26 CANTONESE .72727 1.00905 1 1 VIETNAMESE .18182 .40452 1 1 JAPANESE .16667 .40825 6 MISCELLANEOUS .18750 .40311 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .00000 .00000 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .54412 .92210 204 1 63 TABLE 6F Means and Sta n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #6 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 3 .78571 1 .31140 1 4 CANTONESE 2 .35714 1 .54955 1 4 VIETNAMESE 2 .50000 1 .73205 4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .66667 1 .18818 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 3 .25000 1 .61245 1 6 CANTONESE 2 .60000 1 .71270 1 0 VIETNAMESE 2 .00000 1 .26491 6 JAPANESE 2 .00000 1 .91485 7 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .84000 1 .62481 25 ADVANCED POLISH 3 .50000 1 .44914 26 CANTONESE 3 .27273 1 .48936 1 1 VIETNAMESE 2 .63636 1 .96330 1 1 JAPANESE 2 .00000 1 .89737 6 MISCELLANEOUS 4 .12500 1 .31022 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH 4 .20000 1 .28145 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 3 .12255 1 .61266 204 TABLE 6G Means and Sta n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #7 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 1 .92857 1 .81720 1 4 CANTONESE 2 .14286 1 .70326 1 4 VIETNAMESE .00000 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .16667 1 .68907 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .25000 1 .39044 16 CANTONESE 1 .30000 1 .33749 10 VIETNAMESE 1 .50000 1 .87083 6 JAPANESE 1 .71 429 2 .05866 7 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .64000 1 .38082 25 ADVANCED POLISH .92308 1 . 16355 26 CANTONESE 1 .90909 1 .70027 1 1 VIETNAMESE .27273 .46710 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .33333 1 .96638 6 MISCELLANEOUS .75000 1 .29099 16 CONTROL ENGLISH .55000 .88704 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 1.32353 1.50965 204 1 65 TABLE 7A Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #1 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .85714 1 .23146 1 4 CANTONESE .85714 .66299 14 VIETNAMESE .75000 .95743 4 MISCELLANEOUS .38889 .77754 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH .18750 .4031 1 1 6 CANTONESE .80000 1.03280 1 0 VIETNAMESE 1.66667 1.96638 6 JAPANESE . 14286 .37796 7 MISCELLANEOUS .52000 .82260 25 ADVANCED POLISH .07692 .27175 26 CANTONESE .54545 .68755 1 1 VIETNAMESE .09091 .30151 1 1 JAPANESE .66667 .81650 6 MISCELLANEOUS . 12500 .34157 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .00000 .00000 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .41176 .79224 204 1 66 TABLE 7B Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #2 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 1 . 50000 1 .16024 1 4 CANTONESE 3. 00000 1 .83973 1 4 VIETNAMESE 4. 75000 .50000 4 MISCELLANEOUS 2. 05556 1 .62597 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 . 81 250 1 .55858 1 6 CANTONESE 3. 1 0000 1 .72884 1 0 VIETNAMESE 3. 66667 1 .75119 6 JAPANESE 2. 571 43 2 .07020 7 MISCELLANEOUS 3. 76000 1 .30000 25 ADVANCED POLISH 1 . 50000 1 .30384 26 CANTONESE 3. 00000 1 .84391 1 1 VIETNAMESE 3. 00000 1 .00000 1 1 JAPANESE 3. 66667 1 .21106 6 MISCELLANEOUS 2. 87500 1 .78419 16 CONTROL ENGLISH 3. 90000 1 .20961 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 2. 76471 1 .70295 204 1 67 TABLE 7C Means and Sta n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 1 .57143 1 .45255 1 4 CANTONESE 1 .71429 1 .63747 1 4 VIETNAMESE 3 .75000 1 .25831 4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .38889 1 .28973 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 2 .18750 1 .721 1 9 1 6 CANTONESE 1 .80000 1 .22927 1 0 VIETNAMESE 3 .00000 1 .26491 6 JAPANESE 2 .28571 1 .60357 7 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .60000 1 .47196 25 ADVANCED POLISH 1 .30769 1 .66779 26 CANTONESE 2 .81818 1 .94001 1 1 VIETNAMESE 2 .36364 1 .68954 1 1 JAPANESE 2 .16667 .75277 6 MISCELLANEOUS 2 . 12500 1 .70783 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH 1 .30000 1 .49032 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 2 .05882 1 .59941 204 1 68 TABLE 7D Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #4 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .71429 .99449 1 4 CANTONESE .71429 .91387 1 4 VIETNAMESE .50000 1 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .83333 .98518 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH .37500 .61914 1 6 CANTONESE .90000 1 .28668 1 0 VIETNAMESE 1.50000 1 .64317 6 JAPANESE .28571 .48795 7 MISCELLANEOUS .44000 .76811 25 ADVANCED POLISH .07692 .27175 26 CANTONESE .72727 1 .19087 1 1 VIETNAMESE .18182 .40452 1 1 JAPANESE .50000 .54772 6 MISCELLANEOUS .06250 .25000 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .00000 .00000 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .44118 .82538 204 169 TABLE 7E Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #5 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 2. 21 429 1 .47693 1 4 CANTONESE 3. 71 429 1 .77281 1 4 VIETNAMESE 4. 00000 2 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS 3. 33333 1 .08465 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 3. 43750 1 .36473 1 6 CANTONESE 4. 00000 1 .24722 1 0 VIETNAMESE 4. 00000 .63246 6 JAPANESE 3. 8571 4 1 .34519 7 MISCELLANEOUS 4. 44000 .82057 25 ADVANCED POLISH 3. 1 9231 1 .13205 26 CANTONESE 3. 81818 1 .40130 1 1 VIETNAMESE 4. 09091 .83121 1 1 JAPANESE 4. 66667 .81650 6 MISCELLANEOUS 3. 87500 1 .36015 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH 4. 30000 .92338 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 3. 73529 1 .31251 204 TABLE 7F Means and Sta n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #6 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .42857 .64621 1 4 CANTONESE 1 .85714 1 .61041 1 4 VIETNAMESE 2 .00000 1 .82574 4 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .50000 1 .09813 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH .50000 .73030 1 6 CANTONESE 1 .70000 1 .94651 1 0 VIETNAMESE 2 .00000 1 .54919 6 JAPANESE 1 .42857 • 1 .51186 7 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .40000 1 .55456 25 ADVANCED POLISH .65385 .89184 26 CANTONESE 1 .54545 1 .57249 1 1 VIETNAMESE 1 .00000 1 .18322 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .66667 1 .86190 6 MISCELLANEOUS .56250 1 .09354 16 CONTROL ENGLISH .25000 .71635 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 1 .06863 1.34098 204 171 TABLE 7G Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the 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 #7 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 2 .21429 1 .96815 1 4 CANTONESE 2 .21429 1 .92867 1 4 VIETNAMESE 4 .75000 .50000 4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .05556 1 .731 1 1 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 2 .68750 1 .70171 16 CANTONESE 3 .10000 1 .85293 10 VIETNAMESE 3 .50000 1 .87083 6 JAPANESE 2 .42857 2 .14920 7 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .52000 1 .66132 25 ADVANCED POLISH 2 .38462 1 .62670 26 CANTONESE 2 .36364 1 .80404 1 1 VIETNAMESE 3 .18182 1 .601 1 4 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .83333 1 . 16905 6 MISCELLANEOUS 2 .93750 2 .01556 16 CONTROL ENGLISH 2 .00000 1 .58944 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 2 .51961 1 .76015 204 TABLE 8A Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #1 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .28571 .46881 1 4 CANTONESE .28571' .61125 1 4 VIETNAMESE .00000 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .22222 .54832 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .06250 1 .76895 1 6 CANTONESE . 10000 .31623 1 0 VIETNAMESE .16667 .40825 6 JAPANESE 1.00000 1 .41 421 7 MISCELLANEOUS .04000 .20000 25 ADVANCED POLISH .65385 1.32491 26 CANTONESE .09091 .30151 1 1 VIETNAMESE .72727 1.27208 1 1 JAPANESE 1.33333 1.96638 6 MISCELLANEOUS .18750 .54391 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .15000 .36635 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .38725 .96339 204 1 73 TABLE 8B Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #2 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .64286 .92878 1 4 CANTONESE .35714 .63332 1 4 VIETNAMESE .25000 .50000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .66667 1 .28338 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .50000 1 .75119 1 6 CANTONESE 1 .20000 1 .87380 10 VIETNAMESE .16667 .40825 6 JAPANESE 1 .57143 2 .07020 7 MISCELLANEOUS .32000 .74833 25 ADVANCED POLISH 1 .53846 1 .30325 26 CANTONESE .63636 1 .02691 1 1 VIETNAMESE .72727 .90453 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .16667 .98319 6 MISCELLANEOUS .93750 1 .34009 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .80000 1 .00525 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .86275 1 .24797 204 174 TABLE 8C Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n 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 1 .07143 1 .38477 1 4 CANTONESE .50000 1 .09193 14 VIETNAMESE .00000 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .38889 .84984 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .37500 1 .36015 16 CANTONESE .60000 1 .26491 10 VIETNAMESE .16667 .40825 6 JAPANESE 1 .00000 1 .52753 7 MISCELLANEOUS .44000 1 .08321 25 ADVANCED POLISH 2 .50000 1 .79444 26 CANTONESE .45455 .82020 1 1 VIETNAMESE 1 .27273 1 .55505 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .66667 1 .21106 6 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .50000 1 .59164 16 CONTROL ENGLISH 3 .25000 1 .58529 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 1 .26961 1 .61302 204 TABLE 8D Means and Sta n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #4 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .21429 .42582 1 4 CANTONESE .35714 .84190 1 4 VIETNAMESE .25000 .50000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .16667 .38348 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1.18750 1 .64190 1 6 CANTONESE .40000 .69921 10 VIETNAMESE .16667 .40825 6 JAPANESE .71429 .75593 7 MISCELLANEOUS .20000 .40825 25 ADVANCED POLISH .50000 1 .06771 26 CANTONESE .09091 .30151 1 1 VIETNAMESE .45455 1 .21356 1 1 JAPANESE 1.00000 2 .00000 6 MISCELLANEOUS .12500 .34157 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .05000 .22361 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .36275 .87425 204 176 TABLE 8E Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #5 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH 1 .00000 .87706 1 4 CANTONESE .28571 .61125 1 4 VIETNAMESE .00000 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .38889 .69780 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .00000 1 .21106 1 6 CANTONESE .80000 1 .13529 1 0 VIETNAMESE .33333 .81650 6 JAPANESE 1 .00000 1 .41421 7 MISCELLANEOUS .28000 .67823 25 ADVANCED POLISH 1 .30769 1 .19228 26 CANTONESE .45455 .68755 1 1 VIETNAMESE .72727 .78625 1 1 JAPANESE .16667 .40825 6 MISCELLANEOUS .93750 1 .28938 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .70000 .92338 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .69608 .99049 204 •1 77 TABLE 8F Means and Sta n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #6 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .64286 1 .27745 14 CANTONESE .78571 1 . 18831 1 4 VIETNAMESE .50000 1 .00000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .77778 1 .21537 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .25000 1 . 65328 1 6 CANTONESE .70000 1 .33749 1 0 VIETNAMESE .83333 1 .60208 6 JAPANESE 1 .42857 1 .90238 7 MISCELLANEOUS .76000 1 .33167 25 ADVANCED POLISH .84615 1 .40548 26 CANTONESE .18182 .40452 1 1 VIETNAMESE 1 .36364 1 .56670 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .33333 1 .75119 6 MISCELLANEOUS .31250 .79320 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH .55000 .94451 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE .78431 1 .29514 204 1 78 TABLE 8G Means and St a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r the O p t i o n a l Response Type on C o n s t r u c t i o n #7 LEVEL/LANGUAGE MEAN STD. DEV. N BEGINNING POLISH .85714 1 .51186 1 4 CANTONESE .64286 .92878 1 4 VIETNAMESE .25000 .50000 4 MISCELLANEOUS .77778 1 .16597 18 INTERMEDIATE POLISH 1 .06250 1 .23659 1 6 CANTONESE .60000 .96609 1 0 VIETNAMESE .00000 .00000 6 JAPANESE .85714 1 .57359 7 MISCELLANEOUS .84000 1 .57268 25 ADVANCED POLISH 1 .69231 1 .64364 26 CANTONESE .72727 1 .10371 1 1 VIETNAMESE 1 .54545 1 .57249 1 1 JAPANESE 1 .83333 1 .72240 6 MISCELLANEOUS 1 .31250 1 .77834 1 6 CONTROL ENGLISH 2 .45000 1 .70062 20 ENTIRE SAMPLE 1 .15686 1 .51345 204

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 3 0
China 2 33
Iran 2 2
City Views Downloads
Tiran 2 2
Ashburn 2 0
Hangzhou 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

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