A LESLLA corpus Ineke van de Craats [email protected] [email protected] Radboud University, Nijmegen Research funded by NWO (355-70-017) LESLLA

A LESLLA corpus

Ineke van de Craats [email protected]

Radboud University, Nijmegen

Research funded by NWO (355-70-017)

LESLLA 2010 - Cologne

mailto:[email protected]

Why LESLLA?• LESLLA learners differ from highly educated learners.

• LESLLA learners may process spoken language differently (Petersson et al. 2000; Reis & Castro-Caldas, 1997)

• Language pedagogy to LESLLA learners should take into account that:- abstract words and function words are not viewed as words (e.g. Kurvers, 2002; )- words with little meaning are difficult to recall (e.g. Tarone et al. 2007)

- LESLLA-learners have little metalinguistic and strategic skills (e.g. Kurvers 2002)

- they may understand feedback /recasts differently (Tarone et al. 2007)

- reading and writing skills are lacking or restricted.

LESLLA learners by accident

LESLLA corpora ‘avant la lettre’

Longitudinal: - Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt (Klein & Dittmar 1979)

- ZISA project (Clahsen et al. 1983)– ESF project (Klein & Perdue, 1992; Perdue

1993)

Cross-sectional:- Lexlern project (Clahsen et al. 1991)

Is acquisition possible solely on the basis of aural input?

LESLLA learners at purpose

• Minneapolis Somali literacy study (Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen 2007; 2009)

What is the impact of literacy on oral L2 use and development?

3 studies, on: corrective feedback,

elicited imitation oral narratives (learners focussing on meaning)

• LESLLA-corpus (van de Craats 2009;2010)

longitudinal: 3 semesters (15-18 months)

How does the low-literate learner proceed in the classroom?

LESLLA corpus

Purpose of the project:

Is the L1 morphosyntax an essential factor of stagnation in L2 acquisitionof these learners?

LESLLA corpus

Research questions:

• Is there still impact from a low literacy level or from another phonetic script?

• Low-paced development for morphosyntax?

• Is that caused by transfer from L1?

LESLLA corpus - design

• Longitudinal study of 3 semesters/cycles (1.5 years)

• Same tasks administered in each cycle.

• Two language groups: L2: Dutch

L1: Turkish, Moroccan Arabic

• CEF level at start: below A1 with a very basic vocabulary.

• Elicitationmaterial: Reading task

Receptive tasks

Productive tasks

Metalinguistic tasks

Turkish participants (at start)

Age Schooling Stay in NL stagnating

TU - Neth. years

Zilfi 30 5 1;5 11 no

Hülya 19 5 0;7 0.5 no

Emine 28 5 0;8 13 no - yes

Hilal 19 5 1;8 2 yes - no

Ayfer 37 5 0;8 18 yes

Nazife 31 5 0;6 1 yes

Hatice 45 5 0;6 26 yes

Özlem 31 6 2;0 5 yes

Mean 30 5 1;0 9.5

Moroccan participants (at start)

Age Schooling Staying NL Stagnating

MA - Neth.

Mina 23 0 2;0 4 no

Zohra 41 5 0;7 8 no

Soad 34 4 0;8 12 no

Najat 25 4 1;6 4 yes - no

Hayat 22 5 2;0 2 yes

Nezha 38 0 1;3 3 yes

Fatima 27 7 1;8 5 yes

Mean 30 3.6 1;3 5.4

Reading skills Moroccan participants

Age Schooling Arabic literacy course

Roman script

Mina 23 0 yes yes

Zohra 41 5 yes no

Soad 34 4 yes no

Najat 25 4 yes yes

Hayat 22 5 yes yes

Nezha 38 0 yes yes

Fatima 27 5+2 yes no

Mean 30 3.6

Literacy level

3 tasks: text; self paced reading; drag and drop task

Reading time for an L2 text (in sec.)

Cycle I II III Mean

Zilfi 131 108 111 117

Hülya 86 110 100 99Emine 116 133 137

129

Hilal 143 103 132 126Ayfer 122 194 140 152Nazife 117 98 99 105Hatice 145 183 137 155Özlem 182 107 90 126

Mean 130 129 118 126

Cycle I II III Mean

Mina 148 144 129 140Zohra 141 - 138 139 Soad 127 152 119 133

Najat 172 174 165 170Hayat 217 244 174 212Nezha 307 264 225 265Fatima 120 123 161 135

Mean 176 183 158 172

Turkish Moroccan

Self-paced reading task

• Instruction:

Read the sentence aloud and recall the last word.

• Push the button.

• Read the next sentence (12 and 16 syllables) etc.

• 3 pairs of 2 sentences

3 pairs of 3 sentences

3 pairs of 4 sentences

• Say the last word of each sentence in the right order.

Self-paced reading task (16 syllables)

Reading time Turkish Moroccan learners

2 sent.-pair 1 21 sec 30 sec



Mean per sentence 10 sec 18 sec

3 sent. mean 10 sec. 16 sec

4 sent. mean 10 sec. 16 sec

(for 10 Turkish and 10 Moroccan learners in Cycle 1)

Transfer and reading

L1

L2

Order within the noun phrase

Drag-and-drop task

• Purpose: What is the influence of the L1?

• Semi-controlled task

• Adapted version of the drag-and-drop task:

• The learner has more blocks to drag and drop than required for the task.

• This opens the way to investigate:

- pro-drop and/or topic drop

- choose between an L1 and an L2 structure.

Drag-and-drop task

Possessive relationship in the noun phrase

Turkish order: possessor – possessee Hassan’s car (Hasan-in araba-

si)Moroccan Arabic: possessee – possessor

the car (of) HassanDutch: 1. Hassans auto

Hassan z’n/zijn auto zijn auto

2. de auto van Hassande auto van hem

Adapted drag-and-drop task

Hassan

Dat isDat is …………………………………………………………………………………………….……….Hassan auto z’n van

Target: Hassan z’n auto

Not correct: auto van Hassan (correct: de auto van Hassan)

Number of moves and reaction time were registrated.

Results for 10 possessive noun phrases

TU MA difference

Cyc.1 Moves 45,15 40,29 5

RT sec. 286.83 387.18100.35 sec

Cyc.2 Moves 49.25 40.99 8

RT sec. 246.7 294.4 47.7 sec

Cyc.3 Moves 58.21 40.17 18

RT sec. 293.58 310.58 17 sec

Number of moves increases for Turks, stable for Moroccans.

Number of seconds decreases for Moroccans, not for Turks.

Turks start manipulating the word order, Moroccans not (they read faster than before).

Easiest and most difficult possessive NPs

Moroccan Turkish

Easiest NP 2.95 moves 3.16 movesjouw kado mevr. Larbi d’r manyour present mrs. Larbi’s (her)

husband

Most difficult NP 5.5 moves 6.58 movesFreeks ouders de opa van BasFreek’s parents the grandpa of Bas

Transfer of the L1 becomes clear in the P’sor-P’see order.

Bas’ grandpa (de opa van Bas)

• Most frequent variant of Turkish learners: Bas-van de opa (Turkish genitive) Bas-van z’n de opa

(stimulus: Dat is …. /Bas/ de opa/z’n /van)

• De opa van Bas: 12,5 % correct for the Turks (mean:6,5) also in 14 / 20 / 22 moves, or in 3 or 5 moves.

• All Moroccans do it 100% correctly, but they need too many moves (mean: 4) and too much time (mean: 30 sec.)

• Abstract function words play a crucial role.• Syntactic development is slow.

Transfer and reading

L1

L2

Order within the sentence

V finite

The finite verb

1. In the drag and drop taskTurkish: SOVfinite

Moroccan Arabic: SVfinite ODutch: SVfinite O

Make a sentence:

……………………………………………………………………………..

| get | Freek | a fine | gets |

krijgen Freek een bon krijgt

The finite verb

1. In the drag and drop task

Turkish Cycle I II IIIFreek een bon krijgt/en. 50% 37% 37%Moves (mean) 3,8 4,4 3,8RT (mean) in sec. 17 19,9 18,5

MoroccanFreek een bon krijgt/en. 0% 14% 0%Moves (mean) 3,1 3,6 3,8RT (mean) in sec. 35 27,9 20,7

Narratives

Development of morphosyntaxis

in a relatively free task: film retelling and picture telling

story.

Bare verbs

• Do these literacy learners produce abstract, grammatical (semantically redundant) morphemes, such as

- inflectional endings (3sg)and

- grammatical free morphemes (copulas, modals, auxiliaries)?

that are difficult to process, or mainly bare verbs?

Turkish learners

0

20

40

60

80

100

cycl. 1 cycl. 2 cycl. 3

Ayfer - TU

long

is/ga

short

0

20

40

60

80

100


Hülya - TU

long

is/ga

short

0

20

40

60

80

100


Zilfi - TU

long

is/ga

short

Turkish and Moroccan learners compared

0

20

40

60

80

100


Ayfer - TU

long

is/ga

short

0

20

40

60

80

100


Hülya - TU

long

is/ga

short

0

20

40

60

80

100


Zilfi - TU

long

is/ga

short

0

20

40

60

80

100


Zohra - MA

long

is/ga

short

0

20

40

60

80

100


Mina - MA

long

is/ga

short

0

20

40

60

80

100


Fatima - MA

long

is/ga

short

Conclusions

• The Turkish group produced more bare (long) forms than the Moroccan learners, although they were literate learners.

• The picture is opposite for the Moroccan group, although they were the moderate/advanced literacy learners with more short forms.

Cause??• Not literacy, but interplay between L1 and

L2 is at issue.• The short forms are mainly default forms

Default forms

• Beginning learners use default verb forms.

• Moroccan learners of Dutch prefer other default verb forms than Turkish learners. The L1-L2 interplay is the motivation for this preference.

– Turkish learners take long forms (infinitives), Moroccans short defaults (‘finite’).

– Turks have to acquire movement of the verb.– Moroccans have to learn what an infinitive is.

A ‘finite’ default form

• kan niet [VP gaat fiets] Najat can not go.3sg bike

• een vriendin is zij [VP zegt “kom”] Soad a girlfriend is she say.3sg come

• ik ga buiten [VP speelt] Fatima I go-1sg outside play.3sg

For Moroccan learners the default form is short and ‘finite’.

The finite verb in picture telling task

Zilfi (Turkish)

Vader niet komen

Cycl. 1 Vader is niet komen

father is not come.INF

Cycl. 2 Vader is niet kom

come.1SG/STEM

Cycl. 3 (pro) kom niet die vader(v.d.Craats 2005, 2009)

dummy auxiliary

The finite verb in picture telling task

Moroccans:

• Sneeuwman ga kijken tableaussnowman go look paintings

• Dan ga loop naar de raamThen go walk to the window

Number of ga-patterns 7 Turks : 107 Moroccans: 313

another dummy auxiliary

Dummy auxiliaries

Dummy auxiliaries may:

• Emerge when (bound) verb morphology has not fully been acquired yet;

• Realise one of more grammatical features normally part of a lexical verb.

• Disappear after a specific developmental stage.

• Typically (??) emerge in the speech of vulnerable learners such as LESLLA learners, SLI children.

Conclusions• Decoding fluency may influence results of written tasks with low-

educated learners, but will have disappeared at A2-level (CEF).

• Low-paced development of these LESLLA-learners shows the small steps such as insertion of dummy auxiliaries to overcome composite morphosyntactic changes (L1 influence is persistent).

• Difficulty of grammatical morphemes has more to do with salience in an L1-L2 interplay. Lack of meaning is one aspect of salience (unstressed is another).

• Literate learners are also intended to skip grammatical morphemes in sentence imitation.

• The morpheme learning steps: lexical item – free functional item – bound functional item are also observed in literate learners (e.g. VanPatten 1995).

• More comparative research between literates and non/low-literates is necessary., e.g. about insertion of dummy auxilairies.

Documents

A LESLLA corpus Ineke van de Craats [email protected] [email protected] Radboud University, Nijmegen Research funded by NWO (355-70-017) LESLLA