Brian McDonough Master's Report

7/28/2019 Brian McDonough Master's Report

1/60

1

1. Introduction

1.1 The problem

L2 instruction typically involves a highly structured grammar that does not allow

for the variation seen in the unplanned, ongoing character of naturally-occurring

conversation (Hidalgo, 2000). Most L2 learners will not produce speech exactly like

native-speakers (NS) of the language they are learning. Jansma (1987) states that

referential as well as attitudinal meaning can be lost if the learner does not strive to

understand and produce NS prosody in the L2. This study addresses three issues: (1)

whether or not English speaking L2 learners of Spanish can process L2 syntactic and

intonational structures inherent to L1 speech; (2) if they can focus their attention on

structures that deviate from their L2 acquired forms; and (3) if there is an order of

acquisition for such structures.

1.2 Prosody

Stress is the relative force with which a sound or syllable is spoken. Intonation is

the use of changing pitch in speech. In English, prosody is a common means to convey

emphasis on a particular constituent. That emphasis, in turn, conveys semantic and

pragmatic information. In Spanish, that same emphasis can be conveyed through word

order. Example (2) shows the type of response an English-speaking L2 learner of

Spanish might expect to the question in example (1). Example (3) shows the type of

answer to example (1) that the L2 learner will likely receive from an L1 Spanish speaker

(Bolinger, 1954).


2/60

2

(1) Quin est enfermo?

Who is sick?

(2) Su marido est enfermo.

Her husband is sck.

(3) Est enfermo su marido.

Her hsbandis sick.

In (3), the stress and intonation fall on hsbandin English, whereas in (2), they fall on

sck. In Spanish (and many other languages), the constituents conveying emphasized or

new information tend to surface toward the end of the utterance, which places more

prominence on that part of the utterance. In (3), more emphasis is placed on su marido

(her husband). In (2), more emphasis is placed on enfermo (sick). The partitioning of

sentences into old information and new information is referred to as information structure

(Buring, 2003).

Just as referential and attitudinal information can be lost through a non-native use

of L2 prosody, learners of Spanish may lose that same information through an inability to

process non-canonical Spanish word order. Example (5) answers the question in example

(4):

(4) Quin prepara la cena?

Who prepares dinner?

(5) La preparoyo (y no mi esposa).

Iprepare it (and not my wife).


3/60

3

The new information in (5) isyo (I). This utterance provides a contrast, which in

Spanish, is shown through word order. If the speaker had uttered (6) instead of (5),

referential meaning would be lost.

(6) La preparo.

I prepare it.

Even though the subject of the verb is morphologically marked in Spanish, in this case

with the verb ending -o (I), the speaker is not conveying the same information as in

(5), where emphasis is placed upon the post-verbal subjectyo (I).

1.3 Information Structure

1.3.1 Left-Dislocation (LD) and Topicalization (TOP)

The focus of this study is whether or not English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish

can comprehend non-canonical, pragmatically-based constructions occurring in the L2,

such as certain variations in word order that can change the semantic and/or pragmatic

interpretation of the utterance. Particularly, this study concentrates on two types of non-

canonical word order variants in Spanish that are examined following the field of

information structure: left-dislocation and topicalization. Lambrecht (2001) defines the

term left-dislocation as a sentence structure in which a referential constituent which

could function as an argument or adjunct within a predicate-argument structure occurs

instead outside the boundaries of the clause containing the predicate, to its left. It could

be a full lexical noun phrase (NP), a prepositional phrase (PP), a pronoun, and other

categories.


4/60

4

In (7), the left-dislocated constituent isEsa viejita (that old lady), which is

coreferenced with the direct object pronoun la (her), but which is not the direct object

because, as previously mentioned, the LD constituent is not an argument of the sentence.

(7) Esa viejita, la cuid yo.

That old lady, I took care of her.

Topicalization is a construction which, like LD, has a constituent in non-canonical initial

position (in this case, a non-subject). However, topicalized phrases are still part of the

argument structure of the sentence, as in (8).

(8) Libros, leo con frecuencia.

Books, I read them often.

Example (9) is a TOP construction in English; (10) is an LD construction:

(9) This movie I saw when I was a kid.

(10) This movie, I saw itwhen I was a kid.

In (9), This movie serves as the direct object of the verb. In (10), the direct object is

represented by it. This movie is the left-dislocated noun phrase in (10).

1.3.2 Topic and Focus

According to Lambrecht (1994), a referent is interpreted as the topic of a

proposition if in a given situation the proposition is construed as being aboutthis

referent. The topic of a predication contrasts with itsfocus. The focus makes it possible

to convey new information (Lambrecht, 2001).

A Spanish presentational sentence provides new information at the end of the

utterance, as in example (12), which answers the question in example (11).


5/60

5

(11) Quin te la da?

Who is giving it to you?

(12) Me la da Gonzlez.

Gonzlez gives it to me.

In (12),Me la da (he/she gives it to me) has been pre-established, or presupposed, as

the topic in the question that was asked of the speaker in (11). The focus in (12),

Gonzlez, fills in the missing argument.

Lambrecht (1994) outlines three types of focus: (1) predicate focus, in which the

assertion provides a comment about a given topic; (2) argument focus, in which the

assertion provides a missing argument in an incomplete proposition, as in (12); and (3)

sentence focus, in which both the missing argument and the predicate are the focus, or

new information. Examples (13), (14), and (15) illustrate each type of focus from

Lambrecht (1994).

Predicate Focus (PF):

(13) What happened to your car?

Mi coche se descompuso./Se descompuso. No inversion

My car broke DOWN./It broke DOWN. No inversion

Argument Focus (AF):

(14) I heard your motorcycle broke down?

No, se me descompuso EL COCHE. Syntactic inversion

No, my CAR broke down. Prosodic inversion


6/60

6

Sentence Focus (SF):

(15) What happened?

Se me descompuso EL COCHE. Syntactic inversion

My CAR broke down. Prosodic inversion

Example (14) can also be considered a contrastive focus (CF) structure, as it contrasts

car to motorcycle. Example (16) shows the SV order of a typical CF construction in

English, whereas (17) shows a typical Spanish CF construction with a VS construction.

(16) JUAN yelled (not Pedro). (Hertel, 2003)

(17) Grit JUAN (no Pedro). (Hertel, 2003)

Juan yelled (not Pedro).

AF constructions include the answer to certain types of WH-questions found in discourse,

such as those that ask the question, Who?, as in (18).

(18) Quin prepara la cena?

Who prepares dinner?

(19) La preparoyo (y no mi esposa).

Iprepare it (and not my wife).

The agentive argument,yo (I) is missing in (18) and provided in (19).

In (19), the anaphoric expressionLa (it) is not the focus, but rather, part of the

topic expression, which has already been established in (18) with la cena (dinner).

Example (19) represents a non-canonical word order for Spanish, while example (20)

shows the canonical word order in Spanish.


7/60

7

(20) La preparo.

I prepare it.

The syntactic inversion in (19) that produces the non-canonical word order represents a

pragmatic shift of which English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish are not generally aware

of.

1.4 Canonical Word Order

Since both LD and TOP are constructions found in both English and Spanish, L2

learners of Spanish are aware, albeit subconsciously, of the variability that exists in L1

discourse. However, the current study addresses whether or not they are aware of LD

and TOP in L2 discourse. L2 learners are typically exposed to and accustomed to a

canonical word order that that does not allow for deviation for discourse-related

purposes.

The L2 learner comes to realize that anaphoric reference to the object is pre-

verbal in Spanish (with the exception of imperatives and infinitives). The L2 learner

generally becomes accustomed to the pre-verbal position of pronouns over time. L2

learners view subjects as pre-verbal in statements (if stated at all) and over time will

usually understand them to be post-verbal in questions. Examples (21) and (22) show the

canonical placement of subjects in a question and in a statement in Spanish.

(21) Qu quiere Elena?

What does Elena want?

(22) (Elena) quiere una manzana.

Elena (she) wants an apple.


8/60

8

1.5 Spanish/English Differences

Spanish-speaking L2 learners of English may have difficulty transitioning L1

word order structures from Spanish to English. Givn (1984) shows a speech sample of a

Spanish-speaking immigrant who came to the United States that points out how

confusion could exist between the two languages in this regard, as seen in (23).

(23) me come back Mexico in 1974, is come my family.

The speaker uses a post-verbal subject to say that his family is coming. Since the

predicate is the topic and the subject is the focus in (23), it is assumed that the speaker

meant:

(24) Myfmily is coming.

and not:

(25) My family is cming.

For the L1 English speaker, it is difficult to understand the intention of the

speaker in example (23). If L2 learners of Spanish do not understand how word order is

manifested in discourse, they may misinterpret the intentions of the speaker or produce

utterances that may be difficult to understand in Spanish, or pragmatically inappropriate.


9/60

9

2. SLA Literature Review

The Competition Model (MacWhinney and Bates, 1989) of Second Language

Acquisition (SLA) involves a competition among various cues (i.e., word order, meaning

of lexical items, animacy criteria, morphology, etc.) for the L2 learner to process. The

question for SLA is whether or not L1 cues transfer to the L2. Based on the studies of

Gass (1987), Harrington (1987), Kilborn and Ito (1989), and Sasaki (1991, 1994), Gass

and Selinker (2001) claim that L2 learners will maintain their L1 cues and use them as a

basis for L2 interpretation.

English has a rigid system of word order while Spanish has a more flexible word

order system (Fant, 1984). English speakers rely more heavily on intonation to express

pragmatic meaning than do Spanish speakers. When the L1-transfer-to-L2 strategy

inevitably fails for the learner, the next resource is generally a focus on meaning and not

on form (Gass and Selinker, 2001). Sasaki (1994) found that after L1 English speakers

realized that Japanese has SOV word order rather than SVO, they rigidly applied that

new word order to their L2 production. L2 learners of Spanish are not exposed to much

word order variation in L2 instruction in the early stages of learning. If the findings of

Sasaki (1994) hold true for English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish in the beginning

stages, then those learners should have a difficult time processing variable word order in

Spanish because (1) they have no reason to believe that it is different than English and are

most likely not aware of discourse motivated changes in English, and (2) they will most

likely have fossilized word order rules by the time they are exposed to more variable

manifestations of Spanish word order. If that claim holds true for Spanish, then the


10/60

10

question that needs to be addressed is how one develops competence and understanding

eventually to be able to produce Spanish word order variation.


11/60

11

3. Framework of the Study

3.1 Pragmatic Competence/Near-nativeness

Chomsky (1965) distinguishes between competence andperformance.

Competence is the idealized linguistic capacity of the learner, while performance is what

the learner actually does with language. Chomsky (1980) distinguishes between

grammatical competence andpragmatic competence. Grammatical competence is

knowledge of form and meaning in the language. It is sometimes referred to as linguistic

competence. Pragmatic competence refers to the conditions and manner of its use.

The acquisition of pragmatic competence in Spanish by adult learners has been

previously studied in SLA. Primarily, researchers have analyzed acquisition of speech

acts and word order for L2 Spanish (for work on acquisition of speech acts, see Koike

1989; 1996).

In order to reach near-native status in the L2, one should have a certain degree of

pragmatic competence. For the Spanish language, learners must also be able to recognize

non-canonical structures in the L2 with pragmatic, communicative purposes. In syntactic

terms, Spanish word order is not as flexible as it appears due to the pragmatic governance

of the order of its constituents.

Hawkins (2004) proposes the Representational Deficit Hypothesis (RDH) in

which L2 learners syntax is selectively impaired, lacking parameterized formal features

not present in the L1 which are no longer accessible following a critical period for

acquisition (Snape, in press). The critical period to which he refers is a time before

puberty when language learners can become L2 proficient to the same degree as a native-


12/60

12

speaker of that language. This statement suggests only partial access to UG is possible

because, after L1 parameters are set, other previously available parameters are no longer

accessible. If the RDH is correct and there is only partial access to UG, learners should

not be able to comprehend syntactic structures of a given L2 that do not exist in their L1.

For L2 learners of Spanish, the inability to comprehend syntactic structures carries over

to pragmatics structures due to the structure of information in Spanish.

As mentioned previously, TOP and LD do occur in English, but not due to all of

the pragmatically motivated reasons they occur in Spanish and not in the same manner as

in English. For example, English does not allow for post-verbal subjects. Therefore,

according the RDH, the parameter is already set, but not activated as much in L2 Spanish

for English speakers because pragmatic meanings are being addressed via prosody rather

than word order. As a result, L2 learners of Spanish should be able cognitively to

restructure TOP and LD in their interlanguage to a near-native approximation.

Neufeld (1977) proposes the Acoustic Image Imprinting Theory, which holds that

native-like production of the sounds and prosodic contours of the target language can be

achieved only when the internalized models for these sounds and contours have been

built up over time without appreciable contamination by non-native input. He also

states that L2 learners should avoid speaking L2 in the beginning stages of their training

in order to avoid poor approximation of the native stimulus. Those who prescribe to

the Communicative Approach for SLA would disagree with his assessment about

avoiding speaking; however, his point is that transfer of L1 prosody takes place. The

problem for L2 acquisition of Spanish by English-speakers is not pragmatic transfer


13/60

13

(Kasper and Rose, 1999), but rather a lack thereof. English word order can transfer to

Spanish, although the pragmatic nature of the L2 word order does not automatically

transfer with it. If Neufelds (1977) theory is applied to native-like production of word

order in the L2, then it should be able to be achieved when the internalized models for

that word order have been built up over time without appreciable contamination by non-

native input. In order to internalize a model of word order, learners must first notice a

mismatch between what they have already acquired and what they are taking in (Schmidt,

1990).

3.2 Noticing/Attention

Hertel (2003) studied word order variation with unergatives and unaccusatives for

English speaking L2 learners of Spanish. The study finds that learners must first notice a

mismatch between their SV representation and the VS order found in the L2 input. In

other words, learners must specifically notice differences between L1 and L2.

Schmidt (1990) proposes the Noticing Hypothesis, in which L2 learners draw

particular forms into their consciousness in order to acquire them. In other words, L2

input alone is not sufficient for this processing unless it allows the learner to internalize

the form, which is generally referred to as intake (Corder, 1967). Schmidt (1990) and

Tomlin and Villa (1994) both state that the process of intake cannot take place

subconsciously. Attention to form requires alertness, orientation, and detection (Tomlin

and Villa, 1994). They state that before noticing, or detection as they refer to it, can take

place, there must be alertness and orientation to a form. Tomlin and Villa (1994) call

detection the cognitive registration of sensory stimuli.


14/60

14

VanPatten (1989; 1990) found that when form and meaning require attention at

the same time, the learners will exceed their total attentional capacity. Bialystok (1992)

points out that tasks which require paying attention to some aspect of input which may

not be salient, usual or expected make high demands on control because they involve

selecting where to focus ones attention.

Therefore, in the current study, the goal is for learners to place specific attention

to form and little attention to meaning. The study seeks to determine if L2 learners can

detect non-canonical word order, which requires the learner to detect specific forms (i.e.,

parts of speech).

As mentioned earlier, alertness and orientation are necessary before detection can

take place. The instructions and examples for the exercise should help facilitate

orientation for the learner, after which detection should be possible.

In the current study, learners are asked to read transcriptions, instead of listen to

recorded utterances. There is no listening component to the study. Listening

comprehension involves paying more attention to meaning than to form (Bialystok and

Ryan, 1985). While the learners eventually should understand subtle meaning changes, if

they have not acquired forms, they will not be able to produce the forms. The act of

directing the focus of the learner onto the linguistic form is known as consciousness

raising (Rutherford and Sharwood-Smith, 1985 and Sharwood-Smith, 1981).

In a study of linguistic control by children, Ricciardelli (1993) set up seven tasks

where children attended to control of linguistic processing at the expense of meaning in

their native language (NL). The two tasks that relate to the current study were word


15/60

15

order repetition (control) and word order correction (analysis). In the word order

repetition task, children were told that everything the researcher said to them would

sound wrong, but that they should repeat the sentence back to her anyway. The two

practice sentences in (26) and (27) were given to prepare the subjects.

(26) I hungry am.

(27) The girl a cat has.

Since the sentences were repeated back to the researcher, the subjects had to make a

conscious effort at linguistic control at the expense of a search for meaning.

In the word order correction task, the children were given the same types of

sentences. This time, however, they were told to correct the sentences instead of repeat

them; thus, a greater emphasis was placed on analysis rather than control. Essentially,

they were asked to restructure the sentences. The two word order tasks can be roughly

equated to Tomlin and Villas (1994) notion of attention, most specifically to the

distinction between alertness and orientation. The results of the study indicated that

children have good control over word order repetition. They do not have good control

over changing the word order in the utterance.

The current study is much like the word order correction task, except that the

utterances that the L2 learners received were not presented to them as incorrect, but

rather as variations in word order. In both Ricciardelli (1993) and the current study,

however, the learner was required to restructure the utterance. Restructuring

(McLaughlin, 1990) involves a destabilization in the learners linguistic system and

eventually leads to a re-stabilization. Restructuring is seen as a U-shaped curve, in which


16/60

16

stage 1 is the TL-norm; stage 2 (at the bottom of the U) is the deviant structure; and stage

3 returns to the TL-norm with the new structure available to the learner.

Two sets of data collection took place over a six-week period to gauge whether or

not an awareness and/or detection took place over time due to the input received by

learners within that time frame.

Another technique for gauging awareness that has gained prominence in current

SLA studies is the use of think-aloud protocols. According to Leow and Morgan-Short

(2004), think-aloud protocols gather on-line data on the cognitive processes of learners

while they are interacting with L2 data by instructing the learners to verbalize what they

are thinking. Nisbett and Wilson (1977) found, however, that in think-aloud studies, the

report that the participants supplied often did not coincide with their actual behavior. In

other words, they claim that think-aloud studies are too subjective and the learners are not

always aware of exactly how they are processing the language.

The current study is done in the same vein as a think-aloud study, yet the

subjectivity is eliminated because the investigator examines what learners actually do to

process the non-canonical word order and notwhat they thinkthey do. The task is

written instead of oral, but elicits data that should show how the learners process the

information.

3.3 Order of Acquisition

In the current study, learner processes of intermediate and advanced levels were

gauged over a six-week period. Following Pienemann (1987), there are proscribed stages

to L2 acquisition, each of which builds upon the previous stage, making any attempt to


17/60

17

thwart the process (i.e., skip a stage) futile. His study is based upon children who are

students of German as a second language.

Order of acquisition studies (Guntermann, 1992; Ryan and Lafford, 1992; Lafford

and Ryan, 1995) provide results similar to that of Pienemann (1987). They make the

claim that stages of acquisition of particular elements of a language cannot be skipped,

even with instructional intervention. Larson-Freeman and Long (1991) indicates that

there are developmental sequences in the acquisition of word order that are universal

across languages and cannot be skipped, despite instruction directed towards achieving

just that. Learners start with a highly restrictive word order and gradually acquire forms

that are less restrictive.

Hidalgo (2000) proposed that English is more of a syntactic language whereas

Spanish is more of a pragmatic language. English has a subject-predicate structure while

Spanish has a topic-comment (focus) structure (Givn, 1984). Larson-Freeman and Long

(1991) claim that, in the case of L1 English speakers learning L2 Spanish, word order

should become less restrictive as learners gradually acquire forms; however, if the

situation were the reverse (L1 Spanish speaker learning L2 English), their assertion

would be false because word order would become more fixed in L2 English.

Pienemann and Johnston (1987) propose the use of L1 models of acquisition in

L2 learning. They start with Canonical Order Strategy (COS) in which surface strings

reflect direct mapping of underlying meaning onto syntactic form, as in (37). The

Subordinate Clause Strategy (SCS) states that permutations of elements in subordinate

clauses are avoided or, in terms of Givn (1984), there is tight subordination. Their


18/60

18

model is based upon L2 learners of German, but they claim it to be universal. In the

Pienemann and Johnston (1987) model, the first stage involves learners starting with

[+COS, +SCS] features, as in (28). As a second stage, they add an Initialization-

Finalization Strategy (IFS) [+IFS], in which movements to elements to internal positions

in underlying sequences are blocked. This movement could involve a fronting of an

adverb, as in (29). Each stage that follows gradually takes away these restrictions and, at

the same time, allows for more complex structures. Stage 3 allows for a disruption of the

canonical word order, but maintains the IFS and the SCS, as in (30). Stage 4 eliminates

the need for IFS by allowing internal movement to take place, as in (31). Stage 5 takes

away the requirement for tight subordination, or SCS, as seen in example (32). The

following examples from Larson-Freeman and Long (1991) are based on L2 learners of

English.

Stage 1 [+COS, +SCS]:

(28) I like Sydney. Canonical Order

Stage 2 [+COS, +IFS, +SCS]:

(29) In Vietnam, I am teacher. Initialization/Finalization

Stage 3 [-COS, +IFS, +SCS]:

(30) You can take your coat off. Disruption and movement into salientposition

Stage 4 [-COS, -IFS, +SCS]:

(31) Why did you go? Internal Movement

Stage 5 [-COS, -IFS, -SCS]:

(32) He didnt leave, did he? Sub-categorization


19/60

19

(Larson-Freeman and Long, 1991)

Each of the studies mentioned above indicates that it would be difficult, if not

impossible, for L2 learners to understand variations in word order during the early stages

of learning. The current study attempts to establish the stage at which learners can

understand syntactic variations such as LD and TOP by examining the attention they give

to the specific forms.

Echeverra (1978) establishes an order of acquisition for word order by Chilean

children as:

(33) Stage 1 SVO

Stage 2 SOV

Stage 3 OSV

Stage 4 OVS

Stages 3 and 4 indicate an acquisition of LD and TOP with pre-verbal objects for TOP

and the LD constituent, which is many times referenced with the direct object pronoun.

Stage 4 takes into account the post-verbal subject found in both LD and TOP.

Gonzlez (1997) confirmed that the above order of acquisition applies to English

speaking L2 learners of Spanish. The goal of the current study is not to replicate each

level of acquisition in order to prove there is access to Universal Grammar (UG), as

Gonzlez attempted to do, but rather to look at the order of acquisition as a cognitive

process and try to determine when learners progress to the next level of Spanish

pragmatic word order processing.


20/60

20

4. Research Questions/Hypotheses

4.1 Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to examine the pragmatic and syntactic development

of English speaking L2 learners of Spanish, to examine the awareness of the learners, and

to discover possible order of acquisition for this development. The specific questions to

be addressed are:

1. Can consciousness-raising activities facilitate movement to the next stage of

pragmatic/syntactic development?

2. Can native English speaking intermediate and advanced L2 learners of Spanish

map non-canonical information structure correctly in translation upon their

presumably first exposure to such forms, thus demonstrating a conscious or

subconscious ability to process Spanish word order that has not been part of their

instructional experience?

3. If both intermediate and advanced learners are able to process non-canonical word

orders, following Gonzlez (1997), Hertel (2003), and Valenzuela (2005), are

advanced learners better able than intermediate learners to process non-canonical

word orders due to an order of acquisition that applies to both L1 and L2 learners

of Spanish?

4.2 Hypotheses

This study seeks to determine if English-speaking L2 learners can restructure

information from non-canonical word orders in Spanish to the traditionally taught SVO

word order, which is also reinforced in their L1. Results should indicate if intermediate


21/60

21

and/or advanced L2 learners have modified their cognitive restrictions on word order to

allow for permutations not found in canonical word order. Upon detection of the variable

word order, the L2 learner should eventually acquire a notion of pragmatic usage of

Spanish topicalization and left-dislocation, which are found in both languages, but which

tend to have a more pragmatic function in Spanish when the subject is post-verbal.

The tasks involved in the study are consciousness-raising activities (Rutherford

and Sharwood-Smith, 1985; Sharwood-Smith, 1981). It is hypothesized here that those

activities can facilitate the restructuring process, as seen in movement to the next stage of

development. The concept of restructuring has generally been seen as an indicator of

overall acquisition of L1 and L2 (Gass and Selinker, 2001). Intervention in the L2

acquisition process, however, generally involves acceleration of that process and, as a

result, builds mental competence of the L2 learner (Bialystok, 1992). This type of

intervention should help the learners modify their existing knowledge of Spanish as a

strictly SVO language to include OVS and OSV constructions in their interlanguage.

While it is possible for overgeneralization of the new word orders to occur as a result of

this activity (Lightbown, 1985), according Gass and Selinker (2001), a U-shaped

behavior should be the eventual outcome. In other words, after a period of producing

errors, the learners should come to use correct structures and advance to the next stage of

acquisition. In this case, that next stage should include the knowledge of OVS and OSV

word orders in Spanish found in TOP constructions and knowledge of the similarly

formed LD construction.


22/60

22

The activities used in the study should facilitate orientation and detection on the

part of the learner. Alertness is assumed due to the high level of the intermediate and

advanced classes.

Tomlin and Villa (1994) claim that learners can detect (i.e., cognitively process)

information, but not necessarily be aware of it. Allport (1988) suggests that awareness

requires three things: individuals must (1) show a behavioral or cognitive change from

the experience; (2) report that they were aware of the experience; and (3) describe the

experience. This notion of awareness relates to the current study in that there may be

some subconscious processing of word order variation occurring among the L2 learners.

A test of restructuring may bring this level of processing to a conscious level and thus

elicit an awareness on the part of the learner. That awareness will be judged by

comparing two sets of data collection approximately six weeks apart. At the same time,

this close look at the awareness of learners provides information about cognitive

processes for the SLA researcher.

Tomlin and Villa (1994) explain that, after the listeners establish the topic (in this

context, a mental representation of what the utterance is about), their task is to map

linguistic information onto it. For the native speaker, this mapping occurs automatically.

The L2 learner, however, does not know all of the specific mapping relations yet. They

present four processes for the learner to do:

1. discern the presence of some element of grammatical form;

2. discern that there is a new or unusual character to the event representation

witnessed;


23/60

23

3. discern that there is a relationship holding between these two levels of

grammatical form and mental representation;

4. send those observations off for further processing (hypothesis formation and

testing).

As L2 learners progress in their acquisition of the language, these processes ideally will

become more automatic. Intermediate and advanced learners should reach a point where

some, but not all, linguistic mapping has become automatic. Gass and Selinker (2001)

refer to automaticity (McLaughlin, 1990) with an emphasis on TL production; however,

before a linguistic structure can become automatic in its production, the learner must go

through the four stages mentioned above from Tomlin and Villa (1994), which primarily

involve comprehension.

It is hypothesized that intermediate and advanced learners are able to pass through

the four stages mentioned above and map word order varieties in the utterance. Novice

learners have not yet reached that stage in the order of acquisition (Gonzlez, 1997).


24/60

24

5. Methodology

5.1 Population

Fifty-one English speaking L2 learners of Spanish between the ages of 15 and 18

were included in the study. The learners were from three classes in a public high school

in Austin, Texas. Two of the classes were Advanced Placement, Spanish Language

classes (fourth-year). According to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS),

which is a curriculum guideline for Texas public school teachers, fourth-year students are

considered high-intermediate learners. The study included 39 learners from this group.

In addition to the two fourth-year classes, a fifth-year class of 12 learners from this high

school was included in order to discover a possible order of acquisition. The TEKS label

fifth-year language students as advanced learners. The American Council on the

Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) standards support these classifications,

although an actual proficiency test was not administered to verify these ratings. Five

native speakers of Spanish were allowed to participate in the study; however, their results

were not included because the research questions address Spanish as a second language.

5.2 Technique for data collection

Left-dislocations and topicalizations are found more in spoken Spanish than in

written Spanish. A listening comprehension model was not a viable option for this study

due to the fact that listening places more cognitive attention on meaning than form

(Bialystok and Ryan, 1985; Bialystok, 1992). This study attempts to determine only if

L2 learners can comprehend form. In order to reconcile the two issues just mentioned,


25/60

25

two transcriptions were utilized from Silva-Corvaln (1983) with slight modification to

add more word order variation.

Learners were instructed to read the transcriptions before performing the

consciousness-raising tasks that followed. The first task that followed the transcriptions

was to re-word seven utterances selected from each transcription, each of which had a

non-canonical word order. Most of the utterances were aimed at eliciting an (S)VO

relationship. The first task was used to aid in orientation and perhaps even detection

(Tomlin and Villa, 1994) for the learners before they performed the second task. The

instructions for the first task are as follows:

Re-ordering

Each of the following sentences comes directly from the selections youjust read. Read each sentence below and determine whether the sameinformation can be rewritten in a different order using more or lessthe same words. You may add or delete words that do not take awaythe meaning of the sentence.

Examples: Est enferma su esposa.Su esposa est enferma.

Cuando era chico, la basura la sacaban mis paps.Cuando era chico, mis paps sacaban la basura.

[See Appendix for the translations of these sentences]

The results for this task are not examined in this study because, upon reviewing what

learners had produced, the investigator found that the instructions were inadequate to

elicit the desired response. For a future study, it would be beneficial to mention the SVO

relationship in the instructions to avoid word orders that do not exist in Spanish.


26/60

26

The second task asked learners to translate the same utterances that were

reorganized in the first task. The study targeted the eliciting of SVO word order from LD

and TOP constructions, but distracters were added to include word order variation with

adverbs and prepositions. They are more easily accepted by English-speaking L2

learners of Spanish, due to variable placement in their L1 English as in (34)-(37).

(34) He did his homework quickly.

(35) He quickly did his homework.

(36) In the drawer, theres a key.

(37) Theres a key in the drawer.

Six other utterances did not follow the canonical (S)VO word order that learners had been

exposed to in their language classes. Learners were to restructure utterances so that they

reflected the canonical SVO word order found in English and in their Spanish

interlanguage. The instructions for the second task follow:

Translation

Each of the following sentences comes directly from the selections youjust read. Translate each sentence into English below.

Examples: Est enferma su esposa.His wife is sick.

Cuando era chico, la basura la sacaban mis paps.When I was little, my parents took out the trash.

The first example in the instructions demonstrates a translation of a TOP and the second,

a translation of an LD.


27/60

27

Learners were given as much time as they needed to complete the task. Most

finished in about 20-25 minutes. The longest a learner took to complete the task was

about 30 minutes.

Approximately six weeks after the first data collection, a second set was collected

to verify the first hypothesis of whether or not learners moved from one stage of

development to another by means of exposure via input in the L2. The first data set,

however, may also indicate if the learner already reached a level of comprehension that

the study targets.

5.3 Technique for data analysis

The development referred to in Research Question #1 will be measured by

comparing the first data collection to the second. If there is a positive overall increase, it

may indicate that learners moved from one level of pragmatic/syntactic development to

the next over the six week period.

The mapping of non-canonical information structure mentioned in Research

Question #2 will be measured by a translation with an acceptable word order in English

in the first of two sets of data collection. If learners answer appropriately the first time,

they have already reached a certain stage in development and have the ability to

restructure LDs and TOPs.

The discovery of an order of acquisition as stated in Research Question #3 will be

gauged by comparing intermediate learner results to advanced learner results. If

advanced learners correctly translate a higher percentage of utterances with SVO order

than intermediate learners, it may indicate that there is an order of acquisition.


28/60

28

6. Analysis of Results

Since learners translated from L2 sentences into their L1, there was little room for

grammatical errors. Mistranslations of irrelevant lexical items were ignored. While LD

is possible in English, most were expected to answer with a canonical word order. The

results indicate that most learners did use the canonical SVO order, although there were

six instances of LD in translation and one instance of right-dislocation in translation.

There were also three instances of TOP in English. If they answered with a correct LD

or TOP construction in English, the utterance was considered restructured because it was

acceptable in English. The left-hand column of Table 1 shows the instances of TOP and

LD that learners were instructed to change. In order to produce the canonical SVO order

in their English translations, they would have had to change the utterances in the left-

hand column to those in the right-hand column.

Table 1

Non-canonical Structure Expected change to Canonical Structure

TOP1 Me la da Gonzlez.O V S

Gonzlez me la da.S O V

TOP2 son muy difciles esos ensayosV S

esos ensayos son muy difcilesS V

TOP3 Buenono son difciles las lecturasV S

Buenolas lecturas no son difcilesS V

LD1 porque esa monja la adorbamos.LD O V

porque (nosotros) adorbamos esa monja.(S) V O

LD2 Y esa viejita la cuid yo.

LD O V S

Y yo cuid a esa viejita.

S V OLD3 Y las dos carretas con bueyes las perdi.

LD O VY (l) perdi las dos carretas con bueyes.

(S) V O


29/60

29

6.1 Topicalization

The following Tables indicate the percentage of accuracy in the translation of

TOP constructions from Spanish to English among intermediate and advanced learners of

Spanish.

Table 2

Data set 1 - Percentage of properly interpreted utterancesTOP1 TOP2 TOP3 Average

Intermediate 79 90 97 89

Advanced 100 100 92 97

Table 3

Data set 2 - Percentage of properly interpreted utterancesTOP1 TOP2 TOP3 Average

Intermediate 87 100 97 95

Advanced 100 100 100 100

6.1.1 Intermediate Learners

As shown in Table 2, in the first data collection in week 6 of an 18-week

semester, out of 117 sentences produced by 39 intermediate learners for 3 utterances that

contained topicalizations, intermediate learners were able to restructure 104 times, with

89% accuracy. In the second data collection during week 12, seen in Table 3, they

restructured 111 out of 117 utterances, with 95% accuracy.

Examples (38) and (39) are samples of restructured utterances in translation by

intermediate learners.

(38) TOP 2

son muy difciles esos ensayos

those essays are very difficult


30/60

30

Learner I-1: those essays are very difficult

(39) TOP 3

Buenono son difciles las lecturas.

Well, the readings are not difficult.

Learner I-1: Well, the lectures werent hard.

In (39) lecturas is improperly translated as lectures instead of readings. The learner

also used the past tense instead of the present tense. Regardless of these errors, the

learner still produced the desired SV word order.

Example (40) provides an example of an improper translation given by Learner

I-9:

(40) TOP 2

son muy difciles esos ensayos

those essays are very difficult

Learner I-9: They are really hard tasks [essays].

The learner mistakes the subject esos ensayos (those essays) for the object of the

sentence.

6.1.2 Advanced Learners

In the first data collection, as shown in Table 2, in 36 sentences written by 12

learners for the 3 instances of topicalization, advanced learners were able to restructure

35 sentences, with 97% accuracy. In the second data collection, as shown in Table 3,

they restructured with 100% accuracy. Examples (41) and (42) are samples of

restructured topicalizations by advanced learners.


31/60

31

(41) TOP 1

Me la da Gonzlez.

Gonzalez gives it to me.

Learner A-1: Gonzalez gives it to me.

(42) TOP 3


Wellthe readings are not difficult.

Learner A-1: Well, his lectures arent hard.

In (42), the learner produces the SV word order despite translating the definite article into

a possessive pronoun and mistranslating the subject.

The data for topicalizations clearly indicate that learners at the intermediate and

advanced stages are capable of recognizing non-canonical word order and restructuring

that word order to its canonical form.

6.2 Left-dislocation

Tables 4 and 5 indicate the percentage of accuracy in the translation of LD

constructions from Spanish to English among intermediate and advanced learners of

Spanish.

Table 4

Data set 1 - Percentage of properly interpreted utterances

LD1 LD2 LD3 AverageIntermediate 59 36 41 45

Advanced 92 67 92 84


32/60

32

Table 5

Data set 2 - Percentage of properly interpreted utterancesLD1 LD2 LD3 Average

Intermediate 46 59 36 47Advanced 83 83 75 80

6.2.1 Intermediate Learners

In the first data collection, as shown in Table 4, out of 117 sentences produced by

39 learners for 3 sentences that contained left-dislocations, intermediate learners were

able to restructure only 53 times, with 45% accuracy. In the second data collection, as

shown in Table 5, they restructured 55 out of 117 times, with 47% accuracy. Examples

(43), (44), and (45) show the types of restructuring difficulties learners encountered.

(43) LD 1

porque esa monja la adorbamos.

because we loved that nun. or because that nun, we loved her.

Learner I-5: because that nun loved us.In (51), learnerI-5 mistakes the object esa monja (that nun) for the subject of the verb.

I-5 was not able to pay sufficient attention to the parts of speech, most likely due to the

non-canonical word order that involved the clitic-doubling ofesa monja (that nun) and

la (her).

(44) LD 2

Y esa viejita la cuid yo.

And I took care of that old lady. or And that old lady, I took care of

her.


33/60

33

Learner I-8: And this old woman took care of me.

In (44), learnerI-8produces the same error in that the object is mistaken for the subject

due to the clitic doubling ofesa viejita (that old lady) and la (her).

(45) LD 3

Y las dos carretas con bueyes las perdi.

And he lost the two ox carts. or And the two ox carts, he lost them.

Learner I-10: And the two ox carts were lost.

In (45), learnerI-10 passivizes the utterance, thus, not recognizing the correct subject of

the verb l (he), which is unstated due to the pro-drop nature of Spanish.

6.2.2 Advanced Learners

In the first data collection, as shown in Table 4, out of 36 sentences written by 12

learners for the 3 instances of left-dislocations, advanced learners were able to restructure

30 sentences, with 83% accuracy. In the second data collection, as shown in Table 5,

they restructured 29 out of the 36 sentences, with 81% accuracy. Although there were

few errors for this group of learners, mistakes were most commonly found inLD2 from

the first data set andLD 3 from the second data set, shown respectively in examples (46)

and (47).

(46) LD 2

Y esa viejita la cuid yo.

And I took care of that old lady.

Learner A-1: This old woman took care of me.


34/60

34

(47) LD 3

Y las dos carretas con bueyes las perdi.

And he lost the two ox carts.

Learner A-9: And the two ox carts were lost.

The translation errors produced by advanced learners were the same types of errors

produced by the intermediate learners, due to mistaken parts of speech.

The data for LDs indicate that, when there is a dislocated constituent, learners do

not recognize the relationship between the left-dislocated constituent and the pronoun

that it is co-referenced within the sentence. This finding can be indirectly attributed to

the canonical SVO structure, which is reinforced by their L1 and by their L2 instruction,

taking precedence over pragmatically placed constituents in the restructuring process. It

cannot be directly attributed because, as mentioned earlier, the constituents to the right of

the left-dislocated elements form a syntactically complete sentence, many times with an

SVO structure. It could also be that learners ignore the pronoun because it does not carry

high communicative value in their reading for meaning.

6.3 Post-verbal subjects

As shown in Table 1, TOP 1, TOP 2, TOP 3, andLD 2 all contained a post-verbal

subject. Overall, learners had no problem identifying the post-verbal subject as a subject

and not the object in TOP constructions. Tables 6 and 7 show the percentages of

appropriately interpreted utterances for both sets of data collection.


35/60

35

Table 6


LD1 LD2 LD3 TOP1 TOP2 TOP3 Average

Intermediate 59 36 41 79 90 97 67Advanced 92 67 92 100 100 92 91

Table 7


LD1 LD2 LD3 TOP1 TOP2 TOP3 Average

Intermediate 46 59 36 87 100 97 71

Advanced 83 83 75 100 100 100 90

The lowest average was 79% for TOP 1 by intermediate learners and 92% for TOP 3 by

advanced learners. The frequencies are quite different, however, for the LD construction

with a post-verbal subject as inLD 2 (Y esa viejita la cuidyo). In the first data

collection, intermediate learners correctly identified the post-verbal subject inLD 2 only

36% of the time and advanced learners 67% of the time. The second data set showed

better results for both groups. Intermediate learners produced accurate translation in 59%

of the answers and advanced learners in 83% of the answers.

The improvement over time in the learners translations of utterances with post-

verbal subjects in LD constructions could indicate that more input at the intermediate and

advanced level facilitated this understanding. The lower frequencies for theLD 2

sentences are likely the result of the LD appearing to be an explicitly stated pre-verbal

subject. Note that learners did not have difficulty with TOP 1, which contained a pre-

verbal object pronoun, but did not have a pre-verbal object.


36/60

36

To summarize, the data showed post-verbal subjects are difficult to restructure for

the learner when a left-dislocated constituent appears before a syntactically complete

sentence with a pre-verbal object pronoun and a post-verbal subject.

6.4 Summary of Results

Figure 1

Intermediate vs. Advanced Learners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LD1

LD2

LD3

Top1

Top2

Top3

Average

LD1

LD2

LD3To

p1To

p2To

p3

Average

Left-dislocation and Topicalization

Percentage

ofproperlyi

nterpreted

utterances

Intermed.

Advanced

Advanced learners outperform intermediate learners in all but one category, (TOP

3), thus implying an order of acquisition of pragmatic competence in L2 Spanish.

(48) TOP 3


Wellthe readings are not difficult.

TOP 3 may have been the exception due to its VS word order, which, following

Echeverra (1978), is the last stage of development, therefore the most difficult to

acquire. This conclusion supports the findings of Gonzlez (1997), Hertel (2003), and

Valenzuela (2005).


37/60

37

Referring back to the stages proposed by Pienemann and Johnston (1987), both

sets of learners are at least at Stage 3 in that they are able to drop the Canonical Order

Strategy (COS), which states that learners can disrupt the canonical order and move

elements into a salient position. It is unclear as to whether the learners can produce

internal movement in the utterance required for Pienemann and Johnstons (1987) fourth

stage (e.g., Why did you go?) because learners were not asked to perform that type of

movement. Stage 4 also requires the recognition of grammatical categories. Based on

the results, it is hypothesized that advanced learners can distinguish between grammatical

categories because, in general, they did not encounter many problems in translating parts

of speech into their corresponding categories (e.g. Gonzlez me la da. from Me la da

Gonzlez.). In this activity, when a learner consistently makes an error in the part of

speech in the translation it is a likely indication that they have not reached Stage 4

because they are treating an LD or TOP within an initialization/finalization dichotomy.

In other words, they are simply inverting constituents in the sentence. This inversion

would explain the learners problems with LD. The LD constituent is not expected by the

learner and is seen as a natural part of an SVO construction, taking precedence over

anything that follows it.

According to Echeverra (1978), there is an order of acquisition for word order by

Chilean children, as seen in (49). The L2 learners results from Gonzlez (1997) align

with this L1 order of acquisition.


38/60

38

(49) Stage 1 SVO

Stage 2 SOV

Stage 3 OSV

Stage 4 OVS

Under this concept, 87% of intermediate learners and 100% of advanced learners in the

study would be identified as Stage 4 learners because they could restructure the OVS in

TOP 1. However,LD 2 is OVS to the right of the LD. The fact that more than half of the

participants had difficulty with that sentence, repeated in (50), indirectly indicates that

they might not be at Stage 4 yet, at least with regard to LD.

(50) Y esa viejita la cuid yo.

And that old lady, I took care of her.

An indirect object construction has a similar word order in which the grammatical

subjectis post-verbal, the object pronoun is pre-verbal, and the object itself has the option

of being pre-verbal as well, as in (51).

(51) A Pepe le gusta el bisbol.

Pepe likes baseball. or Baseball pleases Pepe.

Usually English speaking learners of L2 Spanish do not process the el bisbol (baseball)

as the subject of the utterance in (51), but rather, assume that Pepe is the subject, many

times using an incorrect forms of the verb in the early stages of learning as a result. The

results of this study confirm the difficulty of that word order for English-speaking L2

learners of Spanish. In addition, it puts into doubt whether or not learners have actually

reached the highest stage of word order acquisition in L2 acquisition.


39/60

39

6.5 Remarks

LD is the most difficult construction for all of these learners to process. The three

LD sentences had pre-verbal direct object references, which confused the learner.

However, they were able to comprehend TOPs with relative ease. Since both LD and

TOP are found in English, the parameter has already been set before the end of the

learners critical period. The Representational Deficit Hypothesis (Hawkins, 2004)

cannot apply here if the parameter has already been set. The Acoustic Image Imprinting

Theory (Neufeld, 1977) refers to the acquisition of sounds and prosodic contours of the

TL that build up over time. This study suggests that the Acoustic Image Imprinting

Theory can be extended to include syntactic structures with pragmatic meaning, which

ultimately do change the prosodic contour (Silva-Corvaln, 1983).


40/60

40

7. Discussion

The results from the previous sections are discussed within the framework of the

three research questions posed earlier.

7.1 Research Question #1

Research Question #1 asked whether or not consciousness-raising activities would

facilitate learners movement to the next stage of pragmatic/syntactic development in

Spanish. This movement was measured by comparing the first data set to the second. In

both learner groups, there was no notable overall increase or decrease between the first

and the second data sets. It cannot be stated that intermediate or advanced learners

moved to the next stage of pragmatic/syntactic development with regard to the targeted

word order over a six-week period. Since the overall ability by both groups to restructure

was relatively high for topicalizations and moderate for left-dislocations, however, it is

suggested that intermediate and advanced learners have already reached a stage in the

acquisition process in which they can comprehend and restructure syntax related to

Spanish pragmatic structures. This development may be influenced by the activities to

which the learners were exposed; however, further research is necessary because there

was no control group in this study.


Research Question #2 asked whether or not English-speaking intermediate and

advanced L2 learners of Spanish are able to map non-canonical information structure

correctly in translation, thus demonstrating a conscious or subconscious ability to process

Spanish word order that had not been part of their instructional experience. This ability


41/60

41

was measured via a translation activity with a canonical word order in English in the first

set of data.

The results from the first data set indicate that there is conscious or subconscious

knowledge of these constructions. The results add further evidence to the idea that they

were set in the learners parameters before the end of the critical period. The

comprehension of these structures could have built up over time through exposure to the

L2 only; however, it is more likely a combination of the parameter setting and exposure

that allowed the learners to restructure with relatively high rates of success.


Research Question #3 asked whether or not advanced learners are able to process

non-canonical word orders better than intermediate learners due to an order of acquisition

in learning Spanish. This question was addressed by comparing results from intermediate

learners to those of advanced learners.

The results indicate that advanced learners properly interpreted the utterances

more frequently than the intermediate learners.


42/60

42

8. Conclusions

The present study adds to the field of SLA by examining L2 pragmatic

development, attention, and order of acquisition. The results of this study indicate that

these intermediate and advanced high school learners are in a very similar stage of

syntactic/pragmatic development because both groups were able to structure information

in much the same fashion on a consciousness-raising activity that was a pragmatically-

driven syntactic task.

Consciousness-raising, attention (alertness, orientation, and detection), and

metalinguistic awareness are all terms used to describe a learners ability to analyze an

utterance and its grammatical structure. This study demonstrated that both intermediate

and advanced learners are able to perform that analysis and, as a result, should be able to

process topicalizations and left-dislocations in L2 Spanish with little difficulty. Although

LDs were considerably more difficult for learners if there was a pre-verbal object

pronoun in combination with a post-verbal subject, most learners were still able to

produce the translation with correct parts of speech. This result could be due to a

parameter setting early on in life, because LD and TOP are possible in English, or due to

increasingly greater amounts of L2 exposure over their years of learning.

An increasing L2 ability level implies an order of acquisition. This study found

that intermediate and advanced L2 learners show evidence for an order of acquisition for

word order structures in the L2 because advanced learners outperformed intermediate

learners on all but one task. It is not clear from the results of this study, however,

whether or not advanced learners have progressed from Pienemann and Johnstons


43/60

43

(1987) proposed Stage 3 [-COS, +IFS, +SCS], which includes disruption and movement

into a salient position, to Stage 4 [-COS, -IFS, +SCS], which allows for internal

movement. Both sets of learners appear to have reached Echeverras (1978) Stage 4, an

OVS word order found in L1 Spanish-speaking children.

The evidence that suggests that an order of acquisition is likely was shown

through two models for order of acquisition, one for L2 learners of German and the other

for L1 and L2 Spanish speakers. The Pienemann and Johnston (1987) model for L2

learners of German provides stages of development that they claim can be applied across

L2 learning. The order of acquisition proposed in Echeverra (1987) can be applied to L1

and L2 learners, thus demonstrating its use for understanding how people acquire L2

Spanish.


44/60

44

9. Limitations

Leow and Morgan-Short (2004) distinguish between introspective and

retrospective verbalization in the think-aloud protocols. Introspective verbalization is

more online and less constrained by memory and reconstructive processes than

retrospective verbalization. The current study did not involve retrospective verbalization;

however, it could be argued that the written processing component of the study was in

fact retrospective and not introspective, or online processing. Leow and Morgan-Short

(2004) pointed out that there is room for error and/or subjectivity between introspection

and retrospection. Assuming that is true, the current study did not have the online

protocols that it claimed to have had; therefore, any claims about a learners cognitive

ability to process this information online (i.e., alertness, orientation, and detection) would

be suspect.

The claim that the task in this study was a consciousness-raising activity cannot

be completely substantiated without the use of a control group, which this study did not

have. The control group should have consisted of L2 learners of Spanish at the same

level of instruction, who only did the translation part of the activity and did not read the

transcriptions or reword the utterances in Spanish. The control group would have

demonstrated whether or not all learners process the translations in the same way.


45/60

45

10. Appendix

10.1 The Questionnaire

Please read the following two selections. Use a Spanish-English dictionary asnecessary.

Selection #1A: As es que cul es el profesor o la profesora que ms te gusta, por ejemplo?B: A m? A toda la clase le gustaba una monja que se fue.A: Ah, ya.B: Tuvimos Era la profesora jefe, una monja que era bien amorosa que se llamabaMadre Ins. La tuvimos el primer semestre y se tuvo que ir a Espaa por a hacerunaun congreso. No s a qu, a qu se tuvo que ir y toda la clase se fue a Pudahuely lloramos y todo. Ah qued la media crema en el, en la clase porque esa monja la

adorbamos, porque era tan amorosa. Haca clases de matemticas y de fsica.Generalmente son las, las, las, los ramos que ms nos cuestan y esa monja haca todo loposible para ayudarnos. Nos haca clases, o sea, nos haca clasesdespus de cla-, dehoraspara, para recuperarnos, qu s yo! O sea, era bien amorosa.A: Entonces, quin es el profesor que te da mucha tarea?B: Me la da Gonzlezel profesor Gonzlez. l siempre nos da un montn de tarea.Yson muy difciles esos ensayos que siempre nos da.A: Hay algo que te da que no es difcil ese profesor Gonzlez?B: Buenono son difciles las lecturas.

[Translation for reader, not seen by learners]

A: So whos the teacher you like the best, for example?B: Me? The whole class like a nun who left.A: Oh, I see.B: We had She was the homeroom teacher, a nun who was very cute, whose name wasMother Ins. We had her for the first semester and she had to go to Spain forto doaa conference. I dont know why, she had to leave and all the class went to Pudahueland we cried and everything. That left a mess in the, in the class because the that nun weadored her, She taught mathematics and physics. On the whole, they are the, the, the themost difficult subjects and that nun did her best to, to help us. She taught classes, that is,she taught classesafter cla-, hoursto, to give us extra help. You know! That is, she

was real nice.A: Then, who is the teacher who gives a lot of homework?B: Gonzlez gives it to me, Mr. Gonzlez. He always gives us a ton of homework.Andthose essays are very difficult, that he always gives us.A: Is there anything that Mr. Gonzlez gives you that is not difficult?B: Wellthe readings arent very difficult.


46/60

46

Selection #2

Era muy catlica, muy pechoa. Tena una propiedad, casa antigua con vias para

adentro, as, potrerillo. Y ella tena mucha arboleda, porque ella haca injertos, injertabalos rboles frutales, as que tena de toda clase de frutas. Los primeros duraznos que ellasacaba eran unos duraznos de, de la Virgen que llamaba yo, duraznos muy ricos. Y esaseora a m me enseaba a leer, pero como yo era de la cabeza tan dura, nunca aprend.(laughter) A rezar s que aprenda. Y esa viejita la cuid yo. Porque primero muri elviejito, el esposo. El esposo de ella se iba para la cordillera as porque decan que tenaotra seora l por all. No s, pues, si sera verdad o no. Entonces l vena de- Ellatena mucha lana de velln, en sacos. Ella me ense a hacer camas, a llenar colchones.Yo no saba hacer eso. Entonces, el viejito un da le rob dos sacos de lana parallevrselos a la otra mujer que tena, para la cordillera. Y dicen que tena mujer por all.Y sese llamaba Pedro S. l tena dos carretas con bueyes. Y las dos carretas con

bueyes las perdi. Seguro que la otra seora se las quit, seguro.(Selections adapted from Silva-Corvaln, 1983)

[Translation for reader, not seen by learners]

She was very catholic, very devout. She had a property, an old house with vineyards inthe back, like that, fields. And she had a lot of trees, because she did grafts, she graftedon to the fruit trees, so she had all kinds of fruit. The first peaches that she got were thesepeaches, the virgins peaches as I called them, delicious peaches. And that lady taughtme how to read, but as I wasso dumb, I never learnt. I did learn to pray though. Andthat lady I looked after her. Because the old man died first, the husband. Her husband

used to go to the mountains because they say that he had another woman there. I dontknow if that was true or not. Then he came from - She had a lot of wool, in sacks. Shetaught me how to stuff mattresses, to make mattresses. I didnt know how to do that.Then, the old man one day robbed her of two sacks with wool to give them to the otherwoman he had, in the mountains. And they say that he had a woman there. And thatmanhe was called Pedro S., he had two oxcarts. And the two oxcarts he lost them.Surely the other woman stole them, surely.


47/60

47

Now do the following two activities referring back to the selections as necessary.

Re-ordering

Each of the following sentences comes directly from the selections you just read. Readeach sentence below and determine whether the same information can be rewritten in adifferent order using more or less the same words. You may add or delete words that donot take away the meaning of the sentence.

Examples: Est enferma su esposa.Su esposa est enferma.

Cuando era chico, la basura la sacaban mis paps.Cuando era chico, mis paps sacaban la basura.

Selection #1

1. A toda la clase le gustaba una monja que se fue.

2. porque esa monja la adorbamos.

3. esa monja haca todo lo posible para ayudarnos.

4. Me la da Gonzlez.

5. l siempre nos da un montn de tarea.

6. son muy difciles esos ensayos

7. Buenono son difciles las lecturas.


48/60

48

Selection #2

8. Y esa seora a m me enseaba a leer.

9. A rezar s que aprenda.

10.Y esa viejita la cuid yo.

11.Porque primero muri el viejito, el esposo.

12.No s, pues, si sera verdad o no.

13.Y dicen que tena mujer por all.

14.Y las dos carretas con bueyes las perdi.


49/60

49

Examples: Est enferma su esposa.His wife is sick.

Cuando era chico, la basura la sacaban mis paps.When I was little, my parents took out the trash.

Translation

Each of the following sentences comes directly from the selections you just read.Translate each sentence into English below.

Selection #1

1. A toda la clase le gustaba una monja que se fue.

2. porque esa monja la adorbamos.

3. esa monja haca todo lo posible para ayudarnos.

4. Me la da Gonzlez.

5. l siempre nos da un montn de tarea.

6. son muy difciles esos ensayos

7. Buenono son difciles las lecturas.


50/60

50

Selection #2

8. A rezar s que aprenda.

9. Y esa seora a m me enseaba a leer.

10.Y esa viejita la cuid yo.

11.Porque primero muri el viejito, el esposo.

12. No s, pues, si sera verdad o no.

13.Y dicen que tena mujer por all.

14.Y las dos carretas con bueyes las perdi.


51/60

51

10.2 Data Collection Tables

Table 8

First Data Collection (Week 6 of 18 of Fall Semester)Intermediate LD1 LD2 LD3 Top1 Top2 Top3 Total

I1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

I2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

I4 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I5 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

I6 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

I7 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I8 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

I9 0 0 1 1 0 1 3

I10 1 0 0 1 1 1 4

I11 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

I12 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

I13 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I14 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I15 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I16 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I17 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

I18 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I19 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I20 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

I21 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I22 1 0 1 0 1 1 4I23 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

I24 1 0 0 0 1 1 3

I25 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I26 1 1 1 0 1 1 5

I27 1 0 0 1 1 1 4

I28 1 0 0 1 1 1 4

I29 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I30 0 0 1 1 1 1 4

I31 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I32 1 0 0 0 1 1 3

I33 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I34 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

I35 0 1 0 1 1 1 4

I36 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

I37 1 0 0 1 1 1 4

I38 1 1 0 1 0 1 4

I39 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

Total 23 14 16 31 35 38


52/60

52

Table 9

Second Data Collection (Week 12 of 18 of Fall Semester)

Intermediate LD1 LD2 LD3 Top1 Top2 Top3 Total

I1 0 0 0 1 1 1 3I2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

I4 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I5 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

I6 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I7 0 1 0 0 1 1 3

I8 1 0 0 1 1 1 4

I9 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I10 0 1 0 1 1 1 4

I11 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I12 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I13 0 0 1 1 1 1 4

I14 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I15 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I16 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I17 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I18 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I19 1 1 0 0 1 1 4

I20 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I21 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I22 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I23 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

I24 1 1 0 1 1 1 5I25 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I26 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

I27 0 0 1 1 1 1 4

I28 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

I29 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

I30 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

I31 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I32 0 1 0 1 1 1 4

I33 0 0 1 1 1 1 4

I34 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I35 1 0 0 1 1 1 4

I36 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

I37 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

I38 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

I39 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

Total 18 23 14 34 39 38


53/60

53

Table 10

First Data Collection (Week 6 of 18 of Fall Semester)

Advanced LD1 LD2 LD3 Top1 Top2 Top3 Total

A1 1 0 1 1 1 1 5A2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A5 0 0 1 1 1 1 4

A6 1 1 1 1 1 0 5

A7 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A8 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

A9 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A10 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

A11 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

A12 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Total 11 8 11 12 12 11

Table 11

Second Data Collection (Week 12 of 18 of Fall Semester)

Advanced LD1 LD2 LD3 Top1 Top2 Top3 Total

A1 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

A2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A4 1 1 0 1 1 1 5A5 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

A6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A7 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A8 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A9 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

A10 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

A11 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

A12 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Total 10 10 9 12 12 12


54/60

54

11. References

Allport, A. (1988). What concept of consciousness? In A. J. Marcel and E. Bisiach,(Eds.), Consciousness in Contemporary Science. London: Claredon Press.

Barnes, B. (1985). The Pragmatics of Left-Dislocation in Spoken Standard French.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bialystok, E. (1992). Analysis and control in the development of second languageproficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157-168.

Bialystok, E. and Bouchard Ryan, E. (1985). Toward a Definition of MetalinguisticSkill. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, 3, 229-251.

Bolinger, D. L. (1954). English prosodic stress and Spanish sentence order.

Hispania, 37, 152-156.

Buring, D. (2003). Semantics, intonation, and information structure. [HTML document]Los Angeles: UCLA. Retrieved November 26, 2005 from the World Wide Web:http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GQ0YjgxM/buring.informationstructure03.pdf.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S.J.Keyser, (Eds.), The View from Building 20. (pp. 41-58). Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press.

Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners errors. International Review of AppliedLinguistics, 5, 161-170.

Echeverra, M. S. (1978). Desarrollo de la comprensin infantil de la sintaxis espaola.Concepcin, Chile: Universidad de Concepcin.

Esgueva, M. and Cantarero, M. (1981). El habla de la ciudad de Madrid. Materialespara su estudio. Madrid: CSIC.

Fant, L. (1984). Estructura informativa en espaol. Goteborg: UPPSALA.

Gass, S. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectionalperspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329-350.


55/60

55

Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An IntroductoryCourse. Mahwah: LEA.

Givn, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.

Givn, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. InW. E. Rutherford, (Ed.),Language Universals and Second Language Acquisition.(pp. 109-136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gonzlez, N. (1997). A parametric study of Spanish L2 acquisition: Interpretation ofSpanish word order. In A. T. Prez-Leroux and W. R. Glass, (Eds.),Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish. (pp. 133-148).Somerville: Cascadilla.

Guntermann, G. (1992). An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part

II, serand estar.Hispania, 75, 1294-1303.

Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific strategies as a source ofinterlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351-378.

Hawkins, R. (2004). Explaining full and partial success in the acquisition of secondlanguage grammatical properties. Conference Paper. J-SLA 2004, Gunma, Japan:Prefectural Womens University.

Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition ofSpanish word order. Second Language Research, 19, 273-304.

Hidalgo, R. (2000). Establishing topic in conversation: A contrastive study of left-dislocation in English and Spanish. In A. Downing, J. Moya, and J.I. Albentos,(Eds.), Talk and Text: Studies on Spoken and Written Discourse. Cuenca:Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

Jansma, K. (1987). The Perceptual Component of Prosody in Second LanguageLearners. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTMLdocument]. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching &

Curriculum Center. Retrieved April 28, 2004 from the World Wide Web:http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/.

Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.


56/60

56

Kilborn, K. and Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In B.MacWhinney and E. Bates, (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentenceprocessing. (pp. 257-291). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts inInterlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 279-289.

Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanishforeign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu, (Eds.), Speech acts acrosscultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. (pp. 257-281).New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua 85, 211258.

Krashen, S. (1983). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

London: Pergamon.

Lafford, B. and Ryan, J. (1995). The acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroadcontext: The Spanish prepositionsporandpara. Hispania,78, 527-547.

Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Lambrecht, K. (2001). Dislocation. In M. Haspelmath, E. Knig, W. Oesterreicher & W.Raible (Eds.),Language Typology and Language Universals: An InternationalHandbook.(Handbcher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 20). Vol.

2. (pp. 1050-1078). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Larson-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second LanguageAcquisition Research. New York: Longman Group.

Leow, R. P. and Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: theissue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 26, 3557.

Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research andclassroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173-189.

MacWhinney, B. and Bates, E. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B.McWhinney and E. Bates, (Eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of SentenceProcessing. (pp. 3-73). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Marcos Marn, F. (1992). Corpus oral de referencia del espaol contemporneo.Madrid: Universidad Autnoma de Madrid.


57/60

57

McDonough, B. (2004). L2 learner recognition of focus in Spanish word order.Conference Paper, Seventh Hispanic Linguistics Symposium and EighthConference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second

Languages, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128.

Neufeld, G. (1977). Language learning ability in adults: A study on the acquisition ofprosodic and articulatory features. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 12, 45-60.

Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, N. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reportson mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231259.

Perigrin, J. (1995). Topic, focus, and the logic of language. [HTML document].Conference Paper. Goettingen Focus Workshop, 17. Retrieved April 28, 2004from the World Wide Web:http://www.cuni.cz/~peregrin/HTMLTxt/tflog.htm#Pozn.

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.

Pienemann, M. (1987). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speechprocessing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL), 10, 83-113.

Pienemann, M. and Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development oflanguage proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second languageacquisition research. (pp. 45-141). Adelaide, Australia: National CurriculumResearch Centre, AMEP.

Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Renou, J. (2001). An examination of the relationship between metalinguisticawareness and second-language proficiency of adult learners of French.Language Awareness, 10, 248-268.

Ricciardelli, L. A. (1993). Two components of metalinguistic awareness: Control oflinguistic processing and analysis of linguistic knowledge. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 14, 349367.

Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and UniversalGrammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-82.


58/60

58

Ryan, J. and Lafford, B. (1992). Acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroadenvironment: SerandEstarand the Granada experience. Hispania, 75, 714-722.

Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese comprehension strategies: An analysis based onthe competition model. Applied Pyscholinguistics, 12, 47-73.

Sasaki, Y. (1994). Paths of processing strategy transfers in learning Japanese and Englishas foreign languages: A competition model approach. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 16, 43-72.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. AppliedLinguistics, 11, 129-158.

Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.

Silva-Corvaln, C. (1983). On the interaction of word order and intonation: SomeOV constructions in Spanish. In A. Flora Klein, (Ed.),Discourse Perspective inSyntax. (pp. 117-140). New York: Academic Press.

Snape, N. (in press). Article use in L2 English: Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis(MSIH) or Representational Deficit Hypothesis (RDH)? CamLing 2005Proceedings.

Tomlin, R. S., Forrest, L., Pu, M. M., and Kim, M. H. (1997). Discourse semantics. InT. Van Dijk, (Ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. (pp. 63-111). London:Sage Publications.

Tomlin, R. S., and Villa, V. (1994). Attention and SLA. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 16, 183-203.

Valenzuela, E. (2005). Incomplete end state L2 acquisition: L2 Spanish CLLD andEnglish CLD constructions. In A. Brugos, M.R. Clark-Cotton and S. Ha, (Eds.),Proceedings of the 29

thBoston University Conference on Language Development.

Boston: Cascadilla.

VanPatten, B. (1989). Can learners attend to form and content while processing input?Hispania, 72, 409-417.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment inconsciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.


59/60

59

Zagona, K. (2002). The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Zubizarreta, M. L. (1994). El orden de las palabras en espaol y el caso nominativo. In

V. Demonte, (Ed.), Gramtica del espaol. (pp. 21-49). Mexico City, Colegio deMxico.

Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.


60/60

VITA

Brian Alexander McDonough was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota on January 12, 1974, the

son of Terrance Michael McDonough and Anita Louise McDonough. After completing

his work at Rancho Bernardo High School, San Diego, California, in 1992, he attended

Mesa College in San Diego. Upon moving to Austin, Texas in 1994, h

Brian McDonough Master's Report

Documents

Transcript of Brian McDonough Master's Report