......§:.!. Q. 1
.7 .11.... -
. .1‘p‘1' :

‘ UP.
2.. it
.3 2.. s..

3.5)? oygrxo:
:I. 3.1
.1155? 1‘

l
. 5.22...‘
gm? CHI}...

1:.“
2:. .
2:...
5h... .
Lu.2”...
. . ‘ i .
s 2:: 1 .
2 . 1:.
£3.19

units:
.. 3 ‘1 y. 5.‘
.3 .K i .

y x rt.
‘ 5. I... .
Ln v $3... a.

a
.Q
.a
n)
9
I

é.’
\

 

_ i’
t’\"g

MICHIGAN STAT

l l lllll llllllllllllllllllllllll

3 12901410 2408

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

ACQUISITION OF TENSE AND ASPECT IN THE ENGLISH-BASED

INTERLANGUAGE OF NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS
presented by

AMad AlFarra j

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

P11- IL degree in Jaglish—

 

“1ij [7%

Major professor

Date July 24, 1995

MSU i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0— 12771

 

LIIRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE u RETURN BOX to mate thin mo... from your record.
to AVOID FINES mum on or baron am duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAn Namath. ActioNEcpll Oppommly lm
\ mm:

ACQUISITION OF TENSE AND ASPECT IN THE ENGLISH-BASED
INTERLANGUAGE OF N ON-NATIVE SPEAKERS

By

Ahmad AlFarraj

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1995

ABSTRACT

ACQUISITION OF TENSE AND ASPECT IN THE ENGLISH-BASED
INTERLANGUAGE OF N ON-NATIVE SPEAKERS

By

Ahmad AlFarraj

This longitudinal study investigates the developmental processes of the acquisi-
tion of tense and aspect in the English-based interlanguage of four adult native
speakers of Arabic who came to the United States to pursue their education. The
study, which lasted over an 18-month period, was conducted within Meisel’s function-
al approach which was minorly modiﬁed to allow "form-only” analysis in addition to
"function-to—form" analysis.

Participants were audiotaped individually on different occasions at various
stages during the learning continuum. Each taping session lasted 60 minutes. This
was done in order to observe the developmental processes of the English temporality
from an early stage until learners reached an advanced level. In addition, forced
elicited data were obtained during each taping session.

Using function-to-form and form-only analysis, results showed that during the
early stage, the English inﬂectional morphology that marks tense and aspect was non-
existent in leamers’ interlanguage. As a result, various linguistic and non-linguistic

devices such as adverbials, connectives, serialization, implicit reference, and

interlocutor scaffolding were the means by which the English temporality was
inferred. During the intermediate stage, the correct usage of limited inflectional
morphology that marks tense and aspect began to appear in the learners’ interlan-
guage, and at the pre-advanced stage, such correct usage had signiﬁcantly improved.
As a result, the usage of devices other than the morphological markers decreased.
Interestingly enough, learners’ development in regard to correctly using the English
tense and aspect seemed to have slowed down during the advanced stages of learning
English. General explanations are offered in an attempt to shed light on such
phenomena. Finally, the participants’ correct usage of the English temporality in the
forced elicited task was higher than that in the spontaneous speech.

The results of this study were discussed with respect to the issue of "rate of
development” of the acquisition of English. temporality. Also, advantages of ”func-

tion-to—form" analysis were cited.

Copyright by
AHMAD ALFARRAJ

1995

Dedicated To

my beloved mother Hussah

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like ﬁrst of all to extend my deep thanks and gratitude to Dr. Susan
Gass, the chairperson of my doctoral dissertation committee. I am greatly thankful
for her remarkable supervision, advice, and continual support throughout my doctoral
study at Michigan State University. She has been one of the few linguists that I have
admired and read since the beginning of a long graduate career, and without her
constant willing assistance, this dissertation would have been a howler. Her inﬂuence
on this dissertation is incalculable.

I am also deeply grateful to Dr. Nancy Ainsworth—Vaughn for all her valuable
comments and suggestions which have been a great deal of help to me. Her thorough
advice has been invaluable and the ﬁnal product of this work would have been worse
if I did not take it all. She always ensured that I felt welcomed, and her patience is
beyond explanation.

I also would like to extend my deep gratitude to Drs. Alan Beretta and Diana
Brunner for their valuable comments and advice which have been truly beneﬁcial to
my work.

My deep thanks are also extended to Dr. Patricia Mosele, the outside reader of
this dissertation. Not only was she a pleasant person, but her comments during and

after the defense of my dissertation were invaluable to me.

vi

I deeply thank all of them for their numerous assistances, and I am solely
responsible for the deﬁciencies of this humble work.

I am also especially thankful to the four individuals who participated in this
study for their unbelievable patience. This dissertation would not have been possible
without them, and I greatly appreciate what they have done.

Also, my gratitude is extended to King Saud University in Saudi Arabia,
represented by the Institute of the Arabic Language, for the ﬁnancial support I
received throughout my study in the United States. In particular, I would like to
thank Dr. Mohammad Alalﬁ, Director of the Institute of the Arabic Language, for his
continuous support and encouragement throughout my graduate career.

I would also like to thank all of my friends with whom I have spent a valuable
and great portion of my life. I thank them all, especially Khalid Alkhudairi and
Mohammad Saif who were there when I needed them.

Finally, my accomplishments would not have been possible without the
constant and continuous moral support of my family. I am especially indebted to my
beloved mother. Without her, I would not be where I am now. She has been a
unique person, and though she has never attended a formal school, her thorough
advice has always guided me into the right path. She has always granted me her
unconditional love and support regardless of what direction I decided to take. I would
also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my beloved father, sisters, brothers,
nieces, and nephews for their unlimited love, support, and encouragement throughout

my study abroad. God bless them all.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE
LIST OF TABLES .................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................. xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .......................... 1
Rationale ....................................... 10
Importance and Purpose of the Study ...................... 11
Questions of the Study .............................. 13
Limitations of the Study .............................. 13
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................... 15
Functionalism in Linguistics ........................... 15
Tense and Aspect .................................. 20
Temporality in English .............................. 23
Acquisition of Tense and Aspect in L1 ..................... 24
Acquisition of Tense and Aspect in L2 ..................... 3O
Meisel’s Study ................................... 34
Tense Marking ................................. 36
Adverbial ..................................... 37
Principles of Discourse Organization .................... 37
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ......................... 42
Introduction ..................................... 42
Subjects ....................................... 43
Social Network ................................... 45
Procedures ...................................... 45
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................. 60
Introduction ..................................... 6O
. Spontaneous Data of Subjects C and D in Session 1 ............. 60
Forced Elicited Data of Subjects C and D in Session 1 ........... 7O

Spontaneous Data of Subjects C and D in Session 2, and

Subjects A and B in Session 1 ........................ 71

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d).

TITLE PAGE

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (cont’d).
Forced Elicited Data of Subjects C and D in Session 2, and

Subjects A and B in Session 1 ........................ 83
Spontaneous Data of Subjects A and B in Session 2 ............. 89
Forced Elicited Data of Subjects A and B in Session 2 ........... 94 '
Spontaneous Data of Subjects A and B in Sessions 3 and 4 ........ 98
Forced Elicited Data of Subjects A and B in Session 4 ........... 103
General Discussion ................................. 105

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ........................... 125
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................... 133

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1 The eight English grammatical structures tested .......... 23
2 Morphological markers that mark the English tense and

aspect systems .............................. 25
3 Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous speech of

participant B ............................... 55
4 Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous speech of

participant A ............................... 55
5 Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous speech of

participant C ............................... 57
6 Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous speech of

participant D ............................... 58
7 Transcription coding sheet of forced elicited data ......... 58
8 Percentage of correct usage for each structure in the spon-

taneous speech of participants C and D during session 1 ..... 72
9 Percentage of correct responses to the forced elicited data by

participants C and D during session 1 ................ 73
10 Development of participant C and D’s usage of the eight

structures from session 1 to session 2 ................ 74
11 Comparison of the spontaneous speech data of participants C

and D in session 2 to that of participants A and B in

session 1 .................................. 79
12 Development of correct responses to the forced elicited data by

participants C and D from session 1 to session 2 ......... 85

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d).

TABLE PAGE
13 Comparison of the forced elicited data of participants C and D
in session 2 to that of participants A and B in session 1 ..... 86
14 Development of participant A and B’s correct usage of the eight
structures from session 1 to session 2 ................ 90
15 Development of correct responses to the forced elicited data by
participants A and B from session 1 to session 2 .......... 96
16 Development of participant A and B’s correct usage of the eight
structures from session 1 through session 4 ............. 101
17 Development of correct responses to the forced elicited data by
participants A and B from session 1 through session 4 ...... 106
18 Development of the interlanguage systems of all participants as

a unit from an early stage to an advanced level .......... 108

xi

FIGURE

10

LIST OF FIGURES

Correct usage of simple present tense by participants C and D .

Correct usage of simple past tense by participants C and D . . .

Correct usage of simple present progressive by participants

CandD ..................................

Correct usage of simple past progressive by participants C

andD ...................................

Correct usage of simple present tense by participants A and B

Correct usage of simple past tense by participants A and B . . .

Correct usage of simple present progressive by participants A

andB ...................................

Correct usage of simple past progressive by participants A

andB ...................................

Correct usage of present perfect by participants A and B .....

Correct usage of present perfect progressive by participants A

andB ...................................

xii

PAGE
1 14

114

115

115
116

116

117

117

118

118

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

This longitudinal study investigates the acquisition of tense and aspect in the
English-based interlanguage of non-native speakers. Four adult native speakers of
Arabic who came to the United States to pursue their education were audiotaped
individually on different occasions and at various stages over an 18-month period.
Using Meisel’s functional approach with minor modiﬁcations, their spontaneous
speech was analyzed in order to observe the developmental processes of the acquisi-
tion of the English temporality. In what follows and as a background for this project,
I will provide a brief history of the research that has been conducted in the last 3
decades regarding the acquisition of grammatical morphemes with an emphasis on the
ﬁ'ameworks within which such work has been conducted. In addition, I will show
how such research has progressed and how it was perceived and criticized.

During the last three decades, a great deal of research has been conducted
regarding the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in the interlanguage of L2
learners. These morphemes, according to Von Stuttebeim and Klein (1986), "like
ﬂowers in the Spring, were observed to crop up in a certain order, provided that there
was enough rain and sun and the soil was sufﬁciently fertile" (p. 191). Increasing
insight, however, has led a great number of second language acquisition researchers
to cast off this product-oriented research and replace it with a perspective that is more
cognitive (process-oriented research). This new perspective emphasizes the

1

2

importance of investigating the process of acquisition and "looks into the communica-
tive aspects of the development and usage of learner languages" (p. 191). This shift
is the result of the increasing interest in discovering how interlanguage develops over
time. By focusing on what learners are saying (product), there is a danger of losing
sight of what they are trying to say (process) (Mclaughlin, 1989).

The shift from the product-oriented to the process-oriented research is a shift
from what may be called ”form only" to ”form to function” analysis of interlanguage
data (Sato, 1984). ”Form only" analysis seeks to measure increasing target-like
production of speciﬁc forms such as past time markers. "Form to function” analysis,
on the other hand, is concerned with complete analysis of the functional distribution
of speciﬁc forms in the interlanguage of learners. Sato (1984) also mentioned a third
type of analysis which she referred to as "function to form" analysis. In this type of
analysis, researchers select a functional domain such as the English temporal system.
Then, they observe the evolution of encoding of that particular domain. This
researcher, then, is using "product-oriented" research to refer to those studies such as
morpheme studies that do not go beyond counting the appearance versus non-appear-
ance of speciﬁc grammatical forms of the target language in learners’ interlanguage.
Process-oriented research is that which uses "function to form" analysis, and investi-
gates the true object of inquiry which is the process of interlanguage development.
Differently put, the process-oriented research focuses on form-function mapping and
emphasizes the importance of the role of discourse in language acquisition. By using

functional analysis, researchers are able to uncover how learners at the beginning

3

stages express functions in a language in which they have very limited lexical and
syntactic devices.

For many second language researchers, the product-oriented research deﬁned
by the morpheme studies and error analysis presupposes that language acquisition
progresses in a linear fashion. Corder (1983) maintained that this view is inaccurate.
He argued that the acquisition of a second language develops from a simple structure
to a complex one in a way similar to a bud developing into a ﬂower, and since it is
impossible to describe the development of a ﬂower in a linear fashion, it is not
possible to describe the process of acquisition in a linear fashion either.

The process-oriented research in L2 was complementary to the product—
oriented research, namely, the morpheme studies and error analysis. In fact, it is safe
to claim that the product-oriented research had established the foundation for that
body of research that used functional analysis as its main tool to investigate learners’
interlanguage. Both the product and the process-oriented research were a reaction to
the contrastive analysis enterprise, which attempted to explain second language
development in strictly linguistic terms. During the 1960s, researchers analyzed the
ﬁrst language of learners and the target language they were attempting to learn. The
assumption was that the more similar the structures of the native language to those of
the target, the easier it was for learners to acquire the target language and vice versa.
Contrastive analysis enterprise stresses the role of L1 in the process of L2 acquisition.

In the late 19603, the credibility of this behaviorist approach was in doubt,
according to Mclaughlin (1989), when L2 researchers discovered that their ﬁndings

showed SLA to be different from what had been believed to be the case. Contrastive

4

analysis studies emphasized the role of transfer from the ﬁrst language which was not
what researchers were ﬁnding. Evidence showed that interference played only a
minor role in SLA. In addition, contrastive analysis overpredicted and underpredicted
the difﬁculties of second-language learners. It underpredicted in the sense that some
learners’ errors could not be explained on the basis of transfer from L1. And it
overpredicted in that it anticipated difﬁculties that, in fact, did not occur (McLaugh- ‘
lin, 1984). Morpheme studies ’and error analysis research showed that second
language learners from different backgrounds followed similar developmental process—
es when acquiring a second language (Larsen-Freeman, 1975, to name only one). It
will be shown how such general conclusions were challenged.

Morpheme studies and error analyses were based in the late 19605 on a new
theoretical orientation in SLA research. The notion was that learners’ underlying
grammatical systems are continually revised as they move toward the target language.
This process involves a very powerful cognitive contribution on behalf of the learners.
One of the most prominent researchers to adopt this new theoretical orientation was
Selinker, who introduced the term "interlanguage. ” Selinker (1972) deﬁned the term
as the interim grammar that is constructed by learners on their way to acquiring the
target language.

Research which investigates the L2 acquisition of grammatical morphemes was
based on the work of Brown (1973), who studied the acquisition. of 14 functor words
by children learning English as a ﬁrst language. He found that the subjects followed

an invariant sequence in the acquisition of these grammatical morphemes. Dulay and

5
Burt (1973) reported that children learning a second language followed a similar

developmental sequence regardless of their language background.

As with the adult second language learner, Larsen-Freeman (1975) indicated
that adults acquiring a second language exhibited patterns similar to those obtained in
cross-sectional studies of children. She indicated that differences between subjects
existed. However, these differences were not marked enough to overshadow the
common pattern in the accuracy order.

In sum, studies of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes have shown that
adults as well as children from different backgrounds acquire English syntax in a way
similar to that of children acquiring their ﬁrst language. Though differences do exist,
it seems that the L2 acquisition process is like the L1 acquisition process.

As the morpheme studies showed the inaccuracy of the contrastive analysis
approach, research on error analysis also revealed similar challenges to that enter-
prise. Dulay and Burt (1972) reported that errors that their subject children made
reﬂected the inﬂuence of the target language they were learning more than the
inﬂuence of their ﬁrst language. They pointed out that errors of Spanish-speaking
children appeared to be deveIOpmental in nature and they resembled those errors that
monolingual children make when acquiring English. Dulay and Burt (1974) also
found that children from different L1 backgrounds made similar errors. Lance (1969)
indicated that many errors that adult SL learners made were like those made by
children acquiring their ﬁrst language.

In sum, the ﬁndings of error analysis research has shown that L2 errors are, in

most cases, developmental, as opposed to interference from L1. This, once again,

6

led many L2 researchers to propound that SL learning is like ﬁrst language acquisi-
tion in that both involve similar processes (Lance, 1969).

It seems obvious, then, that the conclusions of both the morpheme studies and
error analysis assume similar processes of L1 and L2 acquisition. Nevertheless, these
conclusions were challenged by researchers working within the same framework. It
was claimed that not only were patterns found in L2 learners’ data different from
those found in ﬁrst language learners’ data, but also that learners’ ﬁrst language was
a major factor in the acquisitional process of L2. Moreover, morpheme studies-those
that show similar development sequences in L1 and L2 acquisition--seemed to suffer a
great deal of methodological drawbacks (Mclaughlin, 1989). For instance, Porter
(1977) used the Bilingual Syntax Measure, an instrument used in most morpheme
studies, with his monolingual English-speaking children and found that the acquisi-
tional order of the morphemes in the language of his subjects resembled that of SL
learners as opposed to the L1 order of acquisition. This indicates that the ﬁndings of
the morpheme studies could be instrument-speciﬁc. Further, Meisel et a1. (1981)
argued that the testing methods which have been used in morpheme studies may
eliminate individual differences. Further, what is investigated is the accuracy of use
of grammatical morphemes in obligatory context and not the developmental order of
these morphemes. Also, the order of acquisition of the same grammatical morphemes
in longitudinal studies was shown to be different from that of cross-sectional studies
(Rosansky, 1976). This implies that deviations from regularity will occur any time a

different method is employed.

7

Finally, morpheme studies do not take into consideration the different func-
tions of the same morpheme (Pica, 1983). For instance, a given morpheme might be
easy for learner 2; when conveying function A, but difﬁcult for the same learner when
conveying function B. If the corpus of that learner contains the use of that morpheme
conveying function A only, then an accurate account of that learner’s knowledge of
that particular morpheme is not provided.

As the morpheme studies were criticized, error analysis research, too, received
similar attack. Andersen (1978) argued that the same mistake a learner makes may be
a developmental error found in the speech of monolingual speakers, and at the same
time it can be an error reﬂecting the inﬂuence of L1. There is strong evidence that
some errors are the results of both factors. Errors of SL learners can also be the
result of avoiding certain linguistic structures (Schachter, 1974).

As a result of such criticism to the product-oriented research, some L2
researchers have deve10ped a framework that focuses on the process of acquisition.
This line of research was greatly inﬂuenced by Schumann’s (1975) study in which he
contended that there was an analogy between pidginization and early stages of second
language acquisition. Schumann, then, extended the pidginization process to explain
the early stages in the interlanguage of a native Spanish speaker learning English
(1978). Since then, the study of pidginization has provided second language research-
ers with a new theoretical ﬁamework for the study of learners’ interlanguage. The
approaches associated with this framework are characterized by the fact that they are

non-target-oriented in the sense that they treat interlanguage as a unique system which

8

is different from and similar to both the native and target languages. Speciﬁcally,
they are concerned with how learners map form-function relationships.

Because of such shift in direction, some SLA researchers (Kelly, 1983; Sato,
1984, to name only two) extended Givon’s linguistic model of language change to the
study of learners’ interlanguage. The model, which originally was created for the
study of diachronic change, claimed the discourse-pragmatic origin of syntax in all of
the situations of language change. This takes place in the sense that pragmatic-
discourse structures seem to develop over time into grammaticalized syntactic
structures (Givon, 1979). Also, researchers who investigated the acquisition of
temporality in the interlanguage conducted their work within a functional semantic
framework (Kumpf, 1984; Meisel, 1986, to name only two).

What is appealing about functional analysis which has been used by the above-
mentioned researchers is that it allows multi-level analysis. As opposed to morpheme
studies, for example, which judge learners’ development by the appearance of certain
grammatical morphemes, functional analysis integrates both the appearance of
linguistic forms and discourse strategies that learners use to convey speciﬁc functions.
Anderson (1982) contended that functions are expressed through multiplicity of
means. These include, in addition to inﬂectional morphology, adverbials and
discourse pragmatic principles.

It should be clear by now that the W distinction applies according
to how interlanguage data is manipulated. That line of research that investigates the
data at the morpho-syntactic level and dismisses altogether the role of discourse

strategies is product-oriented. On the other hand, research that uses multi-level

9

analysis and assigns a signiﬁcant role to discourse-pragmatic factors when investigat-
ing the conveyance of speciﬁc functions in interlanguage is process-oriented.

Because of the fact that the shift to this process-oriented research is fairly
recent, only a few researchers have used functional analysis when investigating the
acquisition of temporal systems. Unfortunately, no one has used the functional
approach as deﬁned by Meisel (1986) to investigate the acquisition of temporality in
the English-based interlanguage. Thus, devices that are used by non—native speakers
of English to convey temporality, and the developmental progression of temporal
systems, are not known.

The purpose of this project was twofold. First, using the functional approach
to the study of interlanguage as deﬁned by Meisel (1986) as a base, the spontaneous
speech of four Arabic non-native speakers of English who were learning English as a
second language was audiotaped on different occasions and at various stages during
the learning process within an 18-month period. Their speech was then analyzed in
order to uncover the devices--linguistic and non-linguistic--that were used to convey
the following eight functions:

1. Regular or habitual occurrence of an event (simple present tense)

2. Single event in the past (simple past tense)

3. Single ongoing occurrence of an event in the present time (simple
present progressive)

4. An event in progress simultaneous with another one-time event in the

past (simple past progressive)

10

5. An event in the past that is related to the present state of affairs
(present perfect)

6. An event in the past that occurred before another event in the past (past
perfect)

7. An action that took place in the past and is still continuing into the
present (present perfect progressive)

8. An event in the past that had limited duration, and that occurred before
another event in the past (past perfect progressive).

Secondly, the researcher attempted to uncover the developmental progression

in the learners’ conveyance of these eight functions.

Rationale

Although the acquisition of temporality in the English-based interlanguage of
adults has been investigated in the last three decades, little knowledge has been gained
concerning the developmental process of the acquisition of such temporal notions in
learners’ interlanguage. This is due, in large part, to the poor methods that have been
employed in SLA research in general. For instance, the product-oriented research
which has been used in the studies of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes,
some of which are those that mark tense and aspect, is largely responsible for the lack
of a true understanding of the developmental process of the acquisition of those
morphemes. In this line of research, only the surface phenomenon of learners’
production is observed. There is no deep analysis on the part of researchers to infer
what learners are attempting to convey, and the process of acquisition is totally

ignored.

ll

Fortunately, some second language acquisition researchers have attempted to
shift the emphasis from the product to the process-oriented research that looks at how
interlanguage develops over time. This line of research investigates the true object of
inquiry which is the developmental process of interlanguage. In order to do so, this
type of research implements a multi-level analysis and assigns an important role to
discourse-pragmatic strategies that learners employ to convey meanings. Neverthe-
less, little research has been conducted within this framework. In addition, there is,
to the best of my knowledge, no study that has investigated the acquisition of tense
and aspect in the English-based interlanguage of Arabic non-native speakers of
English within a functional semantic framework.

This study was needed to investigate the acquisition of tense and aspect in the
interlanguage of Arabic non-native speakers of English. The functional approach as
deﬁned by Meisel (1986), who investigated the acquisition of reference to past in the
German-based interlanguage, was used to analyze the data in this study. This
approach incorporates morphological and pragmatic analyses of the data. It investi-
gated the extent to which learners correctly use the English tense and aspect morphol-
ogy. Whenever morphological markers were not used, the study looked at what other

linguistic and non-linguistic devices were used to convey temporal information.

Importance and Purpose of the Study
This study was intended to address issues that have been largely overlooked in
the literature of the acquisition of English temporal systems by non-native speakers.
The search for devices other than morphological markers that convey temporality in

interlanguage is crucial for the pursuit of full understanding of how language

12

develops. The importance of this study is derived from the fact that it is the ﬁrst of
its kind in the sense that no one has ever applied Meisel’s functional approach to the
study of the acquisition of temporality in the English-based interlanguage of Arabic
non-native speakers of English.

It was assumed that a reasonable amount of information would be obtained
regarding how temporal systems develop over time, and how learners are able to
interact when their knowledge of the grammatical system of the target language is
very limited. By'using this functional approach, it was anticipated that the develop-
mental processes of learners’ interlanguage regarding the acquisition of the English
tense and aspect would be thoroughly documented. That is to say, that functional
analysis would allow this researcher to uncover how non-native speakers express the
English temporal notions, especially at the early stages of development where they
have a very limited knowledge about the grammatical rules of the target language.
This study was concerned with how second language learners convey meaning as
opposed to the large amount of research that concerns itself with whether or not
learners use the correct grammatical rules of the target language. This study attempt-
ed to show the importance of multi-level analysis of interlanguage data, and the need
to analyze how learners map form-function relationships throughout the course of
learning English. The ultimate importance of this study is derived from the fact that
it sought to document the evolution of encoding the English tense and aspect from a
very early stage until the learners reach an advanced level. In doing so, the research-
er observed all devices that learners used to encode the English temporal systems,

whether these devices were linguistic (morphological markers, adverbial phrases, and

13

so forth) or non-linguistic (discourse strategies). It was hoped that conducting the
study in this manner would contribute to the understanding of learners’ capacity to

acquire and use language.

Questions of the Study

1. To what extent will the subjects of this study use the English tense and
aspect morphology correctly?

2. What kind of devices, linguistic and non-linguistic, will be used to
convey temporal information?

3. What stages do learners go through in their conveyance of temporal
information?

4. To what extent will learners rely on devices other than the morphologi-
cal markers to convey temporality?

5. Will the reliance on devices other than the morphological markers

decrease as the learners’ knowledge of the grammatical system of English increases?

Limitations of the Study
This researcher did not investigate all of the possible verb structures in
English. It was felt that concentrating on fewer structures would allow more elabo-
rate analysis. The following structures were not tested:
1. the future tense
2, the modals

3. copula as main verb.

14

With regard to the future tense, it was excluded because of the fact that other
than the simple future, its structures are rarely used even by native speakers. The
modals were not included because some models do not convey temporal information.
For instance, “can" and ”could” are both used to refer to the present state. Copula

were excluded merely to avoid testing so many structures. The following structures

were tested:
1. present tense with main verbs
2. regular and irregular simple past tense
3. simple present progressive
4. simple past progressive

5 . present perfect
6. past perfect
7. present perfect progressive

8. past perfect progressive.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, I will provide a broad literature review about functionalism in
linguistics, English tense and aspect systems, an overview of the L1 and L2 studies of
the acquisition of tense and aspects, and the study upon which this research is based,

Meisel (1986).

Functionalism in Linguistics

In this section, I will present some of the approaches to functionalism which
are applicable to SLA studies. One such approach to functionalism is case function.
Research within this framework investigates the grammatical functions such as
”subject” and their deep case functions such as ”agent. " The work of Fillmore (1977)
illustrates this type of research. Givon (1979) argued that surface grammatical
functions are related to discourse function. An example of research in this area is
that of Zubin (1979), who studied German. He argued that animates tend to occur as
indirect objects or subjects, and inanimates occur as direct objects. This may indicate
that case function is linked to inherent semantic properties of nouns.

The works of Poplack (1980) on code-switching and Ferguson (1959) on
diglossia, among many others who study the alternation between two languages or
two dialects of a language, introduced a second approach to functionalism called

"social function. " The purpose of such work is to ﬁnd out how and under what

15

l6

circumstances a speaker uses a particular dialect and not the other. Also, this line of
research is interested in discovering the reasons behind speakers’ shift from one
language to another or from one dialect to another within the same discourse context.
Usually, it is the social domain that determines the usage of one language or dialect
over the other.

In addition, there is yet another approach to functionalism that is concerned
with form-function relationship. It is not always the case that one form corresponds
to one function and one function is represented by one form. In fact, one function
can be served by many forms as in the following examples:

The game will mm at I:00p.m.

The game MILLS at I:00p.m.

Here two forms, "will begin” and ”begin," serve the same function, which is giving
out information regarding an upcoming event. The reverse of having two different
functions represented by only one form is also true. Slobin (1973), who studied
children acquiring their ﬁrst language, maintained that the new functions are ex-
pressed by old forms. At the same time, forms that are already'learned express old
functions.

In addition, Tomlin (1990) distinguished two types of functionalism, relational
and ecological. According to him, relational functionalism investigates the possible
mapping relations between linguistic forms and pragmatic functions. By doing so,
one identiﬁes what is

. . . coded by a particular syntactic structure or morpheme (e. g. , the function

of syntactic subject in English or \_v_a in Japanese), or one can identify how a

particular semantic or pragmatic function is coded within a particular language
or speech community. . . . (p. 159)

17

This descriptive-oriented research investigates an individual language or speech
community.

On the other hand, ecological functionalism studies languages as opposed to
one language, as in relational functionalism. The principles of ecological functional-
ism do not have to be, as Tomlin put it, "manifested directly in the linguistic behavior
of individual languages or speakers" (p. 160). One such principle is that of Givon
(1983), who stated that a referent is more likely to be coded by a shorter referential
expression during conversation if it is more predictable.

Functionalism is, generally speaking, concerned with the implementation of the
speakers’ linguistic knowledge in interactive discourse. Tomlin (1990) contended that
the acquisition of the language arises from its usage in communicative interaction. As
to how the grammar arises from discourse, he maintained that "all aspects of the
grammar develop anew for each individual from the communicative environment"

(p. 161). The SL learner, for instance, approaches the language learning environment
with a very powerful set of learning mechanisms. These mechanisms are, then,
employed to "bootstrap a grammar from the genuinely rich data of human discourse
interaction" (p. 162).

In addition, functional approaches consider the grammar of an individual to be
composed of three interrelated parts. They are the syntactic component, semantic
functions, and rules which specify, for a particular language, how pragmatic functions
are mapped into syntactic forms (Tomlin, 1990).

Most of the work that has been conducted within the functional approach in

regard to the acquisition of tense and aspect in L2 is of two types. On the one hand,

18

there is the semantic analysis which examines utterances in terms of sentence-level
semantics. This kind of work is based on that of Kumpf (1984) (see also Flashner,
(1983; Nixon, 1986; and Rothstein, 1985). On the other hand, there is the pragmatic
analysis which examines learners’ spwch in order to uncover how they convey a
given function--past time reference, for example-since interlanguage does not show
that learners use morphological markers (Dittmar, 1981; Hatch, 1978; Sato 1984).
This will be elaborated upon in the "acquisition of tense and aspect in L2" section.

From the above discussion, it is clear that functional analysis is concerned with
how language is used in interactive discourse. In SLA, the focus is on the interaction
between acquisition and use. The emphasis is not on whether or not the learner
supplies correct grammatical morphemes in a given discourse-morpheme studies.
Instead, the concern is with how learners convey a given function in interactive
discourse and why they do it the way they do. Bahns and Wade (1980) stated that
consideration of the acquisition of linguistic forms without consideration of the
functions those forms realize, and how form-function relations may change through
the course of acquisition, will not enable us to capture critical observations about
learners’ development.

In sum, some major approaches to functionalism have already been discussed.
These include the case function, social function, and plurifunctionality. The work
within each approach has contributed to an understanding of language and its use in
communication. It has also been shown that there are two types of functionalism.
There are those who investigate form-function relations of a single language. On the

other hand, there are those who study the languages of the world in search for general

l9
principles that hold true cross-linguistically. Finally, it is obvious that functional
analysis in SLA is concerned with how learners use their language in interactive
discourse.

Though viewing language acquisition in this manner has already shown its
merits, functional approaches, like any other approaches, are not without problems.
Dik (1978) argued that functional approaches are more concerned with linguistic
performance than with linguistic competence. This may be true, since all functional
approaches analyze the speech of leamers-performance data. Nonetheless, this
researcher would not consider this much of a drawback since the investigation of what
learners actually say--performance--contributes to an understanding of the process of
acquisition more than investigating what learners know--linguistic knowledge. This
writer used "linguistic knowledge" instead of "competence" to avoid the controversy
over the deﬁnition of the term "competence." "Linguistic knowledge" means, in this
context, the leamer’s ultimate knowledge of the grammatical system of the target
language.

Another problem of functionalism is that there is no single functional approach
that provides an explicit consideration of the form-function relationship. Tomlin
(1990) argued that

. . . it is not clear what the theoretical possibilities are for coding relation-

ships, nor is it clear what patterns of empirical evidence must be observed in

linguistic behavior to embrace or reject any particular coding hypothesis.

Without an explicit, principled theory of the kinds of coding relations possible

between form and function, there is no principled way to distinguish genuine,

systemic coding from spurious correlations. (p. 163)

The mixing of relational and ecological functionalism is also identiﬁed by

Tomlin as yet another problem in functional analysis. Basically, this occurs when

20

general principles which are obtained as a result of empirical observations about sets
of languages are used to explain the behavior of an individual SL learner. Tomlin
(1990) argued that the language learner does not have access to such principles.

Despite these problems and possibly others, functional analysis remains one of
the most enriching approaches to the study of interlanguage. That is to say, the mere
description of learners’ language at a particular point in time-morpheme studies, for
example, which would indicate that a given learner used the simple past tense 70% of
the time-correctly may reveal something about the interlanguage development. But it
does not concern itself with how learners attempt to convey the correct message
whenever they fail to use the correct morphology. Further, it does not concern itself
with strategies used by different learners to overcome their deﬁciency of knowing the
grammatical rules of the target language.

Thus, what is needed is an approach that treats "interlanguage" as a unique
system, and investigates how language is used and how semantic functions are
conveyed in interactive discourse. This is, basically, what functional analysis to L2
acquisition intends to do. In other words, all functional approaches presuppose that
pragmatic functions are subserved by linguistic forms, and the main duty of research-

ers working within this framework is to investigate how this relationship is mapped.

Tense and Aspect
Tense and aspect are those categories that characterize the basic prediction
which is referred to as the event. Tense speciﬁes the location of an event in time. It
can be described in terms of temporal dimension which is directional with interval of

time that can be called the tense locus. Tense speciﬁes the location of an event in

21

time by comparing the position of the frame with respect to the tense locus. There
are two important considerations in tense systems:

1. The selection of the tense locus. Normally, no adverbial speciﬁcation
or further context is required in order to use the speech moment as tense locus.
However, contextual speciﬁcation like diectic adverbial phrases, "then" for instance,
is required in order to establish some other point as the tense locus.

2. The nature of the relationship between the event frame and the tense
locus. The frame can be anterior to the tense locus or it can include the tense locus
or it can be posterior to the tense locus. The above three distinctions deﬁne past,
present, and future tenses respectively.

This direct encoding of the tenses is not common. It is usual to ﬁnd only a
two-way distinction in tense which is either past 25. non-past or future is, non-future
(Chung & Timberlake, 1985). Comrie (1976) further mentioned that tense signals the
temporal relation between the time when an event occurs and the time of spealdng. If
the speaker speaks about an event before it occurs, it is the future tense. If, however,
the speaker speaks about an event after it happens, he or she is indicating past tense.

Every English sentence must be marked for tense given that it is not an
imperative one. The main verb will be marked for tense unless a tense-bearing
auxiliary verb is present. Auxiliary verbs include the modals (may, can, must, and so
on), perfective aspect (have + past participle), the progressive aspect (be + present
participle), and the passive form (be + past participle). The auxiliary in English can
be stated in the following phrase structure rule:

Auxiliary tense (model) (perfect) (progressive) (passive) + MV

22

Finally, tense distinctions in some languages characterize not only the relation-
ship between the event frame and the tense locus, but also are metrical. Tense
distinctions in these languages provide an approximate measure of the interval
between the frame and the tense locus. For instance, the Wishram-Wasco dialect in
Chinook distinguishes four past tenses: remote, far, recent, and immediate (Chung &
Timberlake, 1985).

Aspect of the verb indicates whether or not the event named by the verb is
perfective (completed) or imperfective (incompleted or continuing). This implies that
the aspect of the verb has to do with the contour of the event (Comrie, 1976). Chung
and Timberlake (1985) mentioned that aspect "characterizes the relationship of a
predicate to the time interval over which it occurs" (p. 213). According to the
researchers, the above deﬁnition includes two types of relationships. The ﬁrst is
change, which is central to aspect. Predicates describe situations and state among
others which can either remain constant or change over time. The second is the
different relationships of the predicate to the event frame. In order for the predicate
to qualify as an event, it must minimally occur over the event frame, and there are
many ways to satisfy this requirement. The predicate can occur wholly within the
event frame or over a large interval of time that includes the frame. The former is
the perfective (completed) aspect and the latter is the imperfective (incompleted)
aspect.

In addition, the pragmatic function of the perfective or completed aspect is to
show that a certain activity has an inherent limit which is reached by the event of the

event frame. On the other hand, the semantic function of imperfective aspect is to

23

indicate that an activity is in process and accordingly is incomplete. For an event to

be encoded perfective, it must be included in the frame. And in order for it to be

encoded imperfective, an event must be not only dynamic but also included in the

frame. A dynamic event is that which can change over time and not remain constant

(Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1983).

Temporality in English

Temporality in English is expressed in many ways. One way is verbal

morphology; the use of morphological markers to mark tense and aspect is obligatory

in English. For each one of the eight structures tested in this study, its syntactic

form, the function it conveys, and its lexical forms (morphology) that must be used to

convey the function are mentioned (see Table 1).

Table 1. The eight English grammatical structures tested.

 

 

Designation Syntactic Forms Function Form
A Simple Present regular or habitual unmarked form of the
Tense occurrence of an event verb
B Simple Past single event in the past the second of the prin-
Tense cipal parts of a verb
C Simple Present single, on-going occur- present-tense forms of
Progressive rence of an event in "be" + present parti-
the present time ciple of the verb
D Simple Past an event in progress past-tense forms of
Progressive simultaneously with "be" + present parti-
another one-time event ciple of the verb
in the past
E Present Perfect event in the past that is present-tense forms of

related to the present
state of affairs

"have" + past partici-
ple of the verb

 

24

Table 1. (cont’d).

 

Designation Syntactic Forms Function Form

F Past Perfect event in the past that had + past participle
occurred before anoth- of the verb
er event in the past

G Present Perfect action that took place present-tense forms of
Progressive in the past and is still ”have" + been +
continuing into the present participle of
present the verb
H Past Perfect event in the past that had + been + present
Progressive had a limited duration participle of the verb

and which occurred
before another event in
the past

 

A second way is the use of adverbs and adverbial phrases such as "today,"
"yesterday," "last year," "last March," and "when I was in x place." A third way is
principles of discourse organization. The use of such principles is a common
phenomenon in almost all languages of the world. These include, among others,
implicit reference, scaffolded discourse, and order of mention follow the natural order
in which events occurred. It is shown in Table 2 how the morphological markers that
mark tense and aspect in the eight structures of this study are used in actual English

sentences.

Acquisition of Tense and Aspect in L1
As to how children develop the use of temporal information, Weist (1986),
who reviewed the literature on the acquisition of temporal systems in child language,
suggested a developmental progression of four temporal systems which involve the

integration and sequential emergence of three concepts: speech time, event time, and

25

Table 2. Morphological markers that mark the English tense and aspect systems.

 

TEN SE
Past Present

Perfective He wrote an article.
He mm 3 articles before

he came to the US.

He has wrimn an article.

Imperfective He was writing his article when I I am writing my article.
visited him.
He M an article for
three weeks.

He Wing his article.

He writes one article every year.
reference time. As outlined by Weist et a1. (1991), the following discussion describes
the developmental progression of the four temporal systems. Before doing so, a
deﬁnition of the three concepts is provided. The speech time concept refers to the
time of the speech act, the event time concept refers to the time that is established for
a speciﬁc situation, and relative to speech time. Finally, the reference time concept is
the temporal context that is identiﬁed (Comrie, 1985).

The ﬁrst temporal system is called the speech time system. During this phase,
the child’s language is limited to spwch time coding. The coding of tense and aspect
is non—existent (Brown, 1973).

The second system is the event time system, wherein children between the
ages of 1.6 and 2.0 express a relationship between speech time and event time. It is
propounded that during this period, children express past 25. non-past. They express
the basic aspectual distinction between the perfective and the imperfective (W eist et

al., 1984).

26

The third system is called the restricted reference time system. From the age
of 2.6 to 3.0, children begin to use temporal adverbs to establish the location of
reference time (Clark, 1985). In some languages, the present perfect is used to relate
event time to reference time (Gathercole, 1986). This phase was labeled "restricted"
because the complexity of temporal conﬁguration is limited at this point to only the
relationship between two intervals in time.

The free reference time is the last phase that is identiﬁed. Children vary as to
when they reach this stage. It is estimated that this stage is reached by the age of 4
(Trosborg, 1982). This stage is characterized by the ability of children to construct
conﬁgurations having speech time, event time, and reference time, at different
temporal locations.

Additionally, there are two different hypotheses in regard to how children
develop their temporal systems. On the one hand, there are those who argue that
early systems are characterized by the lack cf ﬂexibility with regard to reference time
and embedding possibilities (Weist et al., 1984). On the other hand, there are those
who argue that the systems lack the concept of temporal location, and that the ﬁrst
distinctions children make are aspectual ones. Even if children use tense morphology
earlier in their development, it is used to code aspectual distinctions (Antinucci &
Miller, 1976).

However, Weist et a1. (1984) argued against the second hypothesis and pointed
out that their subject Polish children used tense morphology to code temporal rela-
tions. At the same time, they used aspect morphology to distinguish perfective from

imperfective viewpoints. Bloom and Harner (1989), who reanalyzed Weist’s Polish

27
data, disagrwd. They contended that reanalysis of that data showed that the acquisi-

tion of verb inﬂections in the language of those Polish children obeys basic principles
of development. The acquisition of verb morphology moves in the direction of
increasing complexity. They argued that acquisition of tense distinctions was inﬂu-
enced by the earlier acquisition of verbs with different aspectual contours. In other
words, Polish children as well as Turkish and Hebrew and others are inﬂuenced by
aspect in their acquisition of verb tense.

The hypothesis of "aspect before tense" originated in Jakobson’s (1957) work.
It was the result of the observations that when both tense and aspect are marked in a
language, the aspect marker appears closer to the stem of the verb and before the
tense marker.

Conﬁrmation of this hypothesis was offered by Antinucci and Miller (1976),
who produced evidence from children’s spontaneous speech that aspect guides the
acquisition of tense during the earliest use of non-present forms of verbs. They
concluded that ". . . the meaning of the child’s past tense is at this point rather
limited. . . the past tense has more of an aspectual value than a temporal value . . ."
(p. 183).

More researchers investigating different languages (Aksu, 1978; and De
Lemos, 1981 , to name only two) indicated that during the early stages of develop-
ment, children associate past tense with perfective aspects. In addition, Bloom and
Harner (1989) argued that when children begin to add verb inﬂections, they are apt to
use past tense with those verbs that express completion before coding past tense in

general.

28

Results of the above studies and much more were the major reason of Bloom
and Hamer’s (1989) reanalysis of the Weist et al. (1984) data. They reanalyzed the
Polish data in order to show that it conﬁrms the "aspect before tense" hypothesis.
They argued, further, that Weist et al. (1984) proposed the "defective tense hypothe-
sis" to explain the acquisition of early verb inﬂections in, children language. They
contended that this perspective of Weist et al. (1984) resulted in mislabeling the
gradual progress of the child. Children’s early usage of tense markers is not defec-
tive. Any aspect of development, they argued, cannot be labeled "defective" merely
because when it ﬁrst appears, it functions incompletely. The cooing of a two-month
old baby is not defective babbling, nor is babbling defective single-word speech. Any
sort of behavior on the part of the child is an index of emerging capacities. These are
signs of development as opposed to deviance, and that is why they deemed Weist’s
hypothesis inappropriate.

The fact is that aspectual distinctions inﬂuence the acquisition of tense
distinctions. Analysis of data from children in different languages has shown that the
completed aspect of the event is a salient factor for children in that they use past tense
mostly when actions are completed. Bloom and Hamer ( 1989) were careful to
emphasize that this claim does not mean that children’s use of aspect marking
becomes completely developed before learning tense distinctions, nor does it mean
separate developments of tense and aspect. Instead, they develop together, but aspect
is the earliest determining factor.

Finally, Bloom and Hamer (1989) pointed out that Weist is among those who

support a formal theory of acquisition that uses grammars constructed on the basis of

29

grammaticality judgments of adults in order to constrain what is looked for in the data
of child language. By approaching child language this way, they continued, research-
ers may come up with the product of linguistic forms, but the process of their
development over time may not be captured. What is needed is a developmental
theory that uses evidence from what children utter and inquires into the process
whereby the knowledge of children changes over time. It is this line of research (for
instance, Antinucci & Miller, 1976) which concludes that the "aspect before tense"
hypothesis is validated and that the early use of tense morphology codes aspectual
distinction.

In sum, the developmental progression of four temporal systems that children
are proclaimed to go through when acquiring tense and aspect of their native languag-
es has been reviewed. Child language develops from the lack of temporal information
to the ability of children to sufﬁciently use the temporal system of their native
language. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that the "aspect before tense"
hypothesis holds true cross-linguistically. That is, children’s early use of tense
morphology codes aspectual distinctions. It is shown how reanalysis of the Weist et
al. ( 1984) data was found to conform to such hypothesis though the original analysis
did not claim so. In addition, it is shown how the "defective tense hypothesis" was
challenged. This shows the importance of analyzing child’s language with develop-
mental theories that begin with what the child knows and inquires into the process

where the knowledge of children changes over time.

30
Acquisition of Tense and Aspect in L2

The acquisition of grammatical morphemes in the interlanguage of L2 learners
has been scrutinized thoroughly in the past three decades. During the early 1960s, it
was the contrastive analysis approach. It was thought that if the usage and require-
ment of a given structure of the target language is similar to that of the native
language, the acquisition of that structure or morpheme will be facilitated, and the
converse is true. This behaviorist approach was abandoned when the mentali st
interlanguage paradigm of the likes of morpheme studies and error analysis was
introduced. This new paradigm examined the L1 = L2 hypothesis and was more
concerned with the learner’s internal processing as opposed to the emphasis of the
role of L1 in contrastive analysis. As mentioned earlier, it was not long, though,
before some SLA researchers began to conduct their work within the functional
approach.

It was found that those who stress the differences as well as those who stress
the similarities between L1 and L2 acquisition were equally misguided. Though there
are similar patterns of development in the speech of SL learners, they owed much to
factors other than the shape of the ﬁrst and the target languages (Mclaughlin, 1989).
Morpheme studies presupposed that the categories of the interlanguage are the same
as those of the target language. Additionally, transfer studies claimed that the
grammatical categories of L1 are part of the interlanguage. Since those studies did
not reveal much about the acquisition process, it was apparent that what was needed
was an approach that viewed interlanguage as "systematic in and of itself, as sets of

grammatical relationships which have been established by the speaker" (Kumpf, 1984,

31

p. 132). This kind of reaction among many others set the stage for the process-
oriented research which looks at how interlanguage develops and how learners map
form-function relationships.

Research within this framework looks at how SL learners convey a given
function--past-time reference, for instance-since interlanguage did not show, in most
cases, that learners use morphological markers. It was evident that learners acquire
the functions without acquiring the forms. Hatch (1978) argued that learning a
language develops out of learning how to carry on conversation and that grammar
develops out of conversation. Learners learn, ﬁrst, how to interact and out of their
interaction, syntactic forms evolve. This view is contrary to that which argues that
learners ﬁrst learn the forms and then use those forms in interactive discourse.
Hatch’s argument is that conversation precedes syntax. Dittmar (1981), who investi-
gated the acquisition of temporality in the speech of native-Spanish speakers learning
German, indicated that often learners used neither past ending nor auxiliary forms.
Instead, some of the learners used devices such as calendar expressions. Others, on
the other hand, used adverbs such as "yesterday" with an inﬁnitive to mark past or
future time. Sato (1984) indicated that SL learners rely on context and implicit
inferences to mark temporality. She mentioned some devices used by L2 learners to
express temporality. These include temporal adverbials, locative adverbials, clause
sequencing, calendar expressions, interlocutor scaffolding, and implicit references, in
narrative as well as in descriptive context.

A similar conclusion was reported by Schumann (1987), who indicated that

native-Spanish subjects who were at an early stage of learning English as a second

32
language used neither aspectual distinctions nor tense marking. Instead, they used

adverbials, implicit referencing, sequencing, and serialization to convey temporal
references.

The previous pragmatic analysis shows that even when morphological markers
of tense and aspect are not used, L2 learners have their own techniques for expressing
temporality. This kind of analysis can uncover what learners are attempting to say,
and describes how they express the pragmatic functions of the target language given
the fact that they have only a limited number of lexical and grammatical devices at
their disposal.

Expression of temporality by non-native speakers was also examined from a
semantic perspective. Most of the work in this area (Nixon, 1986, and Rothstein,
1985, to name only two) is based on the work of Kumpf (1984). Interlanguage
utterances were examined in terms of sentence-level semantics. These utterances are
classiﬁed according to universal categories such as completed gs. non-completed
actions.

This line of research attempts to ﬁnd consistent patterns in the expression of
temporality in the inter-language. Kumpf, who introduced this new perspective to the
area of SLA, investigated the temporal systems of a native speaker of Japanese at an
advanced level of English. Before discussing the results, Kumpf (1984) explicitly
pointed out that the viewpoint she took was a "discourse functional" approach which
can be applied to the analysis of native languages and interlanguage systems. She
stated that

. . . the use of a form is indexed to a particular context in discourse. Interpre-
tation of morphological or syntactic structures are always given in terms of the

33

occurrence of forms in actual discourse. The assumption is that any grammati-

cal form appears to fulﬁll a function in the discourse it is the discourse context

which creates the conditions under which the forms appear, and in order to

explain the form, it is necessary to refer to this context. (p. 132)

Results showed that the subject used the base form of the verb to express
completed actions in the foreground. No tensing was used. Background actions, on
the other hand, were expressed with many different forms and most verbs were
marked for tense. Kumpf concluded that since it seems that all languages have
aspectual designations, but not tense distinctions, aspect is primary to tense in terms
of grammaticization temporal systems. The broad distinction among language
learners, it seems, is between completed and non-completed actions.

In another study of a native speaker of Spanish who was at an early stage of
learning English, Kumpf (1981) reported that the learner consistently made aspectual
distinctions between completed and non—completed actions. Completed actions are
expressed with the base form of the verb. Non-completed actions are expressed with
the base form plus "-in."

KumpPs semantic analysis was used by other L2 researchers who studied the
acquisition of temporality. Nixon (1986) inquired into the acquisition of tense and
aspect in the English interlanguage of a Mandarin native speaker. She concluded that
tense marking was non-existent. Nonetheless, the subject made aspectual distinctions
with consistency. Flashner (1983) investigated the acquisition of temporality in the
interlanguage of three Russian native speakers learning English. To express incom-
pleted actions, the learners used the base form of the verb. Morphological past

markers were used to express completed actions. Further, Rothstein (1985), who also

studied the expression of temporal systems in the English interlanguage of a Hebrew

34
native speaker, reported that the subject used irregular English verb forms to express

completed actions. Additionally, the learner used many different verb forms to
express incomplet actions.

The results of the above studies seem to substantiate Kumpf’s conclusion that
L2 learners make broad distinctions between completed and noncompleted actions,
and that tense is never grammaticized. If these conclusions are generalizable, Kumpf
continued, then the contention that aspect is universally primary over tense is validat-
ed.

In sum, two types of research have been reviewed: that which searches for
consistent patterns in the expression of the temporal systems in interlanguage (seman-
tic analysis) (Kumpf, 1981, 1984, for example), and that which is concerned with
how L2 learners convey temporality given the fact that they do not have at their
disposal sufﬁcient knowledge of the grammatical system of the target language
(pragmatic analysis) (Dittmar, 1981, for instance). The current study falls partly
within the second type. Its purpose was to unveil the devices--linguistic and non-
linguistic-{hat L2 learners of English use to convey temporality, and to discover the
developmental progression in the usage of eight grammatical structures. Since this
study used the functional approach as deﬁned by Meisel ( 1986) as a basis, the study
of Meisel in which his functional approach was used is explored in detail. Then, it is

shown how this study is similar to and different from that of Meisel’s.

Meisel’s Study
Meisel, ﬁrst of all, pointed out that the importance of L2 data for the study of

language acquisition strategies and principles could be seen in the speciﬁc options L2

 

35
learners have available during the process of acquisition. Since the development of
the concepts to be conveyed in discourse represents less of a problem for adult L2
learners, researchers’ attention "is appropriately focused on the changing ways in
which they are expressed. Longitudinal studies of L2 development should therefore
be able to reveal cognitive and communicative constraints on the use of morphological
and syntactic devices to code the intended message" (p. 206).

For this goal to be achieved, he argued, L2 research has to provide us with
more than just a mere description of the surface phenomena of learners’ product,
appearance or nonappearance of grammatical devices. What needs to be done, as he
continues to offer the alternative, is that

. . . the usual perspective has to be reversed; instead of searching for possible

"interpretation" of a feature, we must deﬁne the CONCEPTS and FUNC-

TIONS which have to be encoded and then analyze the DEVICES used by

different learners or types of learners to express these CONCEPTS and

FUNCTIONS at different points on the developmental continuum [emphasis

added]. (p. 206)

This is basically the functional approach that he advocates, the application of
which may eventually lead to the revelation of constraints on syntactic devices used to
code the intended message. Next, he provides functional interpretation of previous
work by himself and his colleagues in order to see how it may be affected by this new
suggested perspective. Then, he applies his suggested functional approach to the
analysis of the acquisition of reference to events and actions which are situated in "not
here" "not now" prior to the time of utterance" in the interlanguage of adult learners
of German.

Though he conducted cross-sectional study with 45 immigrants from Italy,

Portugal, and Spain, and a subsequent longitudinal study with 12 immigrants of the

36

same background, the analysis was focused on the language development of one
Spanish learner whose linguistic development was examined over an 80—week period.
Linguistic development of that Spanish learner was then compared to that of six
learners in the longitudinal study. Data from those learners was also compared to
data from the cross-sectional study.

Before Meisel discussed the developmental sequences of the acquisition of
reference to the past, he reported the explicit and implicit devices available in
standard German to refer to past actions. These devices include tense marking,

adverbials, and principles of discourse organization.

W

In German, there are a number of tense markings that refer to past events,
These include: (a) preterite which refers to a single event in the past, and is con-
structed by adding the sufﬁx re to the stem of the verb; (b) present perfect which is
constructed by means of an auxiliary + past participle, and refers to an event that
took place in the past and is related to the present state of affairs; and (c) past perfect
which refers to a past event that took place before another event in the past. It is
constructed by the use of the preterite forms of the auxiliary + past participle.

Meisel was careful to mention that these forms are not used in this way in
those dialects which provide the input for the subjects. He maintained that the
"preterite" has disappeared in spoken German except with coupla, auxiliary, and some
modals. Therefore, Meisel’s hypothesis concerning the acquisition of tense marking
by his subjects was not based on the standard German tense marking, but rather on

the tense markings that are used by native speakers in the actual input.

37
Av i

Another device which is used to refer to past in standard German is the use of
adverbs and adverbial prepositional phrases. There are time adverbials and in some

cases locative adverbials.

, P ' ' l f ' r r ' ' it

Finally, there are the principles of discourse organization. One such device is
the "order of mention. " This occurs when a speaker mentions events in a fashion
where the order of mention corresponds to order of occurrence.

After describing the explicit and implicit devices used in German to refer to
past events and actions, Meisel analyzed the subjects’ language in order to show what
developmental sequence they followed in terms of using these devices on their way to
acquiring reference to past in German.

Results showed that, in the earliest stages, verbal elements were either omitted
or unsystematically marked. Thus, explicit devices are not available. Learners used
pragmatic devices or principles of discourse organization. These include: (a) scaf-
folded discourse where the learner provides alternative reference points, (b) implicit
reference to an event in the speaker’s past where she would assume it to be known to
the hearer, (c) contrast of two or more events, and ((1) order of mention follows the
natural order. In this case, learners may replace a past event by "a sequence of
events ordered as they actually occurred, thus situating in time the point of reference
in question" (p. 213). During this stage, Meisel contended that ". . . redundant

marking of temporal reference appears to be drastically reduced by eliminating verbal

38

inﬂections which are obligatory in the target language, and by giving other kinds of
information only if there is the risk of misunderstanding" (p. 214).

If, however, reference to the past was made explicit by learners during this
early stage, it was established by the use of adverbials and connectives. Learners
used locative as well as temporal adverbs to refer to past events. Connectives such as
und (and), dann (then), and aber (but) were used to refer to past actions. Meisel
pointed out that the use of adverbials was often combined with one of the discourse
principles, namely contrast of two or more events. By the same token, the use of
connectives played an important role in connection with two of the discourse princi-
ples: contrast of two or more events, and order of mention follows the natural order.
It seems obvious that principles of discourse organization, adverbials, and connectives
work hand in hand to convey the reference to past actions. This strategy seems to be
employed as a compensation for the lack of sufﬁcient knowledge of verb inﬂections.

Meisel mentioned that in a later stage when verb inﬂections began to appear, it
created a great deal of confusion and almost all of the inﬂected verbs violated the
target norm. He stated that ". . . as a consequence of the beginning acquisition of
verb inﬂection, there is considerable variation instead of previous invariance, but also
great uncertainty. Nevertheless, this should be interpreted as an indication of
development in L2 grammar" (p. 217).

The ﬁrst form used by learners with main verbs to refer to the past was the
present perfect. Even though some learners did not use the auxiliary which is
required, they placed the main verb at the end of the clause which is again a require-

ment in German. The next step, after a long time elapsed, was the use of past tense

39
construction with the verb "to be. " Then, learners began to use the past tense of
"have." At a very late stage of development learners began to use the past tense of
modals.

Meisel showed that as a result of the acquisition of a more elaborate system
of linguistic devices, the importance of principles of discourse organization declined.
Also,

. . . learners are able to give reports without the support of the native speaker.

Reference to point in time is frequently made explicit . . . reference not only

can be made to speciﬁc point in the past, but different events in the past can

be related to each other. The speaker may change perspective within the
narrative; all this implies that one event can be introduced as background for

another occurring later but still taking place in the past. (p. 219)

He maintained that not all of the learners followed the above-mentioned developmen-
tal sequences; some of the immigrant subjects never got as far as acquiring the
present perfect.

In sum, the developmental progression of the acquisition of reference to past
actions of German in the interlanguage of non-native speakers has been discussed.
Learners went from the use of principles of discourse organization and adverbial
phrases to refer to past where the verb is either omitted or invariant, to the limited
use of verb morphology. At a very late stage, and when learners acquired a complex
system of linguistic devices, their use of non-linguistic devices to refer to past
decreased. Additionally, learners were capable of using the complex linguistic system
to convey functions that cannot be conveyed without the acquisition of that system. It

is evident that the application of Meisel’s functional approach to the analysis of L2

data can uncover a great deal about the acquisition process.

40

The adaptation of Meisel’s model was motivated by the fact that it is a
comprehensive model for the study of interlanguage development. Two interrelated
factors deﬁne Meisel’s model:

1. It allows a multi-level analysis of learners’ data. Such analysis takes
into consideration not only the linguistic forms, but also the discourse strategies that
learners employ to convey a given function.

2. Such analysis allows a complete account of the developmental process
of interlanguage systems in the sense that the encoding of a speciﬁc function can be
documented at any stage whether the encoding was represented by linguistic means or
by certain discourse strategies.

This present research, while based largely on Meisel’s functional approach,
differs from it in at least two respects:

1. Meisel investigated the German-based interlanguage. This study
investigated the English-based interlanguage of non-native speakers.

2. Meisel investigated the acquisition of "reference to past. " This project
speciﬁed the structures to be studied including those that refer to present actions.

Most importantly, I add a minor modiﬁcation to Meisel’s approach. Meisel
used "function to form" analysis only. I extended Meisel’s approach to include "form
only” analysis in addition to "function to form" analysis. In other words, this

researcher reported the percentage of correct usage of each grammatical morpheme

 

1I would like to stress the fact that "forms" always express "functions. " Thus, "form
only" is used in this research merely to refer to a speciﬁc type of analysis that has been
utilized in SLA research, and to distinguish it from other types of analysis such as "function-
to-form" and "form-to-function. " "Form only" analysis refers to an analysis in which forms
are considered without reference to their function.

41

studied which Meisel did not do. This was done to empower and validate the

developmental stages established.

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This project was carried out in two different phases within an 18-month
period. In the ﬁrst phase, the researcher observed the developmental process of the
English tense and aspect systems in the English-based interlanguage of two adult
Arabic learners who were studying English as a second language. This phase lasted
42 weeks (from July 7, 1993 to April 28, 1994). When it started, participants had
been studying English in the United States for a while, and their English proﬁciency
scores indicated that they were at approximately intermediate level. This phase ended
shortly before they successfully ﬁnished the English program.

In the second phase, the development of the English temporality was observed
in the interlanguage of two more adult Arabic learners who were similar in almost
every aspect to the ﬁrst pair (the criteria upon which all participants were selected
will be elaborated upon later). This phase lasted 12 weeks (from September 9, 1994
to December 2, 1994). When it started, the participants had been studying English in
the United States for only 1 week, and their English proﬁciency scores indicated that
they were at a very early stage in the learning continuum. This phase ended when the

subjects were at approximately an intermediate level.

42

43

The writer conducted this study in this manner in order to be able to observe
the developmental process of the acquisition of the English temporal systems by adult

Arabic learners from a very early stage until the learners reached an advanced level.

Subjects

Participants in this study were four Arab males between 26 and 32 years of
age. All participants were given assumed names in order to protect their real
identities. Participants of phase one of this project were named Jamal and Kareem.
The former was from Saudi Arabia, and the latter was born in Kuwait, but had grown
up and gone to school in Saudi Arabia. Throughout phase one, they were enrolled at
the Carrer English Language Center for International Students (CELCIS) at Western
Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

I should stress the fact that it was not an easy process to ﬁnd two more
participants for phase two of this project. This was due to the fact that the researcher
had to ﬁnd two learners who had to be similar in every aspect to those of phase one.
It was hoped that the researcher would be able to ﬁnd two learners who would qualify
as participants for phase two in the same English program that participants of phase
one had been attending (CELCIS). Unfortunately, this was not possible. The next
step was to look for learners who would qualify in other English programs that were
comparable to CELCIS. Because of that, the process of ﬁnding participants for phase
two took about 6 months.

Participants of phase two were named Joseph and Salem; both were from
Qatar. Throughout phase two, they were enrolled at the English language Center

(ELC) at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. For the purpose of

44
abbreviation, Jamal is called participant A, Kareen is participant B, Joseph is partici-

pant C, and Salem is participant D.

The participants were enrolled at CELCIS and ELC in order to learn the
English language and hence pursue their higher education in the United States. After
graduating from college, participants worked for a while in their countries, then they
came to the United States. Prior to their arrival in the United States, all of the
subjects, whose social and cultural backgrounds were fairly homogeneous, had been
exposed to English in secondary schools for 5 hours per week. They had one 60-
minute English class per day. Those English classes consisted of teaching grammar,
translating stories from English to Arabic and vice versa, and very basic reading and
writing. According to the subjects, they were rarely given homework, and they never
practiced English outside the classroom. The teachers of these English classes were
native speakers of Arabic who had received their B.A.s in English Education from
England or the United States. The subjects also were enrolled in several English
courses in college which were taught by native speakers of English. These courses
concentrated on grammar and advanced reading. The subjects maintained that they
never took these English courses seriously, and they enrolled in them only because
they were university requirements.

The CELCIS in which participants A and B were enrolled consisted of four
levels. They were: elementary, intermediate, pre-advanced, and advanced. Classes
started at 10:00 a.m. and ended at 3:00 pm. Though the subjects had had prior
exposure to English in their countries, all were placed in the elementary level at

CELCIS. Classes at all levels consisted of grammar, writing, reading and

45

vocabulary, listening comprehension, and free conversation. In addition, the ad—
vanced level had a research class that was offered daily. Each class required some
homework every day. According to the subjects, the heavy workload did not prevent
them from practicing their English with non-Arabic speakers outside the classroom.
The ELC in which participants C and D were enrolled consisted also of four
levels. They were: 100, 200, 300, and 400. Classes started at 8:00 a.m. and ended
at 1:30 pm. Both subjects were put in the ﬁrst level (100). Classes at that level
consisted of grammar, speaking and listening, reading, and writing. As in CELCIS,
each class at ELS required some homework every day. Once again, the subjects
maintained that the daily homework did not prevent them from practicing their

English with non-Arabic speakers outside the classroom.

Social Network
Generally speaking, the participants’ social life outside the classroom was
fairly similar. Besides having some Arabic-speaking ﬁiends, each subject had few
non-Arabic (American and non-American) friends with whom he socialized on a
regular basis. For instance, one subject and his friend went bowling, played certain
sports, or dined during which time they spoke English. Some subjects socialized with

their non-Arabic—speaking friends more than others.

Procedures
The writer collected the data from the informants during their enrollment in

CELCIS and ELC. In order to increase the validity of the study, the researcher

46

selected four informants who were similar in almost every aspect. The following
criteria were taken into consideration during the process of selecting the participants:

1. They had to be native speakers of the same L1. (All speakers were
native speakers of Arabic.)

2. They had to represent the same gender. (All subjects were males.)

3. Their age had to be identical or at least similar. (Subjects A and B
were both 27 years old; subject C was 30, and subject D was 32.)

4. Their educational, economic and cultural backgrounds had to be
similar. (All participants had the same educational background and they were brought
up in middle class families. Further, they were all from the "Gulf of Arabic" region
which maintains the same cultural values.)

5. They had to have had similar prior exposure to the English language.
(All participants had had almost the same prior exposure to English prior to arriving
in the United States.)

6. Most importantly, the level of English proﬁciency as determined by
TOEFL scores was the main criterion in the selection process. It was the TOEFL
scores that determined the following:

1. that subjects A and B were at a similar level of English proﬁciency at
the beginning of phase one,

2. that subjects A and B were at approximately an intermediate level at the
beginning of phase one,

3. that subjects C and D were at a similar level of proﬁciency at the

beginning of phase two, and

47

4. that participants C and D were at an approximately early stage at the
beginning of phase two.

The researcher clariﬁes at this point that he is not using the stages (early,
intermediate, and so forth) in their literal meaning. They are used metaphorically to
refer to the different stages that participants were at or went through in the develop-
mental continuum. That is to say, for instance, that We; does not imply
that the learner is in the middle stage of learning nor does mm imply that
the subject is in the ﬁnal stage of learning.

During phase one that involved participants A and B, each subject was
audiotaped four times within a 42-week period. Each taping session lasted 1 hour.
The ﬁrst taping session took place on July 7, 1993 when the participants were in the
middle of enrolling at the intermediate level at CELCIS. TOEFL scores were 430 for
subject A and 425 for subject B. The second taping session was conducted on
September 28, 1993, at the beginning of their enrollment in the pre-advanced level.
The third taping session was conducted on December 21, 1993, after the subjects had
ﬁnished the pre-advanced level and prior to their enrollment in the advanced level.
The ﬁnal session was conducted on April 28, 1994 around the end of their enrollment
in the advanced level.

During the second phase, subjects C and D were audiotaped twice within a 12-
week period. Each session lasted 1 hour. The ﬁrst taping session took place on
September 9, 1994, 1 week after they had been enrolled in Level 100 at the ELC.

The TOEFL scores were 333 for participant C and 345 for participant D. The second

48
session was conducted on December 2, 1994 at the end of their enrollment in the
same level (100).

Prior to conducting both phases of the project, the researcher met each subject
several times for the sole purpose of getting to know them better. This was done to
ensure that they had the potential to carry on throughout the experiment. Neverthe-
less, they were not told the purpose of the project.

Before each taping session, the researcher conversed with the subjects in both
Arabic and English for about 2 hours in order to reduce the level of anxiety. Then
the subjects were asked to speak freely about their life stories. That included their
families, education, interesting tales from their past, unforgettable situations that had
happened to them up to date, and their experience in learning English back home and
in the U. 8. They were told to speak about whatever they could remember in their
life. In short, there was no agenda for the sessions and it was left to them to speak
freely. This was done for the purpose of obtaining as much spontaneous data as
possible. In a few situations, especially with participants C and D in session 1,
communication breakdown occurred. Whenever this happened, the researcher asked
questions the answers to which would clarify the message that the participant attempt-
ed to convey. This phenomenon will be elaborated upon in Chapter IV.

Here are four examples from the participants’ spontaneous speeches:

. . . I think I speak not good but not bad, because I learn English in my

country, but ’when’ 1 game here, I talk English many people I think the people

do not understand what did I say and I don’t understand what the people said,
because the accent is different, because a teacher in my country who learn me

English he learn me with my accent Arabic accent. Therefore, I don’t under-

stand how the English. Sometime I think I don’t learn any English in my life.

That is I think the big problem face me when I come to the United States and
that maybe in the class I think the teacher he understand what I said and I

49

understand what the understood what the teacher the teacher say, but when I
go out the class any ofﬁce the administration ofﬁce or shopping any place I
think ﬁrst of all I think I don’t understand what the people say, because he
speak very very fast and I think the people don’t understand what 1 said. . . .
(from subject B, Karem; session 1)

. . . I had a lot of friends in elementary school and continue as friends ’till
now. I went to Riyadh which is the capital city of my country to study the
high school the ﬁrst year of high school. Actually it was just like here the
culture check for me, because I came from small city or village to big city.
The students are different. The relationships are different. Always I mean
everything was different. I went to Riyadh to study the ﬁrst year of high
school, because my aunt live alone because her husband travel a lot. So I
went to Riyadh to stay with here when I back when I back to Albadaiye to
complete the high school, I attend to Albadaiye high school and I fail in that
year and I start smoking that year and I was mad at the guys. I went to
Aldammam to visit my uncle that year and my uncle see me when I was
smoking and he didn’t say anything and he bring brought bring tutor to teach
me physic and math because I fail in those subjects. (from subject A, Jamal;
session 1)

. . . Yes, it’s some teacher give me homework, more times more homework.
It’s more time, more, most time. Sometime more, sometimes no. It’s, 1
think, it’s good for me, homework. It is good me, because I understand, I can
write homework. If I can’t understand this question, I feel little, what I can
do for this question. I don’t remember what mean, what the teacher like for
this question. I feel like look dictionary, often dictionary, some words what’s
mean. Every time dictionary, what’s mean this word, what’s mean this word.
And sometimes maybe I when 1 dictionary take this word. The one sentence
maybe different mean, I feel this, what’s mean in Arabic different in English.
I feel this a problem with it. It’s not same exactly when, with me. It’s
different, I mean, it’s sometimes mean difference when I it’s words dictionary
take what’s mean. (from subject C, Joseph; session 1)

. . . I go sorry I went to another trip in Egypt the people in Egypt I think they
are poor poor men when we go to the pyramids one man follow us he said you
want ride a camel. We said no we don’t want. They said you must come to
ride it is good place. We refused to ride the camel, but he want he want us to
ride. After that, we said o.k. ride it we ride the camel go about ﬁve minute.
He was with us. Then he said I want 20 Jeneh (Egyptian money). We said
why only around ﬁve minutes. He said no you take more than ﬁve minutes.
We refuse to give him to give him this money, because that is expensive.
After he call to his friend and his friend come to ask they want ﬁve. When
we see this group. We said o.k. o.k. what we can we do, and after we never
go to these pyramid. You this people all problems. . . . (from subject D,
Salem; session 2) ‘

50

The subjects were told to turn off the tape recorder whenever they could not
remember anything. Then, when they were ready to speak, they turned it on. Thus,
each l-hour recorded tape was the result of up to a 3-hour session.

Since it was anticipated that there might be no instances where some of the
structures had to be used in the spontaneous speech, and since it was anticipated that
the subjects would not use all of the structures, forced elicitation was used. In each
session, the researcher asked each subject two questions for each one of the eight
structures under investigation. Originally, this was to be carried out after the subject
ﬁnished his l-hour spwch. However, the researcher thought that it would be more
natural to ask those questions during the taping sessions. That is to say, while the
subject spoke about a given situation and the researcher felt is was appropriate to ask
a question, the researcher asked the question, and after the subject answered, he
continued speaking. Here is an example of subject B speaking about his daughter:
"Before 2 weeks, I ﬁnd preschool Arabic preschool accept my daughter. The
problem my daughter she can’t adjust with the children" (from session 2).

At that point is was appropriate to ask the following question, "How long has
she been going to that school?" That question was in regard to his knowledge of the
present perfect progressive.

Here is another example of subject A talking about a girl he had met:
"Yesterday another funny situation happened when I was I was talking with my
friend. I saw the I saw beautiful girl. . . " (from session 2).

After he said so, he paused for a minute during which the researcher felt it

was appropriate to ask the following question, "What was she doing when you saw

51

her?" Once again, this question was in regard to his knowledge of one of the eight
structures, simple past progressive.

The questions-answer method has the weakness of allowing subjects to infer
the correct answer from the form of the question, since the morphemes that had to be
used in the answer are already included in the form of the question. Nevertheless, the
researcher used it for several reasons:

1. It is not always the case that the above inference would take place.

2. This method is only a small part of the method used in this project.

3. The researcher asked the questions orally, so the level of inference was
expected to be very low.

4. The researcher believed that if a subject did not know the structure in
question, or knew it but had not yet started to use it in his spontaneous speech, he or
she may not have inferred anyway.

After each session, the 1-hour tape was then transcribed by the researcher and
5 minutes of it was retranscribed by someone else for a reliability check. The forced
elicited question-answer data were transcribed as they actually took place on the tape.
Each l-hour transcribed session turned out to be about 14-25 pages of handwritten or
double-spaced typed material. The writer then coded each instance in which the
subject attempted to convey one of the eight functions:

1. Regular or habitual occurrence of an event (simple present tense),

2. Single event in the past (simple past tense),

3. Single ongoing occurrence of an event in the present time (simple

present progressive),

52

4. An event in progress simultaneous with another one-time event in the
past (simple past progressive),

5. An event in the past that is related to the present state of affairs

(present perfect),
6. An event in the past that occurred before another event in the past (past
perfect).

7. An action that took place in the past and is still continuing into the
present (present perfect progressive), and

8. An event in the past that had limited duration, and that occurred before
another event in the past (past perfect progressive).

After each instance in which the subject attempted to convey one of the above
functions was identiﬁed, the researcher then looked for the following:

1. whether or not the subject supplied the verb itself, and if he did,

2. whether or not he supplied the correct morphemes to convey the

function, and if not, and2

 

2During the coding of the data, I encountered a very interesting problem. In a
few cases, the subjects used grammatical structures that were acceptable and used by
native speakers of English. Yet, these structures were grammatically incorrect
according to English grammar textbooks. Following is an example from Subject A in
Session 2: "My mother get married after 2 years of my father’s death. In that time
between my father dead and my mother get married I was living with my grandfa-
ther. . . ." In this case, "I was living" is perfectly acceptable in everyday English.
But according to grammar books of English language, the subject should have used
the past perfect progressive "I had been living." In this study, correctness of
grammatical structures was judged according to standard English textbooks. Hence,
Subject A’s structure "I was living, " though acceptable and used by native speakers,
was considered incorrect.

If this study were to be duplicated, I would use three categories for the
purpose of judging correctness of grammatical structures. A grammatical structure
would be classiﬁed under one of the following: (a) grammatically mt according

53

3. what devices--linguistic and non-linguistic--were used to convey the
function.

In order to do the above, the researcher used four columns for each transcript
of each session. The columns were entitled "Concept, " "Correctness, " "Elements
Used," and "Correction." The ﬁrst column contained the functions that the subject
intended to convey. The second indicated whether or not he used the correct mor-
phology. The third showed the actual elements used in an attempt to convey the
functions. The researcher observed the following:

1. the verb itself was either missing or present,

2. the morphemes that convey a given function were either used correctly
or missing, and

3. when the verb and/ or the morphemes were missing, the researcher
wrote down other devices used by the subject to assist in conveying the functions.

In the fourth column entitled "Correction, " the researcher wrote down the
correct usage that the subject did not supply.

While transcribing the data, the researcher encountered a methodological
problem regarding the identiﬁcation of some of the grammatical morphemes that mark
tense and aspect. In few situations, the phonological environment made it difﬁcult to
decide whether or not the learner supplied a given grammatical morpheme. Dulay,

Burt, and Krashen mentioned the cases of "Back-to-back phonemes" and "Back-to-

 

to English grammar textbooks and also acceptable when used in everyday speech;
(b) grammatically mm according to standard English textbooks, but acceptable
when used in everyday speech; and (c) incorrect and unacceptable.

54

back stops" (1982, pp. 255-257). In fact, the researcher faced both problems during
the transcription of the data, as illustrated in the following examples:

1. ". . . I met my advisor and we talked directly about my major. . . ."

2. ". . . In the ﬁrst semester, I startgl to look for scholarship. . . ."
(subject A, session 1)

3. ". . . After 3 years, when I ﬁnishﬁ the university, I ﬁnd I ﬁnd the
scholarship. . . ." (subject B, session 1).

In the ﬁrst example (tale directly), bOth cases of back-to-back phonemes and
back-to-back stop are shown. In the second and third examples (startﬁ to and
ﬁnished the university), the second case, back-to-back stops, is shown.

Fortunately, Arabic learners of English, especially at the early stages, have a
tendency to sometimes exaggerate the sound of grammatical morphemes at the end of
words. Whenever exaggeration took place, this methodological problem was over-
come. But in those cases where it was ambiguous, the researcher eliminated those
examples from analysis altogether. All in all, the number of cases where the re-
searcher faced this methodological problem was fairly small in the overall data.

Below are actual transcriptions followed by actual transcription coding sheets
to show how the results were recorded.

After I ﬁnish the high school, I was go to University my major in University

is law was law. After 1 year, I change my major go to the education. In the

University, the life is different than in high school, because student is bigger

in University than in high school. The system is different and in my country

the University have both girls and boys different than in high school only
student only boy student. No girl no girls in the school. It is different for
me, because before we enjoy everything in high school. You can make an
problem with a teacher . You can play with your friends, but in the University

is very different. I think that and the relationship between the student with us
and the relationship between the student and the teacher is different than the

55

relationship between a student and the teacher in high school and in the
University some actions some actions happen in my life in University (partici-
pant B, Kareem; session 1).

Table 3. Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous speech of participant B.

 

 

Concept Correctness Elements Used Correction

simple past x @511; connective me; was used ﬁnished

simple past x was go went

simple past x phage; connective efter was used changed

simple past x g9 went

past perfect x egg; locative adverbial phrase had enjoyed
was used: m_higl_1_s§_lml

simple present I think

past perfect x hm; locative adverb was used: had happened

 

. . . my mother get married after 2 years of my father’s death. IN that time
between my father dead and my mother get married I was living with my
grandfather and he was treat me like his sons and he got mad when I call him
my grandfather. He said "call me my father: Boin." I have three uncles.
One of them was in the same age with me. . . I was really good in school;
elementary school. There was a guy. In all elementary school, he challenge
with me he get the ﬁrst in the ﬁrst year and and I was the second; and he was
the second and I was the ﬁrst; then he was the ﬁrst and I was the second in
the third year. In the ﬁnal, ﬁnally, when we were in the sixth, I got I was the
ﬁrst and he was the second. At that time, I have, well, it is not a joke, but
something funny. I have caution. His name is like my name. He is bad at
each class in elementary school. He does not care about anything. He stayed
in the sixth year about 2 years (participant A, Jamal; session 2).

Table 4. Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous speech of participant A.

 

Concept Correctness Elements Used Correction

 

simple past x get; temporal adverbial phrase
was used: _A_fte;twq years of
my father’s death.

 

56

Table 4. (cont’d).

 

 

Concept Correctness Elements Used Correction

past perfect x was living had been

progressive living

past perfect x treat had been

progressive treating

simple past x call called

simple past I said

simple present I have

past perfect x ellalleege: locative adverbial had chal-
phrase was used: Megan; lenged
mm.

simple past x get got

simple present I got

simple past x heye: temporal adverbial had
phrase was used: entrants):

past perfect x is: locative adverbial phrase had been

progressive was used: MW

past perfect x stayed had stayed

 

Interviewer: "I thought you said you visited Asid."

Participant: "Yes, Pakistan . . . for hunting, yes. It is good place for hunting
. . . more birds more . . . more. I tell you in ﬁrst time ﬁrst day. I get up in
morning, to pray Fajer. After that take a breakfast; drink tea with milk, go
threepeopleonecar, ortwopeople. . . threepeoplewithcark. . . and go.
Some people go north . . . some people go south. Different place, and go to
hunting Habari ’till afternoon. After we be tired, so stop. Eat meat drink tea.
We have tent . . . tents.

Interviewer: "Was it safe?"

Participant: "It’s have like police, government, government give maybe 10 or
12 police, yes to stay in the tent with our guns, yes, because it’s dangerous
place . . . 12, yes, work with our group, with my group for one month."
(subject C, Joseph; session 1)

57

Table 5. Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous speech of participant C.

 

 

Concept Correctness Elements Used Correction

simple present I tell
simple past x get: locative adverbial phrase got

was used: in ﬁrst time ﬁrst

ﬂy. Also temporal adverbial

phrase was used: mm
simple past x take took
simple past x dri k drank
simple past x ge (4 times): W: went

subject assumes interviewer can

infer that it had to be situated at

a speciﬁc point in the past
simple past x stop stopped
simple past x eat ate

x drink drank

serialization: sequencing events

as they actually took place.

Also site; was used.
simple present x have has
simple past x give gave
pst perfect x werk, temporal adverbial had been
progressive phrase was used: m working

month

 

Interviewer: "What did you like the most in Lebanon? Was it good?"
Participant: "Somehow, I think it is natural and eh, museum, I like it.
Interviewer: "You mm the museum?"
Participant: "Yes, I like it."

Interviewer: "And you Liked the nature?"
Participant: "Yeah, I Like it a lot." (participant D, Salem; session 1)

58

Table 6. Transcription coding sheet of the spontaneous spwch of participant D.

 

 

Concept Correctness Elements Used Correction
simple present I think
simple past x like (3 times): scaffolding discourse liked

 

The forced elicited data of each session was coded along with the natural
speech as it actually took place in the tape and the transcript. It was indicated in the

ﬁrst column that the structure was forced elicited. One example is shown in Table 7:

Table 7. Transcription coding sheet of forced elicited data.

 

 

Concept Correctness Elements Used Correction
simple past progressive x play were playing
[forced elicited]

 

To ensure the accuracy of the above coding, a native speaker of English was
hired to double-check the coding of a small portion of each transcript-—approximately
three pages. Prior to performing this task, the researcher thoroughly explained to her
what the purpose of this project was. Next, she and the researcher read the three
pages of each transcript. They then reread them, statement by statement. Once the
native speaker understood what the subject attempted to convey in his statement, the
researcher asked the native speaker how she would say it. Her responses were
compared to the researcher’s already-conducted coding.

After each transcript was coded as the above columns show, the researcher

then counted the obligatory occasions in which the morphemes that convey each one

59

of the eight functions had to be used. Then, the percentage of correct usage to the
obligatory occasions was determined. The ratio of simple past progressive forms
supplied to the number of possible simple past progressive forms multiplied by 100
gives the frequency-of-use rate in percentage form (3/5 x 100 = 60%).

The correct versus incorrect usage was determined as follows:

1. A structure was determined to be used correctly only if the verb along
with all the required morphemes to convey a given function was provided correctly
according to standard English. For instance, for a correct usage of the simple past
progressive, the subject would have to provide mule + vege + ing.

2. If the morphemes that convey the functions were missing, it was
considered incorrect usage.

3. If the verb was missing, or if a verb was incorrectly replaced by a
copula, this was also considered as incorrect usage.

Finally, the coding sheets were used to uncover the devices other than
morphemes that were used to assist in the conveyance of the functions whenever the

required morphology was missing.

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction
Results of this project will be presented and discussed in the following
manner. First, the data of participants C and D during session 1 will be cited and
discussed. Then the data of the above participants during session 2 will be presented
and then compared to the data of participants A and B during session 1. (Bear in
mind that participants C and D during session 2, and A and B during session 1, were
all at approximately an intermediate level at that point.) Finally, data of participants

A and B during sessions 2, 3, and 4 will be presented and discussed.

Spontaneous Data of Subjects C and D in Session 1

The spontaneous data of subjects C and D during session 1 showed that the use
of the English inﬂectional morphology regarding tense and aspect was non-existent.
There has been no exception in the entire corpus, and even the irregular past tense
which does not require inﬂectional morphology was not used correctly at all. In
every utterance, regardless of the functions to be conveyed, the subjects used verbal
elements in their invariant forms. There were instances where even the invariant
verbal elements were completely omitted.

How, then, did they convey the functions under investigation if the English

inﬂectional morphology was not at work? Careful analysis of the data revealed that

60

61

in order for the subjects to overcome their lack of knowledge of the English inﬂec-
tional system, they used other linguistic and non-linguistic devices to assist them in
expressing the English temporal notions. Linguistic devices included adverbials of
different types and connectives. Adverbials included location adverbial phrases ("in
my country"), and temporal adverbials such as time adverbs ("yesterday"), time
adverbial clauses ("when I get up this morning"), and time adverbial phrases ("at
1:15"). Connectives that the subjects used included "and," "then," and "after that."
Non-linguistic devices consist of what has been called "principles of discourse
organization" (Meisel, 1986).

It was shown that temporality was expressed by different means, one of which
was what is called "scaffolded discourse." In such situations, there is ". . . consid-
erable interaction between the learner and the interlocutor, the latter asking questions
and frequently also providing possible answers. Occasionally, this looks like a
multiple-choice procedure, and the learner merely has to pick the right point of
reference among the several suggested by the native interlocutor" (Meisel, 1986:
212-213). In such instances, the interlocutor would assume that the learner is having
difﬁculty conveying the intended meaning and that the conversation is about to break
down. In order to allow the learner to express himself, the interlocutor would ask
question(s) to which the learner may respond yes or no. Presented below is a
conversation between subject C, session 1, and the researcher. The participant was
speaking about his experience in middle school, and was asked why he suddenly

became a good student.

62
1 Learner: "Eh, I think its, eh, friends. This, eh, special reason. Our

friend, I think."

2 Interlocutor: "What do you mean?"

3 Learner: "Help. . . ."

4 Interlocutor: "Did he help you?"

5 Learner: "Yes, and, for writing, reading, more than I will be little little
become good. "

In the above example, it was not clear what the participant meant by associat-
ing ddjdg well in seth to W. Then, when he was asked
about what he meant, he said one word, "help," and then did not say anything else.
At that point, the interlocutor asked a question with the correct grammatical mor-
phemes that indicated pastriess: "Did he help you?" The subject, then, said "Yes,"
then elaborated on the kind of help that he received from that particular friend. In
another example, during session 1 subject C had difﬁculty expressing the fact that he
had visited the United States in the past. The interlocutor, then, realized this
difﬁculty and started to ask constant questions to clarify the matter.

1 Learner: "I think America, and America. America, I like."

2 Interlocutor: "Really. "

3 Learner: "Yes. "

4 Interlocutor: "Why? You just, you have been here for only few days,
right?"

5 Learner: "No, No. I come visit America."

6 Interlocutor: "Oh. okay, WM?"

63
7 Learner: "Yes, my brother study here I visit."
8 Interlocutor: "Okay. So, this is not your ﬁrst time."
9 Learner: "No, the third, four, four times."
10 Interlocutor: " w m ° vi i Am ri ?"

ll Learner: "Yes, this fourth time."

As can be seen in the above example, scaffolded discourse and interaction
between the learner and his interlocutor clariﬁed the matter completely. Such
interaction took place merely because the listener felt that the learner was about to
give up and that breakdown of the conversation was about to occur. This researcher
emphasizes that all participants were told to turn off the tape recorder if they could
not remember anything. In such instances as the above examples, the learner had a
topic to talk about, but had difﬁculty expressing himself. Without the interlocutor
interference or cooperation, conversation could easily have broken down. As can be
seen in the above cooperative discourse, it was the interlocutor who established
pastgess in lines 6 and 10, and the learner just conﬁrmed it, and then elaborated.

Another means by which temporality was established was what is called
"implicit reference. " In this case, reference to temporal notions is inferred from a
particular context or situation (Schumann, 1987). Meisel (1986) mentioned that an
example of such is when the learner speaks about an event assuming that the listener
will be able to infer the speciﬁc point in which the event is situated (such as past or

future). Implicit reference can be inferred in narrative as well as descriptive contexts

(Sato, 1984).

64

There were a few instances in the data where temporality was inferred from a

descriptive context. One such example took place during the conversation with

participant D. While he was speaking about his native country, Qatar, he stood up,

looked at a map of his country hanging on the wall of his room, pointed at a speciﬁc

city on the map, and uttered, "Live there all my life." This researcher interpreted

this as, "I had been living in this city all of my life before I came to the United

States.

Also, temporal reference was inferred in narrative contexts. Below are listed

some examples from both subjects.

1
2
3
4

5

"1 little speak English, he repeat again slowly." (participant D)
"I fell happy the student answer right." (participant D)

"I go play soccer, 1 meet him." (participant C)

"I go with group, see this hotel." (participant D)

"I not live in Beirut, I go out." (participant C)

In example 1, subject D was speaking about an American person whom he met

the previous week in the market. Earlier in the conversation, he established that this

incident took place prior to the taping session. He then went on to speak about what

happened in the store. Thus, even though his statement did not include any linguistic

devices of any kind, it is clear that it is interpreted as, "When the person realized that

I spoke little English, be repeated what he already said very slowly. "

The same analysis applies to example 2. Participant D was speaking about his

experience as a teacher in his country. He established mstdess prior to that statement

by the use of the locative adverb "in my country." He was, then, speaking about a

65

particular student with whom he worked hard. Therefore, example 2 is interpreted as
"I felt happy when he got the right answer to my question." How linguistic and non-
linguistic devices work together cooperatively will be discussed later.

Examples 3 and 4 were produced under the same circumstances as examples 1
and 2 and can be analyzed the same way, but example 5 provides something rather
interesting. Nothing in the immediate context indicated pastness, but world knowl-
edge and common sense would indicate that participant C must have visited Beirut
prior to coming to the United States. Hence, his statement can be read as, "When I
visited Lebanon, I did not live in Beirut (the capitol), I lived outside the town,
perhaps in another city. "

A third means by which temporality was inferred was what is called "serializa-
tion" (Schumann, 1987) or "order of mention follows the natural order" (Meisel,
1986). In this case, the learner sequences events as they actually happened, and it is
not difﬁcult for the hearer to infer temporality though morphological markers are non-
existent. Since this principle is mostly used in this data in connection with the
linguistic devices (connectives), the researcher will discuss it in detail in the subse-
quent section.

As the English temporality was inferred by what is called "principles of
discourse organization," participants also used a great deal of adverbials and connec-
tives to compensate for the lack of the English inﬂectional morphology in their
interlanguage systems. Here are some examples where they used adverbials.

1 "In 1986, I have another son." (participant D)

66

2 "When I ﬁnish University, I go to teach . . . go to middle school . . . to
teacher middle school." (participant C)

3 " I come from Detroit maybe 9:15 eh 9:10 p.m." (participant C)

4 "Since come here, I improve a lot." (participant D)

5 "I see him in Qatar University many times." (participant D)

6 "Now, I study English." (participant C)

As can be seen in the ﬁrst three examples, though participants did not provide
the correct morphemes to indicate pastness, the supplement of the adverbial phrase
"in 1986," adverbial clause "when I ﬁnish University," and another adverbial phrase
"9: 15 " showed that the events had to be in the past. In the second example, it is
clear that participant C ﬁnished the University prior to coming to the United States,
and in the third example, the same participant mentioned the adverbial phrase "9: 15
pm. " while he was speaking later that day. In the fourth example, participant D
provided the invariant form of the verb "improve" instead of the present perfect
which is required. Nonetheless, the supplement of the adverbial clause "since come
here" made the message clear though the required morphological markers were
missing. In example 5, participant D did not use the "past perfect" that was required;
however, the locative adverbial phrase "in Qatar University" and the temporal
adverbial "many times" assisted in conveying the intended meaning though he only
supplied the present form of the verb "see." Similarly, the time adverb "now" in
example 6 showed that the event is in progress at the present time even though
participant C did not use the morphological markers that were required to convey

such function. It is interesting to note that in all of the above examples, participants

67

supplied the invariant forms of the verb, and it was the adverbials that indicated the
different functions to be conveyed.

Participants also used connectives in order to assist them in the conveyance of
different functions. Connectives consisted of mainly "and," "then," and "after that."
As mentioned above, and in most cases, they used connectives in combination with a
principle of discourse organization called "sequencing of events as they actually
happened." Simply put, when participants mentioned past events as they actually
occurred, they used one or more of these markers to connect the sequenced events.
Two examples from the speech of participants C and D are presented below.

"Yeah, I getting up morning, 7, 7 o’clock. A_nd eat breakfast, and go to class.

Eh, the class have two and a half hour I have between this break and this

break to ten half, ten thirty, it is ﬁnish, add eh, go to library before eat

breakfast . . . md go library and union ahd come back to one thirty ﬁve next
class. Next class ﬁnish two, eh, two thirty, 311.4 come back home little
cooking, and if I am no tired, cooking something to eat afteLthat write
homework, show t.v., see t.v., eh, see t.v. and go come back to sleep that is

all. . . ." (participant C)

". . . A_fterJhat I think I lucky in Qatar Football Association because I stay

there more time, more than one year. Different about before. Stay from ’82

to ’86. When ﬁnish my secondary school at night, eh high school, sorry,

continue to study in Qatar in that city. Aﬁeuhat, I excused from my job to
study in University. They say okay, no problem. After that, I got chance for

me study until from ’86 to ’90, 1990." (participant D)

It is obvious from the above examples that participants did not use the required
morphological markers that convey speciﬁc functions; nevertheless, serialization in
addition to the use of connectives made it easy for the listener to understand the
intended messages. Participant C was talking about his activities the previous day
(from the time he got up until he went to sleep), and participant D spoke about events

that took place within a span of 7 years. Both participants used only the invariant

68

form of the verb, but sequencing the events as they actually happened and connecting
them one after the other not only assisted them in expressing their message, but also
helped the interlocutor to be able to interpret and understand the intended meaning.
In a few cases, even when connectives were not used, sequencing by itself was
sufﬁcient to aid in the intended meaning. Consider the following example where
participant C mentioned the countries he had visited before he came to the United
States.

"Go to Lehahdh, eh go to Kim, more country go with our family, with my
family. More country, and eh, Gulf place, to Emirates, go Saudi Arabia, go Kuwait,
all visit when I small in elementary school that all the country I remember visit."

In the above example, the subject mentioned the countries he had visited
starting with the ﬁrst country he went to, Lebanon, and ending with the last one,
Kuwait. The order of mention followed the actual order of visits. Though there are
no connectives, it is not difﬁcult to infer the meaning and completely comprehend the
message.

Since it has already been shown that connectives and sequencing work togeth-
er, it is appropriate to discuss the interrelationship of all devices that have been used
so far. It is true that temporality--in a great number of cases--was inferred mainly by
a single device. But there were also cases in which temporal notions were inferred by
more than one device. The previous example is a classic illustration of those cases
where different devices work together and assist in conveying the message. It showed
evidence of sequencing. However, closer scrutiny reveals that two more devices were

used as well. First, the adverbial clause "when I small" and the locative adverbial

69

phrase "in elementary school" indicate the events had to be situated in the past.
Second, implicit reference (shared knowledge and knowledge of the world) showed
that the subject must have visited these countries prior to the time of speaking.
Temporality in this particular instance was basically inferred by means of three
devices-~sequencing, adverbials, and implicit reference. It clearly shows the advan-
tages of function-to-form analysis, and of analyzing the data beyond the morpho-
syntactic level. This will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

The ﬁndings above parallel those of other studies that investigated the acquisi-
tion of temporality. Schumann (1987) investigated the acquisition of temporality in
the English-based interlanguage of ﬁve learners. Results showed that learners did not
use morphological markers at all. Instead, they used adverbials, serialization,
calendar reference, and implicit reference to convey temporal notions. Dittmar
(1981), who studied the acquisition of German temporality by Spanish immigrants,
found that morphological markers were not used by the learners. As a result, they
used calendar expression and adverbials to convey temporality. Finally, in her
analysis of the acquisition of temporality in the interlanguage of two Vietnamese
learners of English, Sato (1984) found that they used adverbials, clause sequencing,
calendar expression, interlocutor scaffolding, and implicit reference to convey the
English temporal systems. Though the two learners used the irregular past tense
correctly on a few occasions, morphological markers were non-existent in the data. It
seems that L2 learners, regardless of their native languages and the target languages

they are learning, employ similar strategies when they attempt to communicate in a

70

language about which they have a limited number of lexical and grammatical devices

at their disposal.

Forced Elicited Data of Subjects C and D in Session 1

The above discussion was in regard to the spontaneous speech of the two
participants. The researcher now turns to the forced elicited data. As mentioned
earlier, each participant was asked two questions for each one of the eight structures.
The results were completely consistent with the patterns of the spontaneous spwch. ‘
In response to the questions the answer to which required the supplement of the base
of the verb, simple present tense, they provided the correct answers 100% of the
time. Does this show their knowledge of this structure? This researcher does not
believe so. The base form of the verb was used throughout their spontaneous speech
to refer to all of the eight functions under investigation. Apparently, it is the only
element they used to express different functions. Thus, their correct responses to the
questions were only coincidentally correct, and may not indicate their knowledge of
this structure as much as they indicated that they supplied the only verbal element
they had at their disposal. This claim is supported by the fact that when they were
asked the questions in regard to the simple past tense, simple progressive (present and
past), they responded by supplying only the base form of the verb:

Interlocutor: "What do you think he is doing?

Learner: "I think it is matte his children to school . . . ." (participant C)

As to the participants’ responses to the question regarding the perfect and
perfect progressive (present and past), there was either complete lack of comprehen-

sion or they did not supply any verbal elements at all.

71
It has already been claimed that participants used only the base form of the

verb to refer to all functions in the spontaneous speech. Nonetheless, whenever the
supplement of the base form was used to refer to a regular or habitual occurrence of
an event, it was considered correct usage on the part of the learner. Tables 8 and 9
summarize the complete results.
Spontaneous Data of Subjects C and D in Session 2,
and Subjects A and B in Session 1

During the period in which participants C and D were recorded in session 2,
and the period during which participants A and B were taped for the very ﬁrst time,
all participants at that point had been studying English in the United States for a while
and were at an approximately intermediate level. Hence, it was assumed that analysis
of their spontaneous data would show similar patterns in their conveyance of the
English temporality. Analysis showed that, except for slight differences, there were
striking similarities in the ways all participants expressed the English temporal
notions, and in the strategies they used to compensate for their lack of knowledge of
the English grammatical rules in regard to temporality.

As shown earlier, participants C and D did not use any inﬂectional morpholo-
gy to refer to any of the eight structures in session 1. But their speech during session
2 revealed a substantial development in their interlanguage systems (see Table 10.)
First, "interlocutor scaffolding" was not provided. This means that they were able to
speak continually without great difﬁculty, and there was no need for the listener to

interfere. Second, temporality was not inferred by means of "implicit reference" as

72

 

m
m
3
2
v

OOOOOOO

OOOOOOO

OOOOOOO
(\

m2
en 3 am or 2:

m:

 

o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
3
mm

a Bag Reece 82.55 338m

0332on Baotou “mam
0322on Serum .533
Seton “mam

Seton 882n—
oﬁmmoaweau Emma 295m
03.82on 80on 295m
ﬁne 29:5

Leanna 295m

 

a “SHEEP— U “Sewage

Baosbm Woman—EEO

 

A :2me were“.

Q 98 U 35303.8.“ mo 53% 38.55% 05 E 2825..” :08 Bu own? 89:8 no owﬁeooaom .w 033.

73

 

 

 

o o N o o N 0322on Seton “mam
o o N o o N cinnamoa 888m :8qu
o o a o o N 30:8 sea
0 o N o o N Baotou 398.5
0 o N o o N 032835 “ma 295m
0 o N o o N 83383.5 Lacuna 0385
o o N o o N San £95m
o2 N N o2 N N 8083 295m
8898M 3:88.:
mm “8.55 838:0 g ~8tou 338:0
a 2838 0 58:8 228% 8:285

 

._ :Bmmom meta—c Q e5 0 3:86qu .3 Sup 8:020 895% 05 9 8288.. “8&8 .8 0938805 .a 2an

74

.8295“ u dam ”8:32 u 48¢ 9%

 

 

 

 

033.8on

C o _ o o m o o m o o N “8:8 “an

388on

o o m o o m o o v o o 4 8C8 888.—

o o S o o z o o R o o e 8:8 Sam

o o S o o : o o a o o 5 “sea acumen

03323:“

om m c o o a. on m o o o m ea 29%

0332on

S m w o o o R a. a. o o .. 582a 29%

«m R a: o o me an 2 E o o m: aa 285

3 NE a R R a a a a: 3 E 2: 880a seem
a .95 Sm e 95 .8m 9» ea Sm a .95 .93.

N commmom _ commmom N commmom ﬂ commmum
8.83%
e “5938 0 $88.. 853.520

 

.N :28.“ 9 _ 868m Eat 858:5 Ewﬁ 05 .8 one? a.m. new U “SE88 no «888889 .2 05E.

75 ‘
much as was the case in session 1. Third and most importantly, some of the morpho-
logical markers that are required to mark the English tense and aspect begin to
appearin their speech. It is appropriate now to compare their spontaneous speech in
session 2 to that of participants A and B in session 1.

Data showed that during that period, none of the four participants supplied
those morphological markers that convey the perfect aspect by itself or in combination
with the progressive aspect. Whenever the supplement of such markers was required,
in a great number of cases they supplied the invariant form of the verb, copula, or the
simple past tense along with different adverbials to assist them in conveying the
intended message. Presented below are two examples from participants A and D.

"I like the reading class more than others, because since I came here, I team a
lot of vocabulary, and also I like the grammar, because, I m how the English
sentence structure. " (participant A, session 1)

"So far, it is good experience in America for me. " (participant D, session 2)

It is seen in the ﬁrst example how participant A used the base form of the verb
"learn" instead of the present perfect which is required. From the context and the
supplement of the adverbial clause "since I came here, " it is clear that the present
perfect is required. Though the correct morphology was not supplied, his statement is
understandable due to the supplement of the adverbial clause.

In the second example, the copula "is" was used even through the adverbial
clause "so far" indicates that the present perfect progressive "has been" is required.
Nonetheless, his meaning is understood without the supplement of the required

morphology. It is interesting to note that even though the perfect was not used at all

lnth

lllOIt

lClll

is it

Cu

lllOl

WI

11561

COl‘.

mar

that

Whl

m0

0Ul

Usal

pa

‘L

76

in the spontaneous speech, it is easy for the listener to capture the intended meaning if
more attention is paid to the whole context.

As to the usage of the progressive aspect by itself to express present or past
actions, there were striking similarities in the performance of all participants. For
participants A and B, out of six instances in which they had to indicate that an action
is in progress at the present time, they used it three times correctly (50%); participant
C used it correctly four times out of seven (57%), and participant D used the correct
morphological markers ﬁve times our of 8 (63 %). When they referred to events that
were in progress simultaneously with another one-time event in the past, participant A
used the correct morphemes three out of ﬁve times (60%). Participant B used them
correctly 2 out of 5 times (40%). Participants C and D used the morphological
markers correctly three times out of six (50%). When participants did not supply the
required morphemes to convey these functions, in most cases they used time adverbs
that would show that an action is or was in progress, such as "now. " For instance,
when participant A was talking about his best friend and how great she had been to
him, he said, "By the way it is 7:00 p.m. new and probably she play volleyball."

When participants referred to regular or habitual events which require no more
morphology than the base form of the verb, they all did very well. For participant A,
out of 99 instances where this function had to be expressed, he supplied the correct
usage 91 times (92%). Participant B used it correctly 134 times out of 150 (89%).
Participants C and D used the present tense correctly 91 out of 112 times (81%) and

122 out of 138 times (88%), respectively. Omission of the verbal element all

77

together and the usage of copula (such as "is" or "are") accounted for those cases
where this function was not expressed correctly according to standard English.

So far, the performance of all participants has been extremely similar when
attempting to convey the above functions. Nevertheless, when the participants
referred to a single event in the past, simple past tense, the data showed interesting
patterns. Participant A did very well, participant B very poorly, and the performance
of participants C and D was neither good nor poor. Participant A used the correct
morphology to convey this function 94 out of 159 times (59%). Participant B
provided the correct usage only 21 out of 111 times (19%). Participant C used it
correctly 45 out of 141 times (32%), and participant D supplied the correct usage 37
times out of 109 (34%).

Interestingly enough, though the performance of participants A and B differed
in terms of the general correct usage when expressing this function, the patterns of
the correct usage of the regular past tense, which is the supplement of the base form
of the verb + ed, was very similar among all subjects. For participant A, out of %
times in which be conveyed this function correctly, only 13 times involved a regular
verb where he supplied the base form + ed (14%). In addition, out of 62 times
where the base form + ed had to be used, he correctly used it 13 times (21%). And
for subject B, out of 2_1 instances where he correctly used the past tense, only 3 times
did the correct usage involve the supplement of the base + ed ( 14%). And out of 38
times where the conveyance of this function required the supplement of "ed, " he
correctly supplied it 3 times (8%). Participant C supplied "ed" in only 1 instances

out of 55 correct usage of past tense (16%). And out of 4d times where the

78

expression of this function required the use of "ed," he used it only 7 times (15%).
Finally, participant D expressed this function using the base form + ed in only 5_ 1
instances out of Q correct usage (14%). And out of 40 times in which the use of the
base form of the verb + ed was required, he correctly supplied it 5 times (13%). See
Table 11 for the complete results of all participants. The percentage of the correct
usage that involved the supplement of the base form of the verb + ed out of the
general correct usage of this structure is almost identical--l4%, 14%, 16%, and 14%
for participants A, B, C, and D respectively. This is incredibly striking, and requires
one to ponder about this phenomenon. It suggests that the English inﬂectional
morphology had just begun to emerge in their interlanguage systems. This also
explains why the majority of their correct usage of this structure involved the
irregular past tense since it does not require any additional morphemes. Instead, it
requires the supplement of a different lexical form. This argument may be weakened
due to the fact that the percentage of correct usage in regard to the "simple progres-
sive,” which also requires the use of inﬂectional morphology, was fairly high.
Nonetheless, the number of instances in which the "simple progressive" had to be
used in the overall data was too low to defuse the above argument. It may be safe,
then, to claim that the participants had already 1mg! (know) the morphemes that
had to be used to convey these three functions (simple past, simple present progres-
sive, and simple past progressive), but these morphemes had not yet been fully
W (used in everyday speech) in their interlanguage systems.
At this point, it seems necessary to explain what is meant by "learned" and "ac-

quired" in this context.

603353 u 5.5 3300.33.33.03 n .3033 mama

 

79

 

 

 

 

033.0505
o o N o o N o c 3 o o m “Sta 33.3
0330505
o o N o o N o o m o o 3. 38:23 2323
o o 9. o o N3 3. o NN o o NN 383.23 as
o o 2 o o 0 o o N3 o o a 38.338 8395
0330505
9. N m 8 m m on m 0 on m 0 38 295
0380585
on N e on N 0 Ne w w E 3. 3. saga 2.356
mN M: «N «w a E 3 Nm .6 9. mm 3 5:35
w m mm N 2 N0 a m 9. 2 N 9. 83033
2 N 3: an a $3 «m R 83 NM 9 3: 3.8 295m
3 3.2 83 Na 8 8 mm NN3 we a a N: 238.3 29%

m» dam .3033 mm 5.5 .3033 .33. 5.6 .3033 R dew .3033

3 :230m 3 =o3mm0m N :o3mm0m N 5330a
0S3onbm
0 28325,. < “53035.3 a 35.33253 0 “5.33253 5332580
.3 38330»

:3 m 98 < 35530355 .30 3933 9 N 5330.9. :3 Q 305 U «3335303305 .30 5030 380% 30053550 0333 30 3383058300 .33 030.3.

80

According to Krashen (1985, p. 1), acquisition is "a subconscious process
identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their
firstlanguage,” and learning is the ”conscious process that results in [knowing about]
language.” Krashen claimed that acquisition is maintained through meaningful
interaction in natural settings where learners are concerned with meaning and not
form, and no correction is taking place. In learning situations such as the classroom
on the other hand, correction is central and formal rules and fwdback are the basis
for language instruction. This does not mean, however, that setting is what distin-
guish W from m. To Krashen, it is the conscious attention to rules that
distinguishes the two.

Regardless of the validity or shortcomings of Krashen’s argument, this
researcher is not using the terms according to how Krashen deﬁned them. In this
context, the term ”learned" refers to any grammatical rule that participants know--
consciously or subconsciously--but they either do not use it at all or its use is very
limited in the spontaneous speech. And by what is "acquired,” this researcher refers
to those rules that participants know-consciously or subconsciously--and use to
varying degrees in their spontaneous conversation. In other words, Mg is
knowing the rules of the target language, but not necessarily applying them in the
spontaneous spwch. maxim, on the other hand, is knowing the rules and to a
great extent applying them in actual spontaneous conversation. Thus, to Krashen,
consciousness is what distinguishes Mug from acquisition. And to this researcher,

ma h is what determines the

 

81
difference between harping and acquisitim regardless of whether or not the learner

knows these rules consciously or subconsciously.

It is interesting that in a substantial number of instances where the required
morphemes that indicated that a single event took place in the past were missing,
participants used adverbials and connectives in an attempt to convey the function.
Adverbial phrases include locative and temporal phrases such as calendar expressions;
Relational temporal expressions were used as well. Connectives include ”then, "
”after that," and ”and.” Since some examples from participants C and D using
adverbials and connectives were shown earlier, the researcher will show some
examples from the spontaneous speech of participants A and B, respectively, in
session 1.

"I attepd to primary school in_1213." "When I rmh the United States, I £31
like some difﬁculty breathing." ”When I was 2 years old, my father dig.” ”All the
information that I got I M it beige I mean I 1912‘! it in my mpngy." (participant
A, session 1)

"In high sghppl, I remember I do I make relationship with the student.” ”In
1286, the Kuwait Union Student he stpp the . . . excuse me, in 12H, the 5152p the life
in the University, he stop the life. . . ." "When I m’vﬁ hem, my friends from
Kuwait from Saudi Arabia from United Emirate help me to do many things. . . ."
(participant B, session 1)

It can be seen from the above quotations how both subjects used different

kinds of adverbial phrases in a clear attempt to convey the functions to be expressed.

82
As the participants used adverbial phrases, they also used other linguistic

devices, namely connectives, to assist them in conveying the intended messages since
their knowledge of the English grammatical rules was not sufﬁcient to convey the
functions. Some examples from participants A and B, session 1, are presented below.

”My manager said you can apply in any institute scholarship for you from the
University. Th__e_n I apply to the ELC and they am me. DELI come to the United
States to studying English." "When I went to his apartment . . . he was very
busy. . . . Jim I stay in his apartment about 5 days. thp I m to the dorm.”
(participant A, session 1)

”When he put the message, I was pray the answer . . . and I can’t answer. . .
. M11313 to the messageapdjau him after that." "I heard the news...
anng to the radio . . . m I hater; for the radio that morning talking about Iraq and
he $119111 please help. . . . Mat, I gp to my family. A_ﬂeghat, I stay one week
in Kuwait with my family." (participant B, session 1)

It can be seen how they used connectives to help them communicate better. In
some cases, they both used a very interesting strategy. First of all, they set the stage
by the correct usage of the ﬁrst tense. Then they used connectives followed by only
the base form of the verb. From the context, it is not difﬁcult for the listener or
reader to immediately identify these base forms of the verb following the connectives
as those which are meant to refer to past actions.

It is interesting to note that participants C and D used the same strategy.

Also, and more interestingly, participants A and B not only used the same connectives

that participants C and D used in session 1 and continued to use in session 2 (”and,"

83

"then,” and "after that"), but also their usage of connectives was, in most cases, when
they sequenced past events. Differently put, all participants used connectives along
with the non-linguistic device (serialization).

As mentioned earlier, ”interlocutor scaffolding" was one of the major means
by which temporality was inferred in the spwch of participants C and D in session 1.
During session 2 of these two participants and during session 1 of participants A and
B, this non-linguistic device was not needed. ”Implicit reference” was used much less
by participants C and D in session 2 than in session 1. It is believed that this is due
to the general development of the interlanguage systems, and to the fact that inﬂec-
tional morphology began to emerge in the spontaneous speech. Finally, “sequenc-
ing,” "adverbials,” and "connectives” were used in session 2 by participants C and D
as much as they were used in session 1, and these three devices were used in a
similar fashion by participants A and B in session 1.

Forced Elicited Data of Subjects C and D in Session 2
and Subjects A and B in Session 1

The above discussion concerns the participants’ spontaneous speech. The
researcher will turn now to the forced elicited data. Each participant was asked two
questions for each structure.

As mentioned previously, during session 1 participants C and D did not
respond correctly to any question except those that required the supplement of the
base form of the verb--simple present tense, and I mentioned that that might have

been coincidental correctness. During session 2, their responses showed signiﬁcant

34

improvement (see Table 12). Table 13 summarizes how all participants--C and D in
session 2, and A and B in session l--performed in the forced elicited task.

When the participants were asked the questions that required the use of the
base form, simple present, all participants provided the correct usage 100% of the
time. This is predictable since they all did very well in using this structure in their
spontaneous spwch.

When responses to the questions required the use of the base form + ed,
simple past tense, participants’ performance was somehow consistent with that of the
spontaneous spwch. Participant A who did above average in his spontaneous speech
(59%), and C and D who did below average (32% and 34% respectively), supplied
one correct usage out of two (50%). Participant B, who did very poorly in using this
structure correctly (19%), did not respond correctly to any question (0%). He
provided the base form only when the base + ed had to be used.

All participants did about average in their correct usage of the simple progres-
sive-present and past--in the spontaneous speech. When they were asked the
questions in regard to these two structures, their responses were somehow inconsistent
with that of the spontaneous speech. Participants A, C, and D, whose correct usage
of the simple present and simple past progressive in the spontaneous speech were 50%
and 60%, 57% and 50%, and 63% and 50% respectively, responded correctly to the
questions 100% of the time. This inconsistency may empower this researcher’s claim
regarding acquisition (using) and learning (knowing). The three participants probably

had learned (knew) about the morphemes that had to be used regarding the

85

002580 300.350 .30 30338:: H .Md 3:238:30 .30 3038:: u 0:0 .0434

 

 

 

 

03305305

o o N o o N o o N o o N .8385 333

0330595

o o N o o N o o N o o N .838 8823

o o N o o N o o N o o N 383.23 can

o o N o o N o o N o o N “8:23 8323

0330565

83 N N o o N 83 N N o o N ea 29%

0330505

83 N N o o N 83 N N o o N 29.23 2.38%

on 3 N o o N on 3 N c o N 2% 2.3530

83 N N 83 N N 83 N N 83 N N 832.3 039%
& .md .80 R 2.0 .25 & .md .25 33 .md .25

N 5330a 3 5330a N :o3mm0m 3 :e3mm0m
0.53085
9 35.33253 0 “5.33253 383038830

 

.N .5338 8 3 5330a 88.3 G 30:0 U 35530355 .3 5030 3.030330 3.0053 05 3 03.8580 300:8 h3e 508503909 .N3 0330.3.

3033305303 300.3300 .30 3033033: ..I. #30 3333033303330 .30 0038:: u .000 9%

 

86

 

 

 

 

0330505
33 o N o o N o o N o o N 38.3323 33.3
0330505
0 o N o 0 N o o N o o N 383.323 388:3
o o N o o N o o N o o N 38.3323 323.3
33 o N 83 N N o o N o o N 38.3323 3.39.2.3
0330505
33 o N 83 N N 3 3 N 83 N N 3.3.3 0333333
0330505
0 o N 83 N N 83 N N 83 N N 3883.3 03933
o o N on 3 N 3 3 N 3 3 N 3.3.23 03.33333
83 N N 83 N N 83 N . N 83 N N 33332.3 033383
33 .330 .230 .33 .330 .230 33 33.0 .230 33 .330 .230
3 3.30330m 3 :0330m N =0330m N =0330m
0.320353.“
0 35.33.3353 33. 3533303353 0 35.330353 0 333333330353 383333533320
.3 330333

333 m 3000 < 3305303335 .30 30333 03 N 330339. 333 D 350 0 355303355 330 8030 00330330 00030.3 0.33 .30 0033305800 .2 0300.3.

87
progressive, but these morphemes had not yet been fully acquired (used regularly in
spontaneous spwch) by the participants.

Participant B, whose performance was similar to the other participants in the
spontaneous spwch (50% and 40% for simple present and simple past progressive
respectively) did not respond to the questions correctly at all (0%). Since this is the
case, this researcher hypothesized that his correct usage of the progressive aspect in
the spontaneous speech may not reﬂect any kind of knowledge of the progressive
aspect. Probably the phrases in which he correctly used the progressive were
memorized as a whole chunk, and he had learned how to use them in conversation.
This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the three instances in which he used the
simple present progressive correctly all involved the phrase "I am working hard
now. " By the same token, the two instances in which he used the simple past
progressive involved the same phrase "I was sleeping. " In one instance he said, "I
was sleeping when you call me. " In another, he said, "I was sleeping when my
brother closed the door. " Another possibility is that the lexical aspect of the verb
may have led to the use of the progressive. Both ”work" and "sleep" are the lexically
durative verbs. This phenomenon was observed by Bardovi-Harlig (1992a). It is also
possible that it was a mere lack of comprehension of the researcher’s questions on the
part of the learner, but this possibility is weakened by the fact that participant B did
poorly in the other structures compared to the other participants.

All participants did not use the perfect either by itself or in combination with
the progressive aspect at all in the spontaneous speech. When participants were asked

the questions in regard to these structures, their responses were consistent with their

88

performance in the spontaneous task except for participant A who responded correctly
to the two questions regarding the present perfect. It is argued that this inconsistency
may be the result of one of two factors. One, probably he supplied the correct
morphemes merely because he already heard them in the form of the questions. But
the question remains why did he not supply the other morphemes that convey the
other functions as well since they also were included in the form of the questions.
Two, probably he already learned (knew)--as in the case of the progressive aspect--the
morphemes that convey the present perfect, but he had not yet started to use them in
his spontaneous speech.

To this end, it is clear that interlanguage systems at the early stages lack
inflectional morphology (participants C and D in session 1). During such a stage,
learners are able to compensate for such lack of lmowledge by using different devices
and various strategies in order to be able to communicate and converse. At a later
stage, and when inﬂectional morphology begins to emerge (participants C and D in
session 2), interlocutor scaffolding is not needed. Hence, learners are able to speak
continually without any assistance. Also, at this stage, temporality is not inferred by
implicit reference as much as at the early stage. Finally, adverbials, connectives, and
sequencing were used by participants C and D in session 2 at a similar rate as that of
session 1, and all four participants used these three devices in a similar fashion.

It is striking that the patterns observed in regard to the expression of temporal-
ity among the four participants were very similar. There were variations in that

participant A was at the top of the spectrum, participant B was at the lower level, and

89
participants C and D were in the middle. However, the overall general performances

by all participants were amazingly similar.

Spontaneous Data of Subjects A and B in Session 2

It has already been shown how the interlanguage systems of participants C and
D developed from session 1 (early stage) to session 2 (intermediate stage). It was
also shown how the data of participants C and D in session 2 parallel that of partici-
pants A and B in session 1. Please note that when the latter participants were taped
for the very ﬁrst time, they were already at an intermediate level.

When participants A and B were taped at a later stage (when they were at
approximately a pre-advanced level), their performance had improved with regard to
correctly using the structures (see Table 14). During session 1, both participants did
not use the perfect aspect by itself or in combination with the progressive aspect in
their spontaneous speech. During session 2, though the perfect progressive along
with past perfect were not used correctly by both participants, the correct usage of
present perfect began to appear in their spontaneous speech. Because participant A
did generally better than participant B during session 1, he used the morphemes that
express the present perfect four times as opposed to only one time in participant B’s
speech. The present perfect had to be used 13 times in the spontaneous speech of
participant A; he used it correctly 4 times (31%). Participant B used it only one time
out of seven (14%).

As in session 1, whenever the participants did not provide the correct mor-
phemes to convey the perfect or perfect progressive, they would supply the base form

of the verb, base form + ed, or copula along with adverbial phrases to assist them in

90

0033335333 u 55 3300333330033 H .3033 55.3

 

 

 

 

0330505

33 o 3 o o N 33 o m o o N 383.3333 33.333

0330505

33 o m o o N 33 o 3. o o m 38.3323 333823

33 o 33. 33 o 33. o o N o 33 N3 383323 3333

3.3 3 3. o o 3: 3m 3. 33 o o e 383323 3532.3

0330505

33 3. 3 333. N n 3 3. m 8 m m 3833 33.333333

0330505

33 3. 33 on m 3 3 m 3 on m 3 353.233 03.3333

3.3 333 333 3 3N 33 33 3 33 33 3.33 333 3.33 333333233

3 33. 3.3 3 3.. 3 30 3N 3.3. 3N 33 N33 33333333

33 333 EN 33 3N 333 3.33 83 N33 3 3.3 33 3333 03.3033

N3 33 3.3.3 333 3.33 33 33 3333 N3: N3 33 33 33.8233 33.3833
33 .333 .353 33 .333 .3333 33 .333 .3333 33 .333 .3333

N =0330m 3 :0330m N :030m 3 :030m
053033.38
33 33333333333333 3.. 33333333353 38333835330

 

.N 330333 03 3 330333 3330.33 30.530353 333530 0333 .30 0530 3003.300 Mm 053 < 355303335 .30 33303503323 .33 03333.3.

91

conveying the intended messages. Below is an example from participant A’s sponta-
neous speech when as he talked about his life in the United States.

”Since I got here, I have may, I have a lot of experience, I have some

dangerous situations I got dangerous situations . . . and I mg a lot about the
American culture. . . ." ". . . we made several trips when I was in elementary
school.”

It can be seen how he used the base form of the verb and base form + ed
instead of the present perfect which is required. He meant to say that during his stay
in the U. 8., he ha§_had a lot of experience and 11W in many dangerous situa-
tions. He also thinks that he has learned a lot about this new culture. From the
adverbial phrase " since I got here," it is not difﬁcult for the listener to detect the
intended meaning.

The second example also shows that he used the base form the verb ”made"
instead of the past perfect, but the listener can clearly understand the intended
message.

Presented below is an example from participant B’s speech as he spoke about
an earlier visit to Niagara Falls.

"1 suggest to my brother to spent this time in Niagara Falls, because many
friends WW this place. . . ."

In this example the adverbial phrase "for a long time, " along with the whole
context, shows that present perfect is required instead of that which the participant

supplied, the base + ed. However, the listener can detect the intended meaning.

92

As to the correct usage of the correct morphemes to show that an action is in
progress-~simple present and simple past progressive-both participants had improved
during session 2. Participant A used simple present progressive correctly ﬁve times
out of six (83%) as opposed to 50% during session 1. With regard to simple past
progressive, he supplied the correct morphemes four times out of 5 (80%) compared
to 60% during session 1.

Because participant B did not provide the morphemes that indicate his knowl-
edge of the progressive in the forced elicited data in session 1, the researcher
speculates that he had not learned (knew) these structures yet. In his spontaneous
spwch of session 2, he correctly used the simple present and simple past progressive
four times out of six (67%). As in session 1, the participants supplied the base form
of the verb along with some adverbs that indicated that an action is in progress. One
such adverbial phrase is ”at this moment. "

With regard to simple present tense, participant A improved from 92 % during
session 1 to a near perfect score (99%) in session 2; he used it correctly 101 times
out of 192 occasions. Participant B used it correctly 92% (133 times out of 144) as
opposed to 89% during session 1.

The performance of the two participants also had improved in regard to the
correct usage of the simple past tense. Participant A used it correctly 166 times out
of 192 (87%). This is compared to session 1 where he correctly used it only 59% of
the time. More noticeably, participant B, who did poorly in session 1 when attempt-
ing to express this function (19%), had improved dramatically in session 2; he used it

correctly 117 times out of 204 (57%).

93

During session 1, both participants did very poorly when expressing this
function required the use of the base form + ed. During session 2, both participants
had improved in this category. For participant A, out of 44 instances where the base
form + ed had to be used to convey this function, he supplied the correct usage 28
times (64%). This is compared to only 21% in session 1. The dramatic improve-
ment in regard to this category was the performance of participant B in session 2.
Out of 94 times where the base form + ed had to be used, he correctly supplied it 47
times (50%). This is a substantial improvement over 8% in session 1. Both partici-
pants did better when expressing this function required the use of the irregular past
tense. For participant A, out of 148 instances where he had to use the irregular form
of the verb to convey this function, he used 138 times (93%). Participant B, on the
other hand, used it correctly 70 times out of 110 (64%).

In the analysis of session 1, this researcher claims that the participants’ poor
performance with regard to the usage of the morpheme ”ed" may be an indication of
the lack of acquiring the past tense marker. Since they did well in session 2 com-
pared to session 1 with regard to the supplement of "ed, " the researcher expects that
this structure is in the process of being completely grammaticized in their interlan-
guage systems.

As in session 1, in a great number of cases where the required morphemes that
indicate reference to past actions are missing, the participants used adverbial phrases
and connectives to assist them in achieving better communication. Temporal and
locative adverbial phrases were used along with connectives such as "and. " Presented

below are some examples from participants A and B, respectively.

94

" ep 1 six, ﬁve age a half yeees 9151, my uncle, my uncle gm! me to the
school and on that day actually at the night of the ﬁrst day I couldn’t sleep I was

excited. . . ." "My father diLZ‘l years ago."

" we menths age, I Me to bring my family here. . . ." " n A 2
I d_eei_de with my brother to visit Niagara Falls in Canada." "I remember mm
in allege, the union student of the college demyel or yisit to the jail the central jail
in my country. "

It can be seen in these examples, as in session 1, how different types of
adverbial phrases are used to help in conveying the functions to be expressed. In
addition to using adverbial phrases, the participants used connectives as they did in
session 1. Interestingly enough, in some cases they used the same strategy as they
did in session 1 in that they ﬁrst of all set the stage by the correct usage of the ﬁrst
tense. Then they sequenced events as they actually occurred in their natural order
using only the base form of the verb. The listener can easily infer that those base
forms refer to past actions. Also, as in the case of participants C and D in sessions 1
and 2, and these participants in session 1, they used connectives along with serializa-
tion. It was apparent that because their interlanguage systems had developed especial-
ly in regard to the use of past tense, their usage of adverbials, connectives, and
sequencing decreased. Besides, there were only a few cases where temporality was

inferred by the means of implicit reference.

Forced Elicited Data of Subjects A and B in Session 2
The forced elicited data show that the participants did better than not only their

performance in the spontaneous speech, but also better than their responses to the

95

questions in session 1 (see Table 15). In other words, as the participants had
improved in their usage of the eight structures in their spontaneous speech during
session 2, they had also improved in their responses to the questions they were asked
in session 2.

When they were asked the questions that required the usage of the base form
of the verb--simple present tense-they responded correctly 100% of the time. This
was completely predictable since they did very well in using this structure even in
session 1.

When the questions concerned the usage of the simple past tense, participant
A, who did very well in his usage of this structure in his spontaneous speech in
session 2 (87%), provided the correct usage 100% of the time. Participant B, whose
usage of this structure had improved considerably in his spontaneous speech in session
2, responded to one out of two questions correctly (50%). This is consistent with his
usage of this structure in his speech (57%).

The participants’ responses to the questions in regard to the usage of progres-
sive revealed interesting patterns in session 1 in that their responses were inconsistent
with their performance in the spontaneous data. During session 2, their responses to
the questions regarding these two structures--simple present and simple past progres-
sive-were somewhat consistent with their performance in their spontaneous speech.
For participant A, who did well in the usage of these structures in his spontaneous
speech, responded to all of the questions correctly (100%). Participant B, who also
did quite well in his usage of the progressive in session 2 (67%), responded 100%

correctly to the two questions regarding present progressive and 50% correctly with

96

3033305303 300.3300 30 30333333333 u #30 3330333303333 .30 3033033333 u .000 530.713

 

 

 

 

cm 3 N o o N on 3 N 0 o N
003 N N 0 o N 003 N N 0 o N
3 3 N o o N on 3 N 0 o N
on 3 N 0 o N 83 N N 83 N N
on 3 N 0 o N 83 N N 003 N N
003 N N o o N 83 N N 003 N N
03 3 N 0 o N 83 N N on 3 N
003 N N 83 N N 003 N N 83 N N
.3 43.0 .0330 33 .330 .0330 33 5.0 .0330 .3 33.0 .0330
N =0330m 3 =0330m N =0330m 3 330330m
33 3333333033333 333 33333330333333

0330505
383323 333333

0330505
300.3305 33303035
300.3305 305
300.3305 333030.333

0330505
335 03.35%

0330505
3003.305 033386

3.5 058%

300305 0503a

0.3333035m
38333333333330

 

.N 330333 03 3 330338 80.3.3 m 3053 < 35530355 .3 5030 300330330 00030.3 05 03 303305303 300.3300 .30 300050303309 .3 0300.3.

97

regard to past progressive. His correct usage in the spontaneous data regarding the
present and past progressive was identical, unlike his response to the questions. It is
difﬁcult, at this point, to speculate on this inconsistency. Nonetheless, both partici-
pants did very well in regard to using these two structures in session 2.

The most noticeable development in the participants’ interlanguage systems
was the appearance and correct usage of the present perfect in their spontaneous
speech during the second session. When they were asked the questions regarding this
structure, their responses were somewhat consistent with that of the spontaneous data.
Participant A, who used present perfect 31% correctly in his spontaneous speech,
answered 100% of the questions correctly. Participant B, who used the present
perfect only one time out of seven instances in the spontaneous data, answered one
question correctly (50%). The researcher will elaborate on this later.

In the spontaneous data, both participants did not use the past perfect, present
perfect progressive, or past perfect progressive. Surprisingly, their responses to the
questions in regard to the above structures reveal some kind of knowledge about these
structures. More interestingly, though the participants differed in their correct usage
of almost every structure during the two sessions, their responses to the questions
regarding the above structures were identical. For past perfect and past perfect
progressive, they answered one out of two questions correctly (50%). For present
perfect progressive, 100% of their responses were correct. The researcher speculates,
according to the above patterns, that both participants had already known the mor-
phemes that had to be used to convey the past perfect and perfect progressive-present

and past--but they had not yet started to use them in their spontaneous speech. As to

98

the present perfect, the researcher assumes that it is in the process of being grammati-
cized in their interlanguage systems since it had been used in the spontaneous speech.
If a given structure is taught and learned, but not grammaticized in the interlanguage
system, the learner may comprehend it and respond to it correctly if asked a question
containing that structure, but probably would not use it in his or her spontaneous
speech.

To summarize, it seems obvious that at the very early stage, interlanguage
systems lacked inflectional morphology in regard to the English tense and aspect. At
later stages, inﬂectional morphology emerged, and the more advanced the stage, the
more correct usage of morphological markers that mark tense and aspect increased.
In addition, there seemed to be a delay in correctly using the Wes. As
to devices other than morphological markers that were used to refer to temporal

notions, they seemed to decrease as the usage of inﬂectional morphology increased.

Spontaneous Data of Subjects A and B in Sessions 3 and 4
Participants A and B had also been taped two more times (sessions 3 and 4)
when they were at an advanced stage. After transcription and analysis, it was shown
that the patterns of usage regarding the English temporality were extremely similar in
the two sessions. In fact, the patterns of correct usage for certain structures were
almost identical for both subjects in both sessions. Thus, this researcher excluded
session 3 in favor of session 4 for the purpose of analysis since the latter reflects the

most recent development of their interlanguage systems.

99
Interestingly enough, though the spontaneous speech of the participants during

session 4 was obtained almost 7 months after the conclusion of session 2, there was
very slight improvement in regard to the correct usage of the eight structures.

As shown previously, the perfect and perfect progressive-present and past--
were not used correctly at all during session 1. Then, during session 2, they provided
the correct morphemes that mark the present perfect on only a few occasions (31%
and 14% for participants A and B respectively). During session 4, participants’
correct usage regarding the above structures improved very slightly. The data showed
the following: (a) First, participants did not use the "past perfect” and ”past perfect
progressive” correctly at all, (h) second, the correct usage of present perfect had
improved from 31% and 14% in session 2 to 40% and 30% in session 4 for partici-
pants A and B respectively. Participant A provided the correct morphemes 4 out of
10 times and participant B 3 out of 10 times, (c) third, and most noticeably, the use
of morphemes that mark the present perfect progressive began to emerge in their
interlanguage. Out of ﬁve instances in which this structure had to be used, partici-
pant A used it correctly two times (40%) and participant B used it correctly only one
time (20%).

The correct usage of the simple progressive showed the most noticed improve-
ment, especially for participant B. In regard to the simple present progressive, both
participants used it correctly seven times out of eight (88%). If this was a noticeable
improvement for participant B compared to session 2 (67 %), it was not for participant
A who already used it correctly (83 %) in session 2. Both participants improved their

correct usage of the simple past progressive. Participant A used it correctly 100% of

100

the time (ﬁve times out of ﬁve) compared to 80% of the time in session 2. Partici-
pant B used it correctly 83% of the time (ﬁve times out of six) as opposed to 67% of
the time in session 2.

Surprisingly, the least improvement was in regard to the correct usage of the
simple past tense. Generally speaking, participant A did better than participant B in
the ﬁrst session and continued to do so throughout session 4. Participants A and B,
especially B, substantially improved from session 1 (59% and 19%) to session 2 (87%
and 57%) for participants A and B respectively. During session 4, there was
extremely slight improvement. Participant A used it correctly 90% of the time (130
times out of 145) compared to 87% of the time in session 2. Participant B used it
correctly 59% (68 out of 116 times) of the time compared to 57% of the time in
session 2. Participants’ improvement was quite better regarding the correct usage of
the regular past tense (base form + ed). It was shown that they did poorly in session
1, then improved signiﬁcantly in session 2 (from 21% and 8% to 64% and 50%,
respectively, for participants A and B). During session 4, participant A improved to
73% and participant B to 60% when the correct usage of past tense required the
supplement of the base form of the verb + ed.

Finally, and as predicted, both participants performed perfectly (100%) in
using the simple present tense. This is the structure that they had done well in using
throughout all taping sessions (see Table 16 for complete results of the spontaneous
data of participants A and B throughout all sessions).

During sessions 1 and 2, it was shown how devices other than inﬂectional

morphology were used to assist in the conveyance of meaning. It was also shown

101

0033353 .I. 50m 33003303003 ﬂ .3333 .3332

 

o3.

ow

83

mm
ma
m3.
om
83

co
33m
33
33

MN
03

55
53
mi
33

ow

mm
ma

3.5
3

m
wm3
5N
33
303

N
m3

503
33

N53
N03

ow

on
vw
3 N
on
Na

35
m3
.3
3m

35
No
33

 

3R

dam

.3“

3R

dam

.3”

3R

dam

.UOM

 

3. :030m

N :0330m

3 330330m

0330505
3833033 333

0330505
30033305 3003035

300.3305 305
38.3.3033 33303035

0330505
35 03586

0330505
300305 0585

533503.33
3033533
335 0350.35

3330305 05:35

 

33. 3333333333333

038033.35
30033333333080

 

3353303333 3 3303303 80.3.3 30.320353 333530 05 .30 05333 3003300 Fm 3000 < 3335303335 .30 3330

.3. 330333
:5030>0n3 63 03333.3.

102

00333353 H .3336 33003303303 n .3033 .052

 

 

 

 

0330505

33 o 333 o o 3 o o N 383323 333.3

0330505

ON 3 m o o m o o N 383323 3330323

33 o 3N o o 33. o o 333. 383323 33.3.3

3 m 333 3.3 3 3 o o 333 3833033 33303233

0330505

3 n 3 33 3. 33 333. N 3 33333 333333333

0330505

3 3. 33 33 3. 3 3 m 3 353233 033333333

3 333 3.3 3.3 3 033 3N 333 3 3333333233

3 3 N3 3 S 3.3 33 m 3 333333me

3 3 3333 3 333 SN 33 3N 333 33.3 033333333

83 E E N3 33 3.3.3 333 33 33 333883 033333333
3 .50m .3033 333 dam .3333 3 dam .3033

.3. 330330m N 330330m 3 :030m
0333303335
m 3335303333333 33303333833305

 

50.30003 .03 03330.3.

103

how the use of such devices decreased in session 2 as a result of the increased correct
usage of inﬂectional morphology. In session 4, the use of those devices was similar
in every aspect to that of session 2. This is not surprising since their usage of
inﬂectional morphology did not signiﬁcantly improve in between the two sessions.
They used adverbials, connectives, and sequencing in most cases where the required
morphological markers were missing. However, there were very few instances in

which temporality was inferred by an implicit reference.

Forced Elicited Data of Subjects A and B in Session 4

When participants were asked the questions the response to which required the
supplement of the simple present, simple past, and simple progressive--present and
past--they responded to all of the questions correctly (100 %). This was predictable
for participant A since he did so during session 2. As for participant B, this showed
improvement since in session 2, he responded to only one question correctly (50%)
regarding simple past and simple past progressive. The performance of both partici-
pants in session 4 regarding these four structures is also consistent with that of their
spontaneous speech. They did fairly well, especially the simple progressive in their
spontaneous speech in session 4.

As to their responses to the questions regarding the present perfect, past
perfect, present perfect progressive, and past perfect progressive, there were slight
differences in the performance of the two participants. Participant A answered all of
the questions regarding these four structures correctly (100%) except past perfect
where he answered only one question correctly (50%). This is similar to his perfor-

mance in session 2 except for past perfect progressive where in session 2 he gave a

104

correct response to only one question regarding this structure (50%). The perfor-
mance of participant B in session 4 was identical to that of session 2. With regard to
present perfect, past perfect, and past perfect progressive, he responded correctly to
only one question (50%). And he correctly answered the two questions regarding
present perfect progressive (100%). Overall, then, the performance of the two
participants was the same in regard to past perfect and present perfect progressive and
differed regarding the other two structures. Also, their responses were roughly
consistent with their performance in the spontaneous task. The correct usage of the
present perfect slightly increased and the correct usage of the present perfect progres-
sive just began to emerge in their spontaneous speech in session 4. Thus, it was not
surprising when they responded well to the questions regarding these two structures.
What was surprising was that they responded fairly well--especially participant A--to
the questions regarding the past perfect and past perfect progressive, not only in
session 4, but also in session 2 even though the correct usage of these two structures
had yet to emerge in their spontaneous speech. The only explanation is that they
already knew the rules, but they had not yet begun to use them in their spontaneous
speech. There is also one observation worthy of pondering. The only structure out
of the perfect and perfect progressive structures that both participants during sessions
2 and 4 responded to 100% of its questions correctly was the present perfect progres-
sive. Interestingly enough, this is the same structure that both participants began to
use in their spontaneous speech in session 4. Is this a mere coincidence or were the
participants following natural hierarchies in language acquisition? Bear in mind that

correct usage of present perfect emerged in their spontaneous speech during session 2,

105
and that, too, coincided with the participants-especially A--responding well to the

question regarding present perfect. In fact, participant A responded to questions
regarding present perfect very well much earlier (session 1). This researcher will
elaborate on this along with the delay of emergence of past perfect as well. See
Table 17 for a summary of the forced elicited task by participants A and B during all
sessions.

To summarize, it is obvious that the interlanguage systems of both participants
had not substantially improved from session 2 to session 4, especially regarding the
perfect structures. Hence, it may be safe to conclude that the patterns of correct
usage of the eight structures and the strategies used to convey meanings in session 4
were very much similar to those employed in session 2. In other words, participants’
performance when they were at an intermediate level was similar to their performance

at the so-called advanced stage in the learning continuum.

General Discussion

Now that all results of all participants throughout all sessions have been cited
(see Table 18 for a summary of the data), the overall observations will be further
discussed. The developmental process of interlanguage systems regarding the English
tense and aspect unveiled an interesting picture. At the very early stage, participants
C and D did not use the English inﬂectional system at all. As a result, conveyance of
the English temporality was expressed by different means. Linguistic and non-
linguistic devices were used to compensate for the lack of using the morphological
markers that convey the temporal notions. At that early stage, interlocutor scaffold-

ing was such an important means by which temporality was inferred. It seemed, at

106

30333832 38.3.38 .30 338:: u .md 33353332333 .30 338:: u .230 .uaz.

 

 

 

 

033393on

333 N N 33 3 N 3 3 N 383323 333.3

03330.33:—

333 N N 333 N N 3 3 N 383323 38323

33 3 N 33 3 N 3 3 N 38.3323 3333.3

333 N N 333 N N 333 N N 383333 38323

2:332on

333 N N 333 N N 333 N N 3333 333533

03330.3on

333 N N 333 N N 333 N N 35323 333533

83 N N 83 N N on 3 N 3333 33:5

333 N N 333 N N 333 N N 339.23 333533
33 .330 .230 33 do .25 33 .330 .26

3. 353338 N 332333 3 =o_33om
2223.5
< 3§Eogm 3233:3880

 

.3. 3333303 3.95.35 3

332338 80.3.3 m 933 < 33:33:33,833 .3 5333 33233:» 33838 05 8 303338393 38.3.38 30 33308332960 .2 2an

303323393 82.38 .30 3238:: H 43.0 33383332333 3c 3238:: u 6:0 gala

 

107

on

83
ow
on

83

83
83
83

N
N

on

83
on
on

on

83
on
83

3
N

o
N

 

33

.MU

33

J30

.MU

 

3. :0333om

N 83.33%

3 353.33%

9333893333
30033033 33333

o>3332woa
3833.323 3530.333

38.3.3033 33333

383.323 333030.333

93332qu
333.3 295m

o>3332w9a
353233 033386

33333 033383

33382.3 03.385

 

3 353333353

2225a
38333333880

 

33.3383 N3 3333.3

108

.3339; n dam 3332333332 H .3333 mam

 

 

 

 

23333938333

3 3 3 3 3 N 383323 33333

333393on

3 3 3 3 3 3. 383323 3333333

3 3 3.3 3 3 33 3833333 333.3

3 3 33 3 3 3 38.3323 38333.3

233330.3on

3 3 3. 3 3 3 3333 33.3833

2,3332on

33 o o o o 3. 333030.333 033388

c o o o o o 33332.33

33 o o o o 0 33333933

3 3 333 3 3 333 3333 33.3833

3n 3 3w 3.0 E. 83 3530333 295m
33 dam .3333 33 dam .3333

o 353333.333 3 3333333353
3 33333333 333 232:5
D 3353 U 33333333333333 ”own: 333383 3833388330

 

.3o>o3 33833333333 :3 8 09333 33338 33.3
6833 3333: a 33 3333333333533 :3 3o 33:83.33 0933333338333 233 .33 3330833203633 .33 03333.3.

.8239; n dam 3332333332 H .3333 dam

 

109

 

 

 

333323333

3 3 N 3 3 N 3 3 3 3 3 3 38.3333 333.3

2333323333

3 3 N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. 38.3323 339.23

3 3 33. 3 3 N3 3 3 NN 3 3 N 383333 3333

3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 N3 3 3 3 38.3323 339.23

93338953

33. N 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 33333 333833

933393on

33 3 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 3.3 3. N 333323 33.3533

3N 33 33 3.3 33 33 33. N3 33 33. 33 33 3333333233

3 3 33 N 33 N3 33 3 33. 33 3 33. 3333333

33 3N 333 33 3.3 333 33 3.3 333 N3 33. 33.3 3333 333533

33 3.33 333 N3 33 33 33 NN3 333 33 33 N33 339.23 333.333
33 dam .3333 33 dam .3333 33 dam .3333 33 dam .3333

3 35333333333 .3. 353333353 33 3533333333 3 33333333333
3 33333303 :3 33 33333 < 3333.3 8225a
N 3533303 333 Q 3353 U 33333333333333 ”own: 2333308333333 3833338580

 

33.3383 .33 33333.3

330333333333 u dam 3332333338 n .3333 9.0.2

 

110

 

 

 

9333383333

3 3 33 3 3 3. 3 3 3 3 3 3 383323 333.3

o>333o3w9333

3N 3 3 33 N 3 3 3 3. 3 3 3. 383333 3382.3

3 3 3N 3 3 3N 3 3 33 3 3 3N 38.3323 333.3

33 3 33 33 3. 33 33 3 3 33 3 33 383323 338233

233332on

33 3 3 333 3 3 33 3 3 33 3. 3 3333 333833

3333039333

33 3 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 333.23 333533

33 33 33 33 33 33 3.3 33 333 33 333 33.3 33333233

33 33 N3 3 33 3.3 33 33 33 3.3 33 3N 33 3333.333

33 33 333 33 333 333 33 333 33N 33 333 N33 3333 333833

333 333 333 333 333 333 N3 333 333 33 333 N33 333323 333533
33 .333 .333 33 .333 .333 33 .333 .333 33 .333 .333

33 33333333333 3.. 333333353 33 3333333333 .3 3333333533
.3 3833303 :3 m 33:33 < N 33333303 333 m 3353 < 2825a
3338333333333 6933 338533. 3353333333333 69333 3335333333933 3833388330

 

53.33383 .3 03333.3.

1 l 1

points, that without such scaffolding, communication would break down, and the
interlocutor assistance was necessary and unavoidable. It was interesting to observe
how learners strived to convey notions in a language where they had little lexicon at
their disposal, and their knowledge of the grammatical rules was mainly non-existent.
It was more interesting to observe the compensation strategies and the ability of
learners to overcome such obstacles and defy reality, and eventually be able to
communicate under such difﬁcult circumstances. It is amazing that learners’ speech
at such an early stage can easily be understandable if one looks at the whole context
and pays more attention to devices other than the inﬂectional morphology. In fact,
the interlanguage systems at that early stage may just be a system of communication
and not even a language in the fullest sense (Schumann, 1987). Schumann (1987)
stated that communication at the early stages of language development might be

. . . an exercise in general problem solving. When basilung speakers want to

say something in the target language, they take their knowledge of target

language words and phrases and the experience they have constructing utter-

ances, narratives, and conversation in their native language and use these tools

to communicate what they want to say. This solution does not require any

highly speciﬁc linguistic system that may be necessary for the acquisition of

the complexities of morpho-syntax. (p. 39)

This seems to be an accurate account of the early stage of participants C and
D in this study. A second look at the data of these two participants in session 1
reveals that they did use English words and phrases, but their speech would have been
uttered differently by a ﬂuent speaker of English who has mastered the language, or
even by a non-ﬂuent speaker of English who has sufﬁcient knowledge of the English

lexicon and grammatical rules. Regardless of whether or not participants C and D

used a true language or a system of communication, they were able to employ

112

different strategies in order to overcome their deﬁciency and convey messages in a
unique and understandable way.

When the two participants were observed 3 months later, their language had
signiﬁcantly improved not only in the sense that inﬂectional morphology began to
appear, but also the interlocutor assistance was not needed. They were able to freely
and continually speak with much less difﬁculty than in the ﬁrst session. This is not to
say that they had sufﬁcient knowledge of the target language, but instead, they were
able to use--to some extent--some of the newly-leamed grammatical rules. Interest-
ingly, participants A and B who were in session 1 at a similar stage in the learning
continuum, compared to participants C and D in session 2, expressed the English
temporality in a very similar fashion to that of participants C and D. All participants
at that intermediate stage did not use morpho—syntax to mark the perfect structures at
all. Likewise, all participants used linguistic and non-linguistic devices to assist them
in conveying temporal notions in most cases where morpho-syntax was not used.
Finally, participants C and D used adverbials, connectives, and serialization in a
similar manner and the same rate as that of session 1.

When participants A and B were observed at a later stage (session 2), their
correct usage of the English inﬂectional morphology had improved substantially in
regard to simple past, simple present progressive, and simple past progressive. Also,
the usage of those morphemes that mark the present perfect began to emerge in their
interlanguage. Additionally, as a result of such improvement, the usage of devices
other than morphology to refer to temporal notions had decreased. Surprisingly

enough, when the same participants were taped two more times within almost a

113

7-month period (sessions 3 and 4 respectively), there was slight improvement in their
correct usage of the English tense and aspect systems. It was anticipated, according
to the patterns of development observed in the previous sessions, that their correct
usage of each structure would substantially improve. However, other than the correct
usage of simple progressive, this was not the case at all. In fact, the correct usage of
past perfect and past perfect progressive was non-existent in the spontaneous speech. ‘
When 'morpho-syntax was used in session 2 to mark the present perfect, it was
predicted that such correct usage would signiﬁcantly improve in later sessions.
Nonetheless, during the last session (session 4), the correct usage of such structure
was extremely similar to that of session 2. The only notable development during
session 4 was the emergence of a few correct usages of the present perfect progres-
sive.

As a result of such insigniﬁcant improvement, their usage of devices other
than morphological markers was almost the same as that of session 2 (see Figures 1-
10 for the developmental patterns of the structures that were used in the spontaneous
speech by all participants). This researcher mentioned that the emergence of the
correct usage of the present perfect progressive structure coincided with the fact that
both participants did well regarding this structure in the forced elicited task, not only
in session 4, but also as early as session 2. Also, prior to the correct usage of
present perfect in session 2, participant A did well in regard to this structure in the
forced elicited task in session 1. This suggests that the performance in the forced
elicited task may assist in predicting the patterns of correct usage in the spontaneous

speech at a later stage. If this proved to be true, then our hypothesis regarding

114

100 "

 

Correct Usage (%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session

Emmi. Correct usage of simple present tense by participants C and D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 v
3 + Participant C
°\° 80 3
V —D— Partici tD
$0 60 «» M
D
E 4" l
8 20 +3
0 IL" °
1 2
Session

Elm}. Correct usage of simple past tense by participants C and D.

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 .
g 80 -
i; -—-'— Participant C
59 60 «
D ——D—— ParticipantD
:3 40 +
E
o 20 -
o 33 r .
l 2
Session
ﬁgure}. Correct usage of simple present progressive by participants C and D.
100 ..
g 30 " ——'— Participant C
0
DD 3
g 60 —U— ParticipantD
g 40 «~
8 20 .
.3 3. .
l 2
Session

Egg-5L4. Correct usage of simple past progressive by participants C and D.

100 ‘

Correct Usage (%)

Figure 5. Correct usage of simple present tense by participants A and B.

Correct Usage (%)

80‘

4o 4»

20 0

 

116

 

 

 

—'— Participant A

—{3‘— Participant B

 

 

 

2

Session

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session

Figure 5. Correct usage of simple past tense by participants A and B.

 

 

117

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

100 T

$3 80 0

I;

a? 60 -

:2

g 40 3 + Participant A
t:

8 20 0 —D— ParticipantB

0 L . -
l 2 4
Session

Figure 7. Correct usage of simple present progressive by participants A and B.

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

100 [
S; 80 3
O
on .
g 60
g 40 0 + Participant A
5 20 3 '—0‘— ParticipantB

0 L . ﬂ
1 2 4
Session

Eigumj. Correct usage of simple past progressive by participants A and B.

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 [

g 30 . + Participant A
g9 60 —C’— Participant B
D
g 40
E
U 20 0

O A; ﬁr , ;

l 2 4
Session

Ejgu_r_e_2. Correct usage of present perfect by participants A and B.

 

 

 

 

3 ' Participant A
g 80 r
a) + Participant B
a 60 ‘*
:3
g 40 «
8 20 ,_

0 r5 J 3 3

l 2 4
Session

ﬁgurelﬂ. Correct usage of present perfect progressive by participants A and B.

l 19
"learning" (knowing) and "acquisition” (using) is validated. It was argued that
learners can learn (know) certain rules--inﬂectional morphology that has to be used to
convey present perfect, for instance-but they may not start to use them correctly in
spontaneous speech until a later stage. However, if they were asked questions the
answer to which required the use of such rules, they may be able under such fumed
eluuteu’eu to correctly use these rules.

It seems appropriate at this point to discuss the above overall results with
respect to the issue of "rate of development" of the acquisition of the English
temporality. Then, advantages of function-to-form analysis will be discussed.

looking at the spontaneous data of all participants from an early stage to an
advanced level revealed the following information. First, participants C and D had
improved substantially from session 1 to session 2. Second, participants A and B had
signiﬁcantly improved from session 1 to session 2. Third, the rate of development
seemed to have slowed down for participants A and B in the interval between sessions
2 and 4, especially in regard to the perfect structures. Why is it the case that
participants A and B at a very advanced stage in the learning continuum expressed
such patterns in regard to the perfect structures? And are these patterns followed by
other learners of different language backgrounds or are they peculiar to Arabic
learners? In other words, what was the role of L1 in the acquisitional process of the
English tense and aspect? It was clear that participants did poorly in correctly using
the morphological markers that convey the perfect structures. Arabic, the native
language of the participants in this study, marks the perfective/imperfective distinc-

tion. It has what is called Midi, or past, and Mt'idari, or non-past (Kaye, 1987).

120
Unlike English, Arabic does not mark the progressive and perfect distinction. If L1

were to play a role in the acquisitional process of temporality in this study, one would
expect the participants to face difﬁculties in acquiring the perfect and progressive
since the English, but not Arabic, language grammatically marks these distinctions.
At ﬁrst glance, it seems that transfer from L1 did take place since the participants did
poorly in correctly using the perfect structures. Nonetheless, deep scrutiny into the
developmental patterns indicated that participants A and B did extremely well in
correctly using the morpho-syntax to convey the simple progressive-present and past.
Since Arabic does not grammatically mark both the perfect and progressive and since
participants did well in correctly conveying the latter, it may be plausible to assume
that they were following a natural developmental order, and that L1 may have played
only a minor role.

Or perhaps transfer from L1 did take place, and that the high percentage of
correct usage in regard to the simple progressive structures was due to other factors.
One, probably the verbs with which the simple progressive was used were lexically
durative. Such factors may have enhanced the correct usage of such structures. Such
a phenomenon was observed by Bardovi-Harlig (1992a). Second, it could be the case
that the simple progressive structures were used frequently in the input to which the
subjects were exposed. If one or both factors were proven to be true, then transfer
from L1 did take place. In any event, determination of transfer from L1 to L2 is a
very sophisticated process.

According to Gass (1979), for one to determine that a linguistic phenomenon

was transferred from L1 to L2, one should not look at only target language and native

121

language factors, one should also take into account language universals. In order for
one to determine the transferability of L1 patterns and claim that L1 of the subjects of
this study played a role in the acquisitional process of the English tense and aspect, a
similar study with different learners whose Ll, like English, marks the progressive
and aspect, ”may be conducted. If those learners show similar patterns to those of the
participants in this study, this would indicate that L2 learners follow similar develop- '
mental stages regardless of language background, and the L1 factors play only a
minor role in the acquisitional process. If, however, those learners differ in a
statistically signiﬁcant way from the participants of this study in their correct usage of
the progressive and perfect, then this could be evidence of language transfer.

Aside from the role of transfer from L1 which, at least at this point, is not
clear, what justiﬁes the participants’ poor performance regarding the perfect struc-
tures? This writer is offering the following speculations. First, in regard to the
delayed emergence of past perfect and past perfect progressive in the spontaneous
speech, he suspects that this was due to two interrelated factors. One, it is grammati-
cally correct to use the simple past instead of past perfect and some native speakers
do so. Second, these two structures are rarely used even by nature speakers. This
claim is supported by the fact that participants A and B showed knowledge of these
two structures in their responses to the questions in the forced elicited task. It was
mentioned earlier that the emergence of present perfect and present perfect progres-
sive in the spontaneous speech was preceded by the participants responding well to

the questions regarding these two structures. In this case, both participants, especially

122
A, responded fairly well to the past perfect questions, but they never used past perfect

and past perfect progressive in their spontaneous speech.

Second, in regard to the poor performance of the perfect structures in general,
it seems reasonable to assume that participants may have felt that they were not
obligated to strictly use every grammatical rule they knew as long as their
conversation was understandable. In other words, their ﬁrst priority when they
conversed was to get the message across without worrying a great deal about the
morpho-syntax that had to be used. Another possibility is that the input to which the
participants were exposed did not include a great deal of usage of the perfect struc-
tures. Or perhaps it takes a long time, longer than the time this project lasted, for the
perfect structures to be fully grammaticized and hence used on a regular basis in the
spontaneous speech of learners.

Regardless of the observed setback in interlanguage development at later
stages, the overall observations of the developmental processes in interlanguage
systems in this study clearly showed the importance and advantages of function-to-
form analysis. Within the traditional framework of counting the appearance versus
non-appearance of merely grammatical forms, a great deal of information regarding
interlanguage development and strategies learners use would have deﬁnitely been
missed. Without function-to-form analysis, this researcher would not have been able
to show the manner in which participants C and D expressed the English temporal
notions in session 1. These two learners appeared to have no knowledge at all about
the English inﬂectional morphology regarding tense and aspect during that early stage.

Nevertheless, function-to-form analysis enabled this researcher to uncover the

123

compensation strategies that learners used in order to convey the English tense and
aspect systems. This is not to say that function-to-form analysis was beneﬁcial only
at the early stages of interlanguage development. Instead, as this study has demon-
strated, it was a useful tool throughout the study. It illustrated the different ways in
which functions were expressed, and it assisted in discovering the strategies used by
participants at any given stage.

What is truly appealing about function-to-form analysis is that it goes beyond
the morpho-syntactic level. It integrates the morphological, syntactic, and phonologi-
cal levels with one another on the one hand, and with discourse-pragmatic factors on
the other hand, thus allowing a multi-level analysis capable of capturing almost every
aspect in interlanguage development. Also, such analysis reveals a great deal about
how learners communicate when they are almost linguistically handicapped.

Finally, it has been observed that the majority of researchers who used
function-to-form analysis when investigating the acquisition of temporality did not
include form-only analysis as a complementary analytic tool. Though this may not be
a major drawback of such research, it is contended here that integration of the two
types of analysis is necessary. This researcher implemented both types of analysis in
this study, and it is obvious that form-only analysis played a major role in determin-
ing the developmental stages established in this project. Without form-only analysis,
it would not have been possible to uncover that participants A and B had improved
substantially from session 1 to session 2. By the same token, it would not have been
established that the same participants had improved only slightly from session 2 to

session 4. Therefore, it is argued that as useful of an analytic tool as

124

function-to—form analysis is, it should always be used along with form-only analysis in

order to obtain a comprehensive and complete account of interlanguage development.

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

This project investigated the acquisition of the English tense and aspect (eight
grammatical structures) in the English-based interlanguage of four adult native
speakers of Arabic. The participants came to the United States to pursue their
education. This study was conducted over an l8-month period. Two of the partici-
pants, C and D, were taped individually in two different sessions, 60 minutes each,
within a lZ-week period. The ﬁrst taping session was done when they were at a very
early stage and the second took place when they were at approximately intermediate
level in the learning continuum. The other two participants, A and B, were taped
individually four times, 60 minutes each, within a lO—month period. The ﬁrst taping
was conducted when they were at an approximately intermediate level, the second
when they were at a pre-advanced level, and the third and fourth took place when
they were at an advanced stage in learning English. This was done in order to be
able to document the developmental process of the English temporality from the early
stages until learners reach an advanced level. During each taping session with each
participant, forced elicited data were obtained by the means of asking two questions in
regard to every structure that was investigated.

After thorough analysis of the data using function-to—form and form—only

analysis, the following concluding remarks are made:

125

126

1. At the very early stage (participants C and D in session 1), there was
no use at all of inﬂectional morphology to mark tense and aspect.

2. As a result, participants used linguistic and non-linguistic devices to
mark temporality. Adverbials, connectives, serialization, and implicit reference were
the means by which temporality was inferred. Also, interlocutor scaffolding was such
an important means by which temporality was inferred. During such scaffolded
discourse, it was the interlocutor, not the learner, who established the point in time in
which an event took place, and the learner merely conﬁrmed such establishment.

3. During the next stage (participants C and D in session 2 and A and B
in session 1), the participants used inﬂectional morphology, but such usage was not
systematic and it did not display sufﬁcient knowledge of the English grammatical
rules regarding tense and aspect. In fact, they did not use any inﬂectional morpholo-
gy that mark the perfect structures. Thus, they all used devices other than morpho-
logical markers to refer to temporal notions. At this intermediate stage, scaffolded
discourse was not needed and participants were able to freely speak without any
assistance from the listener.

4. In the next stage (participants A and B in session 2), the usage of
inﬂectional morphology had signiﬁcantly improved, but it was still not systematic
enough to conform to that of native speakers or even ﬂuent non—native speakers. At
this pre-advanced stage, there were only a few instances of correct usage of the
present perfect, and participants did not provide any correct usage of the past perfect
or present progressive-present and past. As a result of such improvement, the usage

of devices other than morphological markers decreased.

127
5. At a supposedly very advanced stage (participants A and B in session

4), the learners’ correct usage of morphological markers to convey temporality had
improved only slightly from the previous session. Other than the noticeable improve-
ment in the correct usage of the simple past progressive and a few instances of correct
usage of the present perfect progressive, the participants’ performance at this ad-
vanced stage was similar to that at the intermediate level. This is interesting since a
period of about 7 months had elapsed from the second to the fourth taping session.
Because of such similarities, the participants’ usage of devices other than inﬂectional
morphology was at the same rate at this advanced stage as it was at the intermediate
stage.

6. The structure that was used correctly the most by all participants was
when they referred to regular or habitual events--simple present tense. No additional
morphemes to the base form of the verb are required to convey this function. Thus,
the correct usage of such structure may have been coincidental.

7. Relating events in the past-“past perfect and past perfect progressive--
turned out to be the most difﬁcult function to be conveyed correctly. Participants A
and B did not use these two structures correctly in their spontaneous speech even at
the most advanced stage when they had been learning English for more than 16
months. It may be the case that a more sophisticated knowledge of the English

inﬂectional system has to be acquired in order for this function to be used in sponta-

neous speech.

 

128

8. Reference to a single event in the past--simple past tense--was correctly
conveyed by the supplement of lexical (irregular) forms of the verb much more than
by the regular past tense marker "ed."

9. Generally speaking, the participants’ correct usage of the eight struc-
tures in the forced elicited task was higher than that in the spontaneous speech. This
factor may, support the claim of this writer that learners may know the grammatical
rules, but may not necessarily use them in their spontaneous speech.

The above-cited remarks are a complete documentation of the evolution of the
tense and aspect in the English-based interlanguage of four adult Arabic speakers. It
shows clearly how learners, at the early stages, struggled to convey functions in a
new language where they did not know any grammatical rules, and they had only a
limited number of lexical items with which to work. In such circumstances, they
were able to compensate for their lack of sufﬁcient knowledge of the grammatical
rules by using different kinds of devices and by employing interesting strategies, and
eventually were able to overcome their deﬁciency and communicate in an understand-
able manner. It was interesting to observe the developmental process of the expres-
sion of the English temporality through time.

It was apparent that the rate of development in the interlanguage systems of
participants A and B had slowed down at the advanced stage in regard to the correct
usage of the English perfect structures. In this regard, it was not clear what the role
of transfer from L1 was. Thus, alternative explanations were offered in an attempt to

justify the participants’ poor performance regarding these structures.

129

All in all, the results of this study are a clear demonstration of the advantages
of functional analysis in the study of language development. It is such analysis that
unveiled a great deal of valuable information about how temporality had developed
over time, and how learners strove to overcome obstacles and communicate in a new
language. It is this type of analysis that clearly showed the learners’ movement from
relying solely on the contextual information to establish temporality to the point where
they were able to successfully use some inﬂectional morphology to refer to temporal
notions. It is functional analysis that showed how important discourse-pragmatic
information was in the early stages of language development. The results of this
study demonstrate how such information was profoundly useful in the sense that they
compensated for a lack of sufﬁcient knowledge of the English inﬂectional morphol—
ogy. The ultimate advantage of functional analysis is derived from the fact that it
integrates all linguistic levels along with discourse-pragmatic factors. Hence, it
allows a complete and comprehensive account of interlanguage development at any
given stage. The data of participants C and D in session 1, which contained no
correct usage of inﬂectional morphology at all, would have revealed little information
about interlanguage development had this researcher used "form only” analysis or
even ”form-to-function" analysis. These two types of analyses would reveal that these
two learners had not yet acquired the English tense and aspect. Such conclusions, as
correct as they are, would overshadow the true process in language development.
True process in this context refers to the various strategies that learners use in order
to overcome their deﬁciency in the target language. Such true process is captured by

the use of function-to—form analysis that takes into consideration not only the supple-

 

130

ment versus non-supplement of linguistic forms, but also all kinds of devices that are
used to convey functions, thus providing a comprehensive account of all aspects of
interlanguage development.

At this point, it is important to discuss the issue of generalizability--differently
put, how generalizable the observed developmental patterns established in this study
are. The answer may be obtained if future research using functional analysis shows
that English learners of different language backgrounds whose languages, like
English, grammatically mark the perfect and progressive distinctions, follow similar
developmental patterns as those observed in this study. If this were the case, it would
be a strong indication that learners, regardless of language background, employ a
general operating principle throughout the acquisitional process of the English tense
and aspect systems.

In addition, it has been argued throughout this study that a learner may learn
(know) certain morphemes that have to be used in order to convey certain functions,
but not necessarily use them in spontaneous conversation until a later stage. Such
argument was strengthened by the fact that learners’ correct usage of the grammatical
rules in the forced elicited task in this study was higher than that of the spontaneous
speech. It was claimed that such phenomena may indicate that the participants knew
these rules, but yet either did not use them at all or used them to a lesser extent in the
spontaneous speech.

Though the observations of the participants of this study lasted for more than a
year, and function-to-form analysis was used to analyze the spontaneous data, it is not

without limitations. First, as mentioned earlier, the participants did poorly in regard

 

131

to correctly using the perfect structures. In fact, past perfect and past perfect
progressive were not used correctly at all in the spontaneous speech even at the
advanced stage. Probably a longer period of time, perhaps 2 years of observations,
will be sufﬁcient to allow a more comprehensive account of interlanguage develop-
ment. Second, in each taping session, there were only a few instances where certain
structures had to be used in the spontaneous speech. These structures include the
present perfect progressive, past perfect progressive, and even the simple progressive-
-present and past. Maybe longer taping sessions would have allowed a greater
number of instances where such structures would have to be used. For instance, if
there were ﬁve instances in which the present perfect progressive was required in a
(SO-minute session in this study, there might be 10 instances where such structures
would be required in a 120-minute session. Such a number, though not high enough,
would, without a doubt, allow a more valid judgement of the learners’ knowledge of
this structure. Such limitations must be taken into consideration prior to conducting a
similar work.

Hence, what probably is needed is a cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of
the English temporality. Such a study should incorporate both "function—to—form" and
”form-only" analysis. Participants of this study should include learners whose ﬁrst
language does not mark the perfect and progressive distinction (Arabic, for instance)
and those whose ﬁrst language does grammatically mark these distinctions (Spanish,
for example). Observations of the participants in this suggested study should last for
at least 18 months, starting when the participants are at the very early stage in the

learning continuum. Each taping session of each participant should be at least 2 hours

132

long, and the interval between taping sessions should be around 3 to 4 months. Such
a project would undoubtedly unveil a great deal about the developmental processes of
the acquisition of the English temporality. It may also solve many methodological
problems concerning the issues of ”transfer" and "generalizability." It has already
been shown how sophisticated it is to determine transferability from L1 to L2. Only
a cross-linguistic study such as that suggested above will assist in not only solving

such issues, but will also be much more generalizable.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aksu, A. (1978). Aspgzt and mngity in the child’s muisitign of the Turkish past

teng. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Andersen, R. W. (1977). The impoverished state of cross-sectional morpheme
acquisition/ accuracy methodology (or: The leftovers are more nourishing than

the main course). Working Pmrs on Bilingualism, 1_4, 47-82.

Andersen, R. (197 8). An implicational model for second language research. Lag
We, 28, 221-82.

Andersen, R. W. (1982). W Master’s

thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

Andersen, R. (1991). Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking
in second language acquisition. In C. A. Ferguson & T. Huebner (Eds. ),

WW (pp 305- 324) Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.

Antinucci, F. & Miller, R. (1976). How children talk about what happened.
MW, 3, 167-89.

Bahns, J. & Wood, H. (1980). Form and function 1n L2 acquisition. In S. A. Felix
- , _ .7. (pp. 81-92). Tiibin-

 

gen, Germany: Gunther Narr. ’ i

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992a). The relationship of form and meaning: A cross-section-
al study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a

second language AW 1.3 253-273

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992b). The use of adverbials and natural order in the develop-
ment of temporal expression. IRAL, 3_Q, 299-320.

 

Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a function-
alist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. In A_nmlLof

 

MILLS—ESL (pp. A 190-214). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

133

 

134

Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E.

Wanner & L. Cleitman (Eds). WW
(pp. 173-218). New York: Cambridge University.

Bloom, L. & Hamer. L. (1989). On the developmental contour of child language: A
reply to Smith and Weist. MW, 16. 207-216.

Brown, R. (1973). Wags. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., & [amen-Freeman, D. (1983). W
W. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Chung, S. & Timberlake, A. (1985). Tense, aspect and mood. In T. Shopen (Ed. ),

W (vol 111) (pp 202- 258) Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, E. V. (1985). Acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In

D I Slobin (Ed) WWW (PP 637-782)
I-Iillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, A. (1984). Studying second-language learning. How do we get the informa-
tion? AW 5. 101-112

Comrie, B. (1976). Amt. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. (1985). 1%. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Corder, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In S. Gass & L. Selinker

(Eds), W (m 18-31)- Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.

Dahl, O. (1985). MW. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

De Lemos, C. (1981). Interactional processes in the child’s construction of language.

InW Deutsch (13“.me 366) New
York: Academic Press.

Dik, S. C. (1978). W. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Dittmar, N. (1981). On the verbal organization of L2 tense marking m an elicited
translation task by Spanish immigrants in Germany. W
W 2. 136-64

135

Dittmar, N. (1984). Semantic features of pidginized learner varieties of German. In

R Andersen (Ed). WWW (pp 243-
270). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1972). Gooﬁng: An indication of children’s second
language learning strategies. W, 2_2_, 235-52.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? m
m, 23’ 245-258-

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language
acquisition. W, 3, 129-36.

Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. (1982). W. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-40.

Fillmore, C. (1977). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (Eds.),
W (pp. 59-81). New York: Academic Press.

Flashner, V. (1983). - ' _ ' ' °
W. Unpublished paper, University of California, Los Angeles.

 

Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relation. Langme
mg. 22. 327-344-

Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.),
W (pp. 129-140). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Gathercole, V. (1986). The acquisition of the present perfect: Explaining differences

in speech of Scottish and American children. W 1.3.
537-60.

Givon, T. (1979). W. New York: Academic Press.

Givon, T. (1983). Tu'
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 

Givon, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structures and second language acquisi-

tion- In W. Rutherford (13¢). MW
acquisition (pp. 109-136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.-

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch
._ ,_ 1 (pp. 401-435).

 

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

 

136

Holes, C. (1990). Gem. London: Routledge.
Jackobson. R. (1957)- W Cambridge.

MA: Harvard University Department of Slavik Languages and Literatures,
Russian Language Project.

Kelley, P. (1983). The question of uniformity 1n interlanguage development. In K.

M Bailey. M H Long. &S Peck (Eds LW
stttd_es.(pp 83-92). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Kaye, A. S. (1987). Arabic. In B. Comrie (Ed.), The werlgl’s mejer laggeagee (pp.
664-685). New York: Oxford University Press.

Krashen. S. (1982). WWW Oxford.
United Kingdom: Pergamon Press. .

Krashen. S. (1985). W London.
Longman.

Kumpf, L. (1981). . - ' ' ._ '
garage. Unpublished paper, University of California, Los Angeles.

 

Kumpf, L. (1984). Temporal systems and universality in interlanguage: A case
study. In F. Eckman, 0. Bell, & 0. Nelson (Eds.), W
W (pp. 132-143). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lance, D. (1969). A brief study of Spanish-English bilingualism: Final report. Re;
WW. Texas A&M University, College Station.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult
ESL StUdentS. W: 29 409-14-

McLaughlin, B. (1984). - - -- ' ' .
h 1 hil r n. I-Iillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mclaughlin. B. (1989). WWW: London: Edward
Arnold.

 

Meisel, J. Clashen, H. ,& Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental

stages in natural second language acquisition. Wm
Amuisitian. 3. 109-35

Meisel, J. M. ( 1983) Strategies of second language acquisition. More than one

kind of simpliﬁcation. In R. W. Anderson (Ed. ), W
Wen (pp 120-157) Rowley. MA Newbury House

 

137

Meisel, J. M. (1986). Reference to past events and actions in the development of
natural second language acquisition. In C. Pfaff (Ed.), W
W (pp. 206-224). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Nixon, N. (1986). T n tin En 1i h in rl e f n 'v M
sneaker. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different
conditions of exposure. W, 33, 465-497.

Poplack, S. (1981). Syntactic structure and social function of code-switching. In

R. Duran (Ed.).LauncLlanguage_and.eomm16atn/e_6¢hayior (pp. 169-184)-
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Porter, J. (1977). A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisition in ﬁrst language
learners. We. 21. 47-62.

Rosansky, E. J. (1976). Methods and morphemes in second language acquisition
research W. 26. 409- 25

Rothstein. G (1985) W

W. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles.

Sate. C. (1984). MW Unpub-
lished dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Schuchter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. W, 24., 205-14.

Schumann, J. (1975). _ - ' '
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

 

Schumann, J. (1978). ‘ ' " ° .
mm. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

 

Schumann, J. (1987). The expression of temporality in Basilang speech. Studieﬂn
WWW. 2(1). 21-42-

Seliger, H. W. (1979). On the nature and function of language rules in language
teaching- W. 13. 359-369.

Seliger, H. W. (1983). The language learner as linguist. Of metaphors and realities.
WA. 179-191

Selinker. L. (1972)- Interlanguage MW.
19, 209-231.

 

138

Slobin, D. ( 1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C.

Ferguson & D. Slobin (Eds.), WWW
(pp. 175-208). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Tomlin, R. (1990). Functionalism in second language acquisition. W
W, .1.2. 155-177

Trosborg, A. (1982). Children’s comprehension of ”before” and "after" reinves-
tigated. loumal_of_Ch_ild_Language. 2. 381-402.

Von Stutterheim, C. & Klein, W. (1986). A concept-oriented approach to second
language acquisition. In C. Pfaff (Ed.), ' n l i i ' 11
mm (pp. 191-205). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Weist, R. M. (1986). Tense and aspect: Temporal systems in child language. In P.
Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds. ), e i i i l
deyelenmeJ. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Weist, R., Wysocka, H. & Lyytinen, P. (1991). A cross-linguistic perspective on
the development of temporal systems. rn f h' e, _1_8, 67-92.

Weist, R. M., Wysocka, H. HWitkowska—Stadnik K., Buczowska, E. & Konieczna,
E. (1984). The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of tense and

aspect in child Polish. W3, l_1_, 347-74.

Zubin, D. (1979). Discourse function of morphology: The focus system in German

In T. Givon (Ed.), W. New York: Academic Press,
469-504.

nICHran STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
1N1111111111111”1111111111NI11111111111111lll
31293014102408