Guo_Psych447_FinalProject

Running head: ESL MORPHEME ACQUISITION 1

Morpheme Acquisition in English as a Second Language – A Corpus Analysis

Rundi Guo

PSYCH 447 (Fall 2016)

University of Michigan

12/1/2016

MORPHEME ACQUISITION IN L2 ENGLISH 2

Abstract

Early research on morpheme acquisition in English as a second language (ESL) has

posited a “natural” morpheme acquisition order common to all ESL learners, which has been

questioned by more recent findings suggesting an indispensable role of influence from L1. This

corpus analysis investigates whether a common order of acquisition exists among ESL learners

whose first languages are Italian and Punjabi, and whether L1 transfer effect plays a role in the

acquisition of five most studied English morphemes, as well as in the trajectories in the

acquisition. The results did not support the “natural” order hypothesis. In addition, considerable

influence of L1 was observed, with a modified construct of measuring L1 transfer effect.

Introduction

The acquisition of morphemes in English has been one of the central topics in

psycholinguistics research on first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition (SLA).

One of the earliest and probably the most pioneering work on English morpheme acquisition was

Brown’s (1973) longitudinal investigation of three children learning English as their L1, in

which he observed a same fixed order of acquisition across the three children. As such results

were successfully replicated in later studies on L1 English learners, a universal order of

acquisition of English morphemes, at least for L1 learners, became an established view. Dulay

and Burt (1974) set forth a series of morpheme studies on SLA. In their study of Spanish and

Chinese children who were learning English as a second language (ESL), it was concluded that

ESL learners follow a very similar morpheme acquisition as learners of English as their L1.

The existence of such a “natural” pattern in the acquisition of morphemes in ESL learners

remains a dominant view to this day (Murakami & Alexopoulou, 2015). To explain such

observation, Goldschneider & Dekeyser (2001) proposed five contributing factors — perceptual

salience, semantic complexity, morphophonological regularity, syntactic category, and frequency

— the combination of which can largely predict the acquisition order found in previous ESL

morphological acquisition studies. However, at the same time, growing evidence from ESL

research in the past 40 years seems to reveal more and more complications in the ESL morpheme

acquisition order, bringing the universally “natural” order hypothesis into question. For example,

in A five-year longitudinal study on ten Chinese ESL learners, targeting acquisition of English

morphemes including regular and irregular past tense, third person singular -s, present

progressive -ing, and plural –s, Jia and Fuse (2007) found that while there was a general trend

among all learners, in that -ing was the easiest and regular past tense -ed and third person

singular were the hardest, their more notable observation was the drastically different acquisition

trajectories of different morphemes over the five year span. Specifically, -ing and plural -s

showed accelerated learning initially and then reached plateau, whereas third person -s was

acquired slowly and steadily with no plateau, and regular past tense showed no improvement

over time. According to their explanation, morphemes that are more salient and frequent are

likely acquired earlier and with less difficulties by Chinese ESL learners.

To determine whether ESL learners with different L1 backgrounds acquire English

morphemes in different patterns, Murakami and Alexopoulou (2015) conducted a corpus analysis

on English morpheme acquisition by ESL learners from seven L1 backgrounds using a database

consisting of written exam scripts drawn from the Cambridge Learner Corpus. They found a

significant L1 influence on the accuracy as well as the order of acquisition of six morphemes:

articles, past tense –ed, plural -s, possessive ’s, progressive -ing, and third person -s. Specifically,

morphological features related to “interpretable” as universal semantic concepts – e.g. plurality –

were found to be easier to acquire and less vulnerable to L1 influence than purely grammatical

and language-dependent features that lack semantic significance – e.g. the verb agreement on

third person singular subjects.

The present study aims to investigate morpheme acquisition by ESL learners from two

L1 backgrounds, Punjabi and Italian, neither of which were included in the Murakami and

Alexopoulou (2015) study. Following previous findings, the plural –s and the present progressive

–ing are predicted to be the easiest and least susceptible to L1 influence, the third person singular

–s the hardest and most susceptible to L1 influence, while regular and irregular past tense fall in

between. More specific hypotheses are described below.

The acquisition pattern of -ing might be different between Punjabi and Italian speakers,

because Punjabi does not have a present progressive feature at the morphological level, as

English and Italian do. Since the lack of equivalent feature in L1 was previously found to result

in more difficulty in L2 morpheme acquisition (Murakami & Alexopoulou, 2015), the -ing

morpheme in English might thus be harder for Punjabi speakers than for Italian speakers to learn.

However, in Punjabi, a similar semantic concept, namely, the continuation of a present action, is

expressed at a syntactic/semantic level with a separate following verb, which roughly translates

to “to live” in English (Bhatia, 1993). Since the previous study did not specify whether the lack

of equivalent feature must be on the morphological level for L1 transfer effect to appear, it is

unclear at this point if Punjabi speakers will experience any increased level of difficulty in

learning to express a familiar concept in morphology. Furthermore, although Italian has a present

progressive tense with conjugations at the morphology level, the use of this tense is much less

frequent than its equivalent in English, in that it is mostly reserved for clear instances of

progressive actions, typically for purpose of emphasizing or for responding to questions asked in

the same tense. Since Punjabi does not have this conventional restriction in frequency of use, it

might be equally reasonable to predict that Italian speakers might have a harder time

incorporating this infrequently used morphological feature in their L1 into their speech of

English as L2 at the typical frequency of its occurrence in English. Therefore, the predicted

difference between Punjabi and Italian speakers on the acquisition of the present progressive

morpheme -ing might go either direction.

L1 transfer effect might also be observed when a morphological equivalent does exist in

L2 but is not used on the same word-stem equivalents. The conjugation schemas of words in the

L1 — I.e. the way in which word forms of a same lemma vary — might likely interfere with the

learner’s acquisition of conjugation schemas in L2, if word forms of a same lemma in L2 vary in

different ways from their equivalent in L1. For example, in the conjugation schema in English

verbs (excluding copular, modal, and auxiliary verbs), the word forms corresponding to 1st

person singular and 3rd person singular in present tense are always different, in that the 3rd person

forms systematically have an additional inflectional morpheme -s. Italian verbs have a similar

pattern in their conjugation schema — for verbs in the present tense, the 3rd person singular form

is always different from 1st person form across verbs belonging to all the declension groups as

well as irregular verbs (Wikipedia). This systematic difference between the 1st person and the 3rd

person forms in their L1 for Italian speakers might thus facilitate their acquisition of the same

sort of difference in English as their L2.

By contrast, in Punjabi, the inflection on present tense 3rd person singular verbs are not as

consistent, in that the word form for masculine (but not feminine) 3rd person singular of a verb is

always identical to that for 1st person singular (Bhatia, 1993). In other words, whereas English

has word form contrasts between, say, “I eat” and “he/she eats”, Punjabi has conjugations such

as “I eat”, “she eats”, but also “he eat”, (with the rough English “translations” only for

demonstration purposes). This difference in the verb conjugation schema of Punjabi from that of

English might be reflected in Punjabi native speaker’s acquisition pattern of the 3rd person

singular morpheme -s in English. Specifically, they might have a harder time than do Italian

speakers getting used to the fact that in English, the 3rd person singular form is different from the

1st person form.

A similar pattern also holds for the singular/plural inflections in noun schemas in English,

Italian, and Punjabi. Although Punjabi has a systematic distinction between singularity and

plurality in nouns, and although this distinction is reflected in difference in the inflection in most

occasions, nonetheless, the singular and plural forms are identical if the noun is in the ‘direct’

case (Bhatia, 1993). On the other hand, identical forms for singular and plural nouns are

relatively rarer in English, and likewise in Italian.

If such complex L1 transfer effect described above does exist, the 3rd person singular -s

and the noun plural -s in English would be harder to acquire for L1 Punjabi speakers than for L1

Italian speakers.

To sum up, in the present study, it is hypothesized that, 1) regardless of L1, the rank of

the difficulty in acquisition of the targeted English morphemes (from the most difficult to the

least difficult) is 3rd person singular -s, followed by regular past tense -ed, followed by irregular

past tense, followed by present progressive –ing and plural -s; 2) the acquisition of present

progressive -ing shows different patterns for Punjabi speakers and Italian speakers, with no

specified prediction on the direction of the difference; 3) the third person singular –s and the

noun plural –s is more difficult for Punjabi speakers than for Italian speakers.

Method

Target Morphemes

The present study targeted five of the most studied English morphological conjugations

and inflections: the regular past tense –ed in verb, irregular past tense verbs, the present

progressive –ing in verbs, the present tense third person singular –s in verbs, and plural –s in

nouns. Another frequently studied morphological inflection – the possessive –‘s in nouns – is not

included, due to the extremely low number of its occurrences in the present database, as well as

potential confounds introduced by the punctuation conventions used in the transcripts. Since the

central focus of this study is on morphemes in the sub-lexical level, lexical morphemes such as

articles are also not included.

Corpus

TalkBank is a system for sharing and studying conversational interactions. The ESF

(European Science Foundation Second Language) Database in the TalkBank system consists of

audio files and transcriptions of oral interviews administered to L2 learners as interviewees by

interviewers who are native speakers of the target language. All the L2 learners in the database

are adult immigrant workers living in Western Europe, whose L2s are acquired spontaneously in

the naturalistic setting of their host countries. The target languages are Dutch, English, French,

German and Swedish. For each target language, two source languages were included. The

current study focused on the sub-corpus in which English is the target language and included

learners from both source languages — Punjabi and Italian — as presented in the corpus.

Two out of the three Punjabi speakers and two out of the four Italian speakers were

selected for analysis. The four learners selected are roughly matched on fluency level, which was

determined by the ratio of unrecognizable words in their speech to all words they produced. The

time span of all the transcripts for all 4 learners is approximately two years, which enables the

investigation on the acquisition trajectory of each of the morphemes over a two-year-phase.

Procedure

To analyze the acquisition trajectory of each of the target morphemes in a standardized

manner for all learners, data for each of the four learners is manually divided into 4 equal time

windows, labeled ’Time 1’, ‘Time 2’, ‘Time 3’, and ‘Time 4’. To examine the potential L1

transfer effect, data from learners with the same L1s are grouped together for related analysis.

The data is analyzed with CLAN (Computerized Language ANalysis), a program specifically

designed to analyze spoken language data transcribed in CHAT format (MacWhinney, 2000). A

morphology (MOR) tier is manually inserted to the original data using a CLAN command that

runs on a downloadable English morphology library provided by the CLAN developers. A full

list of CLAN commands used in this study is included in Appendix I.

Measure of Acquisition

The most typically used measure of acquisition in previous morpheme studies was

accuracy of use. Both Dulay and Burt (1973) and Jia and Fuse (2007) calculated the percentage

of correct forms in the contexts in which the morpheme was obligatory (aka. suppliance in

obligatory context, or SOC) as a measure of mastery of the morpheme. However, in the present

study, since information regarding the obligatory context is absent in the database, the SOC

scoring system is unfortunately unavailable. Frequency analysis was used in lieu de SOC.

Specifically, an acquisition score of a morpheme was estimated by calculating the ratio of the

frequency of occurrence of this morpheme produced by the ESL speakers to the frequency of

occurrence of the same morpheme produced by the L1 English interviewers. The logic behind

this scoring system is that if the ESL interviewees were “native-like”, the interviewers and

interviewees should presumably have a comparable number of occurrence of each morpheme,

since they engaged in the same conversation, thus largely shared the context and content of the

conversation. Since the ratios calculated on type frequency and those calculated on token

frequency are always highly correlated, the average values of the two corresponding ratios were

taken to be the final score.

Below is a demonstration of how the acquisition score is calculated in a specific example

-- acquisition of the third person singular –s for Punjabi speakers during Time 2. First, working

directory is set to a folder containing all data files labeled as Time 2 for the two Punjabi speakers;

second, the frequency of occurrence of the third person singular –s morpheme in the ESL

speakers tiers is obtained using the CLAN command freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%MOR

+s“v|*3S” +u, and the output is recorded: 26 and 57 for type and token frequency respectively;

third, the frequency of the same morpheme is obtained in the interviewers’ tiers with the

command freq *.cha -t*SJA -t*SRA +t%MOR +s“v|*3S” +u, and the output is recorded: 62 and

154 for type and token frequency respectively; fourth, the type frequency ratio and token

frequency ratio are calculated: 26/62=0.42, and 57/154=0.37; and finally, the average of the two

scores – (0.42+0.37)/2=0.39 – was used as the final acquisition score of the third person –s

morpheme for Punjabi speakers during Time 2. The same procedure is used to calculate scores

for all target morphemes for Punjabi and Italian speakers for Time 1 through Time 4 and for

another score collapsing over Time Period to separate out the effect of L1 regardless of time in

acquisition.

To reiterate, with this scoring method, “difficulty” in acquisition in a morpheme is

defined as: abnormally low number of occurrence of this morpheme used by the ESL learners

compared to a baseline frequency obtained from their interlocutors who are native English

speakers. Acquisition is said to be improving if the frequency of use observed in ESL learners

become closer to the baseline frequency. The smaller the discrepancy between the frequency of

the interviewer and that of the interviewee (aka. the larger value of the ratio), the better the

morpheme is learned.

In addition, Previous study also looked at incorrect use resulting from erroneous forms

that are not necessarily incorrect in terms of their context of use, a particularly common error

observed in the acquisition of past tense verbs for English as the L1. More specifically, children

with English as their L1 typically go through a systematic period during which the morpheme -

ed for regular past tense verbs are over-generalized to irregular verbs such as “go”, producing

erroneous forms such as “goed” (Ellis, 2015). To investigate whether this over-regularization

error also occurs for ESL learners, data was analyzed with commands such as freq *.cha +t*SJA

+t*SRA +t%mor +s“?|*ed” +u, in which the string search “?|*ed” searches for all unrecognizable

words with an –ed ending that are produced by the ESL speakers. However, since the pilot

searches yielded no relevant results, which consisted of only non-verblike words such as “leed”

and “mohammed”, no further analysis was conducted on this type of errors. This might suggest

an acquisition pattern differing from L1 acquisition, although not conclusive without larger

dataset and more in-depth analyses.

Results and Discussion

All results of this study is included in Appendix II.

The first hypothesis, regarding the overall difficulty level in acquisition for different

morphemes, was mostly, though not entirely, supported. As shown in Figure 1, the rank in

difficulty of the five English morphemes (starting with the most difficult morpheme) is third

person singular –s and regular past tense, followed by plural noun, followed by irregular past

tense, and followed by present progressive. Consistent with previous findings by Jia and Fuse

(2007) and by Murakami & Alesopoulou (2015), the third person singular –s and the regular past

tense –ed are among the hardest to acquire for ESL learners. Such difficulty could be attributable

to the low level of phonological salience of both morphemes (Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001).

The lack of semantic interpretability in the third person singular –s poses even further challenge

for ESL learners to acquire (Murakami & Alexopoulou, 2015). In addition, the present

progressive –ing was found to be the easiest to acquire, which is likely a result from the presence

of several facilitating properties such as high level of phonological and syntactic saliency as well

as regularity, as propsed by Goldscheider and DeKeyser (2001).

In terms of L1 transfer effect, the most notable finding is that Punjabi speakers scored

much higher on the present progressive –ing than did Italian speakers throughout the entire time.

Punjabi speakers seemed to be unaffected by the lack of a morphological equivalent of the

present progressive tense in their L1 – their innate ability to express the semantic concept of

progressiveness in their L1 seemed to carry over to their acquisition of the corresponding

morphological structure in English, regardless of the fact that they were previously habituated to

express this concept in the syntactic level. Alternatively, the considerably lower acquisition score

of the present progressive –ing for Italian speakers might be due to the low frequency of use of

the morphological equivalent in their L1. Therefore, regarding the definition of L1 transfer effect,

it could be that the frequency of the idea being expressed in L1 is more important than the

existence of a morphological equivalent. Thus, Murakami and Alexopoulou's only measure used

to examine L1 transfer – the existence or lack of an equivalent feature in L1 – might be too

simplistic on its own. In other words, the frequency effect in L1 might likely override the effect

from the existence of a morphological equivalent.

The results also supported the third hypothesis, in that the third person singular –s and the

noun plural –s is more difficult for Punjabi speakers than for Italian speakers, possibly both due

to the difference in conjugation schemas of the equivalent lemma words between Punjabi and

English.

Different morphemes also showed different patterns in the acquisition trajectories for

Punjabi and Italian learners (Figure 6). For example, regular past tense –ed showed no

improvement over time for Punjabi speakers only, whereas Italian speakers improve quickly and

steadily until a plateau effect was reached. Nonetheless, the acquisition trajectories do have some

common trends in all speakers. For example, speakers of both L1 demonstrated a steady

improvement over time for the present progressive –ing, although Punjabi speakers consistently

outperform Italian speakers at any given time. Similarly, Plural -s showed improvement over

time for both speakers but Italian speakers perform better at all time point and they improve at a

much higher rate than do Punjabi speakers. Lastly, speakers of neither L1 showed improvement

for third person singular –s. Further investigation is needed to explain the inconsistency between

such results and findings from previous studies (e.g. Jia & Fuse, 2007).

It is also noteworthy that the difficulty rank order of the five morphemes for Punjabi

speakers is different from that for Italian speakers, as shown in Figure 2 and 3, which seems to

contradict early findings on a “natural” acquisition order for ESL learners regardless of their L1

background.

The present study has several notable limitations. Due to small sample size and the

anecdotal nature of the data, the results might not be representative for all Italian or Punjabi

learners of English. The fact that the present study only examined ESL learners who are native

speakers of these two languages, both of which also happen to belong to the same linguistic

family as English does, also result in low generalizing power to ESL leaners from other language

backgrounds, especially to learners whose L1 is more different from English.

Another limitation of the study is the absence of information regarding the learner’s age

and their experience with English, both prior to the first interview and during the two-year period

when the interviews took place. Since previous studies have found considerable individual

differences, in that factors such as the learner’s age and richness of the learning environment can

all play a role in the acquisition of L2, future investigations on L2 morpheme acquisition might

benefit from the inclusion of such subject-level factors as potential co-variances.

References

Bhatia, T. K. (1993). Punjabi: A conginitive-descriptive grammar. New York;London;:

Routledge.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.

Language Learning, 24, 37–53.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “Natural order of L2 morpheme

acquisition” in english: A Meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning,

51(1), 1-50. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00147

Italian conjugation. (N.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_conjugation

Jia, G., & Fuse, A. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native mandarin-

speaking children and adolescents: Age-related differences. Journal of Speech, Language,

and Hearing Research, 50(5), 1280-1299. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/090)

MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd Edition.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English

grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 38(3), 365. doi:10.1017/S0272263115000352

Appendix I – CLAN commands

Inserting a MOR tier MOR *.cha Past tense all freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%MOR +s"v|*PAST" +u freq *.cha -t*SLA -t*SVI +t%MOR +s"v|*PAST" +u freq *.cha -t*SJA -t*SRA +t%MOR +s"v|*PAST" +u freq *.cha -t*SLA -t*SVI +t%MOR +s"v|*PAST" +u Past tense regular freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%MOR +s"v|*-PAST" +u freq *.cha +t*SLA +t*SVI +t%MOR +s"v|*-PAST" +u freq *.cha -t*SJA -t*SRA +t%MOR +s"v|*-PAST" +u freq *.cha -t*SLA -t*SVI +t%MOR +s"v|*-PAST" +u Past tense irregular freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%MOR +s"v|*&PAST" +u freq *.cha +t*SLA +t*SVI +t%MOR +s"v|*&PAST" +u freq *.cha -t*SJA -t*SRA +t%MOR +s"v|*&PAST" +u freq *.cha -t*SLA -t*SVI +t%MOR +s"v|*&PAST" +u Past tense overgeneralization: freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%mor +s“?|*ed” +u freq *.cha +t*SLA +t*SVI +t%mor +s“?|*ed” +u Present progressive freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%MOR +s"part|*PRESP" +u freq *.cha +t*SLA +t*SVI +t%MOR +s"part|*PRESP" +u freq *.cha -t*SJA -t*SRA +t%MOR +s"part|*PRESP" +u freq *.cha -t*SLA -t*SVI +t%MOR +s"part|*PRESP" +u 3rd person singular freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%MOR +s“v|*3S” +u freq *.cha +t*SLA +t*SVI +t%MOR +s“v|*3S” +u freq *.cha -t*SJA -t*SRA +t%MOR +s“v|*3S” +u freq *.cha -t*SLA -t*SVI +t%MOR +s“v|*3S” +u Noun plural freq *.cha +t*SJA +t*SRA +t%MOR +s*PL +u

freq *.cha +t*SLA +t*SVI +t%MOR +s*PL +u freq *.cha -t*SJA -t*SRA +t%MOR +s*PL +u freq *.cha -t*SLA -t*SVI +t%MOR +s*PL +u

Appendix II – Tables and Figures

Table 1. Full acquisition scores

Punjabi time 1

Italian time 1

Punjabi time 2

Italian time 2

Punjabi time 3

Italian time 3

Punjabi time 4

Italian time 4

past tense all 0.13 0.07 0.37 0.36 0.18 0.52 0.41 0.72 past tense regular 0.15 0.04 0.42 0.23 0.05 0.50 0.13 0.41

past tense irregular 0.12 0.09 0.34 0.43 0.24 0.54 0.54 0.91 present progressive 0.56 0.22 0.39 0.20 0.75 0.45 0.87 0.73 3rd person singular 0.08 0.34 0.14 0.49 0.11 0.37 0.08 0.34

plural noun 0.11 0.31 0.20 0.34 0.20 0.56 0.21 0.55

Figure 1. A) Acquisitionscoresforallmorphemes(collapsed over Time Period)

B) Acquisitionscoresforallmorphemes(collapsedoverTimePeriodandL1)

pasttenseall pasttenseregular

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

AllPunjabi AllItalian

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

Figure 2. A) Acquisition score for all morphemes for Punjabi speakers

B) Acquisition score for all morphemes for Punjabi speakers (collapsed over Time period)

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

time1 time2 time3 time4

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

Figure 3. A) Acquisition score for all morphemes for Italian speakers

B) Acquisition score for all morphemes for Italian speakers (collapsed over Time Period)

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

Figure 4. Acquisition trajectory for all morphemes for Punjabi speakers

Figure 5. Acquisition trajectory for all morphemes for Italian speakers

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91

pasttenseall pasttenseregular pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive 3rdpersonsingular pluralnoun

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

pasttenseall pasttenseregular pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive 3rdpersonsingular pluralnoun

Figure 6. Comparisons between Punjabi and Italian speakers regarding the acquisition

trajectories for each morpheme

00.10.20.30.40.50.6

Pasttenseregular

Punjabi Italian

Pasttenseirregular

Punjabi Italian

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80

Pasttenseall

Punjabi Italian

Presentprogressive

Punjabi Italian

3rdpersonsingular

Punjabi Italian

Pluralnoun

Punjabi Italian

Figure7.MorphemeacquisitionscoresforallspeakersateachTimePeriod

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

MorphemeacquisitionatTime1

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

pasttenseirregular

presentprogressive

3rdpersonsingular

pluralnoun

Guo_Psych447_FinalProject

Documents

Transcript of Guo_Psych447_FinalProject

The Dutch Republic In International Trade

Disclaimer

Improve the Color Quality Of Your Monitor

Cakes Recipes

Effective Parenting: Establishing Boundaries

xCDC14a

Chapter-01

Life Is Just A Dream - Or Is It?

Barclays1

Introduction to Six Sigma

Acetone Peroxide

Plato - Symposium

Jan Van Eyck and the Man In A Red Turban

Tragic Heroes

Heidegger Kritik

Rubik's cube solution

Oedipus The King: The Ideal Tragic Play

(Tesla) - The Tesla Magnetic Car Engine

How Computer Keyboards Work

The Best American Humorous Short Stories