THE EFFECT OF WORD ORDER ON LISTENING COMPREHENSION AND PATTERN RETENTION: AN

EXPERIMENT IN SPANISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

An important skill which the IanBuage ka rnc r uses in the listening task is knowledge of the syntax of the tarst language. This s t u d y empincally examines the effect of one aspect of surface structure. word order. o n the listening comprehension and pattern retention of native English speakers learning Spanish The factors of sentence k n g t h and position of a sentence in a given context are also analyzed As the basis for the experiment. a b r d discussion is presented of theoretical implications of word order processing and memory in listening. A comparat ive analysis of Spanish a n d English word order patterns follows. which ident i fm three principal word order patterns of Spanish. subpt-verb-obJcct. verb-subject-object. and object-wrb-subJcct Results a r e reported of theexperiment whKh tested the abilities of native English-speaking students of Spanish and native Spanish speakers t o comprehend a n oral passage and remember the word order of certain sentences. The findings indicate that word order significantly affected the degree of comprehension of the English speakers In addition, for both groups of participants. sentences which were both longer and in final position in a context were comprehended most effectively Word order a n d sentence position significantly affected surface retention of both groups Further. there is indirect evidence to lend addi t ional suppor t to transformational grammar theor) indicating tha t native speakers and foreign language learners may utilize a n aural processing strategy of converting patterns to the basic S V O word order Implications of this investigation for Spanish foreign-language pedagogy as well as suggestions for further research a re i nc I uded

Anyone who has experienced the process of learning a foreign language will acknowledge the frustration often experienced in attempting to understand the spoken message. Further , every foreign language instructor, at one time o r another, has felt thwarted in his o r her attempts to effectively teach l i s ten ing c o m p r e h e n s i o n skills. A l though a u r a l comprehension has attained increasing status as a n important component of foreign language teaching. it not only has been one of the most problematic areas t o develop and assess, but also one of the most neglected. Both experimental data and teacher experience have indicated that listening comprehension scores have been found t o be lower than performance in other skill areas (Oller 1979). In addition, lack of sufficient instructional materials in this area has been attributed to the unclear

443

444 Language Laming Vol. 35. No. 3

implications of psycholinguistic studies relative to the complex aural p r m and listener strategies (Paulston and Bruder 1976; Donaldson- EWM IWl).

Why hr this skill continued to pose so many difficulties'? Listening was formerly tkougbt to be a passive skill which was nurtured by simple exporwc to the language, without requiring special pedagogical techniqws. However, Rivers (197659) h a s succintly defined listening as -not a @vc but an 'active process of constructing a message' from a stream of sound with what one knows of the phonological, semantic, and syntactic potentialities of the language."

Amow the important skills which the language learner uses in the listenin5 task is knowledge of the syntax of the target language. To date. syntactic experimentation in listening has dealt with memory / retention (Cook 197s; Call 1979) and the strategies used in segmenting continuous speech ( k v c r 19'70, Rivers 1976; Bialystok 1981). Much of this research points to the prob.&lity that one factor vital in rapid processing and comprebnrion of speech is understanding of the word order patterns of a Lnguae system. Indeed, native speakers of English often encounter certain difficulties in comprehending many aspects of the soxalled "free" word ordtr system of Spanish. A contrastive analysis (Fries 1945) of Spuurh and Engltsh predicts that English speakers will experience diffllulty with thorc patterns of certain divergence from English. Similarly. a -at study has identified language transfer and language universals as interad- phenomena in the acquisition of syntax (Gass 1984). Further. Ner#oda (1982) found a corre la t ion between word o rde r a n d cornpnhtnsion with English sptakers reading Spanish. while Bates and MIcWhinnty (1981) . in their experiments with English, Italian. and German native speakers. obtained evidence that language-specific word order processing strategjes may be transferred onto the second language.

This study empirically examines the effect of Spanish word order patterns on aural comprehension by English-speaking students learning Spanish. I t propogcs a hierarchical description of various Spanish word orders with respect t o comprehension difficulty. as well as a set of strategies which m y be employed by English-speaking listeners of Spanish in processing various word orders. Since memory processes play a n important part in listening, the effect of word order on retention of surface pmtttnu alu, examined. Whik this investigation focuses o n the listening comprehension ability of English-spcaking students of Spanish, data from

GIisan 445

native-speaker performance o n the same listening tasks are also examined in comparing native-speaker processing to that of foreign language learners. This evidence is then examined in the light of existing syntactic theory in a n effort to establish a supporting theoretical base.

THE NATURE OF WORD ORDER KNOWLEDGE AND MEMORY PROCESSES IN LISTENING

There is little scientific data t o shed light o n the specific types of processes involved in listening to a foreign language o r the kinds of strategies used by listeners. The existing theoretical information. therefore. relies heavily o n research dealing with native-language acquisition and reflects various approaches to the question of how the listener derives meaning from language.

A large number of early studies were based on transformational grammar theory. which posited bottom-up processing proceeding upward in a serial manner from a basic "deep structure" unit (Chomsky 1957). Thus, as a n initial step toward conceptualization. listeners impose a syntactic structure on the oral signal they hear. One syntactic model maintains that listeners have at their command a set of mental strategies by which they segment utterances into constituents, classify them, and retrieve meaning from them. These strategies rely o n the fact that sentencescontain elements to be used as clues to syntactic segmentation (Bever 1970). As listeners identify the constituents. they locate and classify them as noun phrases, verb phrases, determiners. etc. As a result of "click" studies. Fodor and &ver ( 1965) previously demonstrated that grammatical structure influences the segmentation of the signal. That is. listeners tend to perceive a superimposed click as occurring at a natural sentence break, given a specific grammatical structure. Other findings have led to the conclusion that grouping of sentential elements is influenced by underlying relations as well as by the length of the sentence (Martin, Kolodziej. and Genay 197 I ) . Fodor and Garrett (1967). in their "Derivational Theory of Complexity," suggested that sentences which necessitate more transformations take longer to be comprehended.

Rivers, Azevedo, Heslin, and Hyman-Opler ( 1976) in their theory based o n certain aspects of the T G model, stress that the second language learner participates actively in decoding and that listening involves more than

116 Languuge Learning Vol. 35, No. 3

m n t k dscodiw. According to Rivers, "it is a n act of construction rather tk.a pmceptiorr" (Mut lkr 197120). She maintains that three activities are invotvd in the btening process: sensing, segmenting, and recoding. The lbtcncr first "senses" the outline of the rncssagc via phonemic perception, intorution, rhythm, and pce. Second, he recognizes (or "segments") a syntactic skeleton consistkg of the subject, verb, complements, clauses, a d ph-, and attaches meanings which may plausibly fit. Third, the listener 'recoder" the segments for Ions-term memory (Rivers 1976). In addition, foreign Lnguagc listeners retain the gist of what was said, rather t h n the actual statements. In the process of reducing oral stimuli to factual statements, the karner produces s impk active declarative sentences which a n usually converted to subject-nrb-object order, the basic type in many grammars. Further, Rivers incorporates k n r ' s (1970) strategies as techniques employed by the foreign language learner in understanding spstch. Thus, the listener ( I ) segments sequences into "actor-action- object.. . modifier relations**; (2) expects the first "noun. . . verb . . . (noun)" to be the main clause unless preceded by subordinating conjunctions; (3) combines k x k a l items in a plausible way; and (4) relies on syntactic p r d n g when semantic expectations fail (Rivers 1976).'

Various subacquent studies have calkd into question the TG concept of a n innate language acquisition device, while attr ibuting language acquisition to the gradual development of the capacity for symbolic cogni t ion (Morehead a n d Morehead 1977). Acknowledging t h e p h e b i l i t y of both semantic and syntactic strategies. the majority of present approaches advocate that universal-cognitive processing and l a n # u r r ~ p e c i f ~ structural processing together may be involved in li8teniry comprehension (Beilin 1975). Marskn-Wilson and Tyler ( 1980) s- that there is a n interaction between structural and semantic knowkdge; t hw, language m a y be processed by means of various accesses (phorrdolicll I, kxical, structural, semantic), with discourse context also &tag operative. Similarly, Byrnes (1984:322) has posited the existence of o m inatrpretive processor which would "best account for the fact that mniw dnws on a n unbroken, broad interpretive domain, where both the syntactic and the semantic component have the capac i ty to convey nr#nintr, each in different ways." In &r to achieve a n effactive kvel of listening comprehension in the

'sckltriw (1968) den to this procedure as "scmantlc-synlactrc decoding."

Glisan 44 7

classroom, present literature stresses the necessity of a massive amount of "comprehensibk input." which should be one step ahead of the listeners' capabilities (Krashen 1982). OUer (1979) has proposed that the goal of extensive listening practice is to develop a broad 'expectancy grammarw which the listener can draw upon t o predict what the speaker will s a y next. Krashen's (1980) distinction between language acquisition and language learning is manifested in his claim that structural linguistic knowledge dots not facilitate language acquisition (spontaneous use of language). He maintains that students acquire structure not by learning structures but by concentrating uniquely o n meaning. Nevertheless, his theory acknow- ledges the necessity of maintaining unity of form and meaning in the input through a preliminary stage of slower production, reduced syntactic complexity and utterance kngth. and limited lexicon. This implies. therefore, that syntactic complexity has some effect on facility of comprehension. Recent research. moreover. calls into question the applicability of the Input Hypothesis to the formal foreign language learning situation, in that it fails to account for fossilization and terminal performance profiles (Higgs 1985).

In one of the few empirical studies focusing o n listening to a foreign language, the importance of syntactic knowledge was examined. Heien (1975) conducted an experiment in Russian as a second language in order to obtain data relative to the importance of lexical cornprehension versus structural awareness. He presented one group of listeners with vocabulary to be encountered as well as English glosses, and the second group with a literal translation using Russian syntax. The second group exposed to structure comprehended the passage more effectively than did the group which had received only vocabulary training. Heien's finding was an indication that syntactical knowledge is paramount in understanding the spoken message. Snow's (1981) experiment revealed an effect on word order knowledge o n the ability of English speakers to translate into Dutch. Wipfs (1984) study examining the comprehension of foreign language learners of German at Purduc University further substantiates the claim that the recognition of grammatical signals is a fundamental component of listening comprehension.

Memory studies have attempted to account for the limited capaci ty of memory span, both in the rate of proccssingas well as in storage capabili ty. In a battery of experiments, Sachs (1967) found that verbatim recall is accurate immediately after a sentence is heard; however. after 40 syllables

448 Language Learning Vol. 35, No. 3

(or about 12% rcconds), the exact surface structure is lost while the mt.niq is retaid. Gtntrrrlly short-term memory is considered to be the midpoint to comprehension; the more time listeners have to process a n -ma, tht kss they maintain of its exact form and the more they retain

Invcstiptions of memory processing for foreign language input have not ken c o n d m to as grecrt a n extent as those done with native language stimuli. In his 1973 experiment with adult learners of English. adult native E&sh speakerr. and native English-speakins children. Cook tested the ability to interpret sentences withembedded relative clauses. He found that children and foreign adults experience a similar difficulty in processing sentcnccm. Further. the native learners and children resort to using the "actor-.Ction-obpct" strategy in naming the subject, verb, and object, as s u w by &ver (1970). As a result of these findings. Cook concluded that short-term memory operates similarly in both the native and target l a ~ r u ~ . despite its reduced capacity in the foreign language. Another study hu shed lifit on the relationship between performance on tests tapping running memory. syntactic memory, lexical memory. semi-lexical memory. and tonal memory and standardized listening comprehension scores. Call (1979) found memory for syntax to be the most important fmtor of short-term memory and proposed that the ability to group and remember linpistic input is of great importance in efficient listening.

of tht nrerrniw.

A CHARACTERIZATION OF SPANISH AND ENGLISH WORD ORDER

Through a comparison of Spanish and English word order systems, potential areas of difficuhy for the English-speaking listener may be anticipated. Word order in Spanish is governed by both grammatical rules. usually bound to dynamic stress. and semantic rules. usually bound to scn8enx st-. Grcrmmatical order. which has limited application. dictates that words lacking stress must closely accompany stresscd words which they pvem, such as conjunctive object pronouns. Semantic word order, on the other hand, is essentially "free." although some normal order of wonlr must be obecrved, since the semantic function depends on a contrast b e t w n various types of sequencing.

GIisan 449

The basic patterns most commonly found in Spanish arc: 1 . s-V-(O) 2. v-S-(O) 3. 0-v-s

When there is no following object, the order V-S is preferred. Furthermore, the tendency to place the verb before the subject is so strong that placing the subject before the verb may imply that something follows the verb. In compound sentences in which a short clause is followed by a longer one. the order of subject and verb Is inverted. I t is often desirabk to invert the normal subject-verb order if the Sentence appears in a paragraph with subjects followed by verbs. e.g.. "El inventor vivia feliz en su vieja mansion; tenia este caballero cuantas comodidades pueden hallarsc en una casa moderna" (Neale-Silva and Nelson 1967:200). Frequently the verb precedes the subject if an adverbial phrase precedes the entire unit. The high incidence of "verb-subject" syntax in Spanish occurs as a result of pragmatic considerations. such as topicality of the subject with respect to the predicate. Whereas Spanish expresses topic-focus relations by means of word order (with old information in initial position). "subject-verb" languages, such as English, tend to express the same pragmatic contrast by mea ns of "s t ress-focus." o r intonation.

Other word order patterns are also possible in Spanish. though of less frequency. For purposes of topicalization or focus. a n element may be either preposed o r postposed from its normal position in the sentence. Thus. through manzana" may

changes in word order, the sentence "Juan comio la be attributed various types of emphasis:

V-S-0: "Comib Juan la mantana." V-0-S: "Comic5 la manzana Juan." 0-V-S: "La manzana comic5 Juan."*

In cases of object-verb-subject word order. the object is often repeated by means of a conjunctive pronoun: "Ese programa lo mirt en la televisibn ayer." Variations in focus result from ward order alteration.

The word order pattern "subject-o@ect-verb" occurs principally in the presence of a conjunctive object pronoun, e.g.. "La maestra me lo dijo."

The typical word order character@k of the English language is the subject-verb-object order. Generally speaking, the final position in a sentence o r clause is occupied by the new or most important idea, which is

'As there is a tendency to aboid placing the verb in final position. the sequence objcct- subject-verb IS very unlikcl!, to occur. except in literary usage

450 Languagt Ltarning Vol. 3.5. No. 3

.Ira mudly tbt molt 'vuttghty" pnrt of the sentence3 Variation of the standad w d order, which is very infrequent in English, occurs for paupam af topicrrlintion. SententiAI elements m a y be "fronted" in order t o h e g i ~ ~ prominence. For exampk. a speaker m a y front an . .

or comphm~ to attribute d o u b k emphasis: / An utter fool 1 felt/ too. / /Rebxotion you a l l it./ c-s-v-0

Fmntbg may ah0 be done to dramatically contrast two things mentioned in m u t j v c stntenccs or ckwes. which often have parallel structure:

/ His face/ I'm not fond of/ but his c h r a c t e r / 1 despise./

la ddith, 8 krr important ideo is often fronted so that end focus may be @vea to aaotber more important idea:

/ Musi of these prob&ms/ a computer could solve easily. / Fro- is oftm accoaapnnkd by inversion, whereby the verb phrase (or p.rt of it) is Q O V ~ before the subject. Subject-verb inversion. which gives ad focus to the subject, mrry occur if the verb phrase consists of a single verb wad, if the verb is an intransitive verb of position, or a verb of motion. uod if t& topic ekment is a n adverbial of place or direction:

/ In/ w n t the sun/ and down/ came the rain. Tbt invcrsiorr of rub&t and operator (or auxiliary) occurs in most qucahm and aho in fronting a ncmtive element for emphasis. In fact, iavwsioa is oblig.tory after fronting of words carrying negative meaning, such as never, scwceiv. littk. etc.:

/Not a wordldid he say. , Tbt word JO, demoti- the idea of "addition," necessrtates subject-operator invltrriorr for end focus:

c-s-v

a. I've Sctn the pky. b. So have I and so did my friends.

Is E w k , the ckft sentence construction with introductory i t fronts a n e-t as a topk and placta focus on it:

/ No./ it's the o r k r book/ that 1 want to read. I

In addition. other fronted items m a y occur in idiomatic or literary constnrtioRI, such as in the following conditional and conditional- M v e chuses:

~ ~~~~~

'k- to Lssck and Svartvik ( 1975: 175) the %ifit" of on ekment can be defined in d h@ (t.8.. mmber of s y k b k s ) o r in terms of @r8mmaticaI compkxlty (number of

mldidbm *.).

Glisan 45 I

Should you change your plan. S a y what you will ot' h im. . . 4

On the basis of this analysis. we predict that English speakers have little o r no diffkulty in recognizing the S-V-O pattern. which is identical in the two languages. They most likely experience a certain amount of difficulty with the V-S-0 order due to the fact that it does not exist in English. although the sequence adverb-verb-subjcct is possibk. English-speaking listeners probably experience the greatest difficulty, however, with the 0- V-S word order in Spanish. This prediction is made in view of the fact that this order is a complete reversal of the normal English order. Since the object is prcposcd from its usual final position, it is likely to be confused with the subject. Similarly. in accordance with contrastive analysis theory, major probkms arise when a native language and target language pattern have overlapping similarities. such as the Occurrence of 0-S-V in cases of topicalization in English and the 0-V-S order of Spanish.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

An experiment was conducted in an effort to examine the effect of Spanish word order on the listening comprehension and pattern retention abilities of English-speaking students of Spanish. The English-speaking participants who formed the experimental group were 43 undergraduate students from the University of Pittsburgh, enrolled in advanced level Spanish courses. The control group consisted of 21 native Spanish speakers residing in the Pittsburgh area, 13 of whom were enrolled in classes at the University of Pittsburgh.

5

Design and Methdology

The principal part of the experimental test was a 2 X 3 X 3 X 2 factorial design with repeated measures. The independent variabks were the following:

*The exampks provided in this section were found in 1.m-h and Svartvik ( 1975. I76 79) and

'These students were in their fourth semester of study and beyond. in Quirk and Gmnbaum (1973:41244).

4 2 lnnguage Learning V o / . 35. No. 3

1. Word Order: a. subject-verbobject b. verb-subbt-object c. object-verb-subject

2. M t i o n of ScnteMx: a. initial b. medial C. fin01

3. Length: Modification or nonmodification of the object6 The dement v a r h b k was the participants' scores on the listening comphenrion ud retention test.

T k listening comprehension and retention test consisted of a series of 36 pmgrapbr which wen taped by a Latin American native speaker of Spanish. ' T h e independent var iables were carefully cont ro l led . Comparabk kngth of the paragraphs was maintained by controlling the number of syllrrbks: each passage contained approximately I50 syllables. (This prooadure of counting syllabks t o control for length has been done in

crkuhting the reading difficulty kvel of materials [Flesch 1948; Fry

Contexts were used instead of a series of isolated sentences in order to nfbct tht normal listening situation. In the paragraph contexts, natural sebctioar of language were used: brief, entertaining stories, many of which were fabWike. To this end. the past tense was used due to its frequency in -1 ianguagt use in relaying happenings which have previously occurred. Thb type of moterial was extracted from Spanish oral readers and textbooks. h u s c of the difficulty in finding passages of the exact l0alt)t 8 d difficulty kvel. many of the passages were altered by various Sg.& ~ t i v t speakers from Latin America.

Gven the factorial cksiin of the experiment, a total of 36 paragraphs was n e d d to test each possible combination of variables twice (see Appendix A). Each parapaph was constructed to contain one "key" sentence which k r t d the pnrticular word order, length, and position in the paragraph. OC the 36 pasaaw, I2 had their key sentences in the subject-verb-object word order, I2 featured the verb-subject-object order, and 12 had the

1968)*

% yu&ui&d to modify the object h w c modrficd obpcts were more suitable giben the C O I Y ~ d the 'W Anaic8n Sprakb was chorrn because our students arc tausht general Latin

An#icrr w. A h . the same speaker's VOKY was uoed throughout the experiment t o

.wid-- * of k a n q various di.lccts and v o r e characteristrs. % f.a Fhacb (1948) ku &red an equation whrch identifies reading ease with average

rcrolor

chosen than w k modifkd subpts.

w o d and 8vcr4e word k q t h rn syllmbks.

Glisan 4.5.3

object-verb-subject order. To avoid unnecessary complication. the key sentences contained the active voice as well as simple subjects. simple verbs. and s i m p k direct objects. As a result of findings of a n earlier pilot s tudy , only direct objects weft included in the key sentences and object pronouns weft excluded. In terms of case relations. the subjects of the key sentences represented "agent." "experiencer." o r "benefactive" case categories.' Of the 36 paragraphs. 12 featured the key sentence in initial position in the paragraph. 12 in medial position. and 12 in paragraph-final position. Of the 36 paragraphs. 18 had key sentences which had no modification (8-1 3 syllables in length) while the other 18 were modified (14-25 syllables in length). The paragraphs were taped in random order.

Participants recorded their responses in answer booklets, in which each comprehension and retention item was o n a separate page. Participants heard each paragraph once and were told t o turn t o the next page in their answer booklets where they saw a comprehension question in Spanish and heard it o n tape at the same time. The question was posed in such a way as to elicit information from the key sentence. As Task I . participants wrote a brief answer to the question. Afterwards. they were told to proceed to the next page of their answer booklets, where they saw three different word o rde r versions (subject-verb-object; verb-subject-object; object-verb- subject) of the key sentence which they previously heard in context (see Appendix B). They were instructed, as Task 2, to circle the letter of the sentence which they remembered having heard in exactly that word order pattern .

10

I I

Prettsts

An attempt was made to control for the possibility that vocabulary recognition would prove to be a n intervening variable in the main part of the experiment. Two weeks before the listening comprehension and

'Frances M Aid (1973) prokidcs d detaikd explanation 01 c a x grammrr relalions with respect to the Spanish language

I t was decided to ask the questions in Spanish so that word order retention wouid not be affected by translating back and forth into English Also. each question was prcxnted in written as well as oral Corm in order that students would not habe to concentrate on holding the question in memory

I t was decided that. for Task 1 . a tree response lormat would be a truer test ol cornprehension due 10 the diffwdty in composing plausibk options in a multiplechoice format On the other hand. a multiplccholcc format was used for 1 ask 2 to akoid an excessibe load on short-term memory and for ease in scoring as well

10

I I

4s4 Laqpuge h m i n g Vol. 35. No. 3

e n t i o n test, the E&sh-rperking students of Spanish were given by their Spnirh irrrtnrcrOn a voc8buhry kt to rcvkw for one week. The list anmhed of k x h l items sebctsd from the listening comprehension and maation tes8 which either may not have been taught in the advanced-kvel ~OUCICI at tht University of Pittsburgh or which pose certain difficulties for students.

After cuu wcek of review, students were tested on their knowledge of the vocabulary. Iht exercise, or pretest I , was a 45-item multipk-choice test in which ttudtnts compktd a series of scntencts by choosing, from among four options. the approprhte verb, noun, adjective, or adverb.

After the scori- of these tcrts, the 13 students who scored below 70 peFccnt on the t x e ~ were el idnatcd from the final test. '' This wasdone in view of the strow W b i l i t y that their lack of vocabulary knowledge w d be a major f.ctor in comprehension.

A second pretest was administered in order to assure t h a t comprttwnsion in the final sqpncnt of the experiment would not be a f k t d by supr8scgmcnt.l "elision" factors. In devising an elision test , the author made a list of all vocalic and gtminatc combinations across word boundaries which were prestnt in the contexts to be used for the final part of the experiment. A series of 25 short sentences exemplifying major occumnccs of thew combinations was compiled. These sentences were then taped by t b same Spanish speaker whose voice participants would hear in the f i ~ l part of the experiment.

The elision test was a dictation exercise in which participants wrote down each Spanish sentence as they heard it and then gave a n English trrnshtion (see Appendix C). In this manner, the listening comprehension of each occurrence of elision was examined. All 43 English-speaking subjects participated in this second pretest, which was administered a few days before the final test. The procedure used in scoring the elision test was simply to give om point for each correct translotion and assign a total score

on straight percentage of 100. Of the 43 participants, only 5 scored below 70 percent on this test. These same 5 participants had already been elimirutai from Part 111 on the basis of poor vocabulary scores. Thus. no additional peopk had to be eliminated from the final part of the expcrirmnt.

'-My prrmt was 4 as the c u t 4 pornt since that numkr normally represents the Lo- T #talk. which bconridtted to k averas kvel performance. There was thought to be littk W i t in irrludiw M o w awrrrp participants in the expcnmcnt.

Glisan 455

A few days before the listening comprehension and retention test. students were instructed to preparc by reviewing the vocabulary review sheets again. This was done as a second check to ensure that vocabulary knowlcde would not skew the comprehension results.

A very simple procedure was used in scoring the responses of the listening comprehension and retention test. For both the comprehension responses and multipk-choicc retention responses, a correct / incorrect system was adopted in which one point was given for each correct answer and a score of yzerow was given for each incorrect response. There was a maximum possibk score of 36 for comprehension and 36 for retention. Since each combination of variables was tested twice, the maximum comprehension score for each of the 18 combinations was 2, as was the maximum retention score for each combination.

A four-way analysis of variance with three repeated measures (word order, position of key sentence, and length ([+/ - modified]) was done with the comprehension and retention data. This analysis tested for main effects and interactions in order to examine the effect of word order o n comprehension and retention. The significant values were obtained by means of a Duncan Multi-Comparison Test. The means for both parts of the test were computed and comparisons were made between the comprehension and retention performance of the English speakers and that of the native Spanish speakers.

RESULTS

Table I summarizes the combined results of the Spanish-speaking and English-speaking g r o u p s o n the comprehens ion t a s k . The cell characteristics and combined cell means and standard deviations are presented in Tabk 2. Significant main effbcts were found for native language (N), word order pattern (0). position of key sentence (P). and length (L). Figure I illustrates a comparison of the mean comprehension

sum# of Mcrn - Fndoar sq- SS-m F

N I 81.32 81.32 36.06*- Err#

0 ON Emmr

P p# Eirw

0.

Enw

L LN Emw

49

2 2

91

2 2

98

4 4

1%

110.49

5.28 7.68

33.00

3.62 .79

17.04

.30 I. I8

49.95

2.25

2.64 3.84 .34

1.81 .39 . I 7

.07

.30

.25

0.4 I 2.26

.29 I. I6

I 3.21 3.2 I 10.2 I ** I .28 .28 .89 49 15.39 .31

2 .80 .a 1.37 2 2.73 1.37 4.69.

98 28.55 .29

2 4.73 2 I .57

98 30.36

2.37 7.64-9 .78 2.53 . 3 l

4 4.83 1.21 4.54- 4 I .97 .49 I .8S

1% 52.17 .27

GIisan 45 7

Tab& 2 A NOVA I : Cellc.harocttristics. ~QOIIS. and standard &viairons for native -rsh-sptakirtg

and native English-sptakIng groups for comprtknsion task

~

Position Length Word of (+ - Spanish English Ordc c Sentence Modified) Speakers Speakers

1 0 ) (P) (L) Means S D Means SD Cell

-MOD I 7 1 46 I 37 72 A +MOD 190 30 I10 61 B -MOD I 7 1 46 153 68 c' +MOD 2.00 00 I 4 3 73 1)

-MOD I 9 5 22 I30 7s c +MOD 2.00 00 I60 56 f- -MOD I 9 0 44 I 3 3 w ) 6 +MOD 138 67 I 10 76 H

-MOD I 4 8 60 I20 76 I +MOD 190 30 I57 63 J

In i t ial

svo Medial

Final

Initial

vso Medial

-MOD I 7 1 56 I 10 76 K +MOD I95 22 I .w 79 1 -MOD I 7 6 54 w ) 76 M

Final

+MOD 1.116 48 I03 76 N -MOD I95 22 97 WI 0 +MOD I 9 5 22 I 17 79 P

Initial

o v s Medial

Final -MOD 190 .w 73 74 0 +MOD I90 30 I 4 3 73 R

I \ scores for both groups across the three word order types. Using these comparisons as presented in the tables and figure. we m a y make several observations concerning the comprehension performance of both groups of participants. First. as was expected, the mean comprehension scores of the native Spanish speakers were consistently higher under all variables t h a n t h o s e of t h e Engl i sh-speaking g r o u p . S e c o n d , t h e m e a n comprehension scores of the native Spanish speakers for each word order pattern were not highly different. However. within the English-speaking group, a hierarchy of comprehension difficulty associated with word order was revealed. That is. this group demonstrated higher comprehension performance for S-V-O sentences than for the other two types and they scored higher on items involving V-S-0 order than they did for 0-V-S

The graphs are included to illustrate differences in mean scores And d o not neccssaril? I 1

indicate significant statistical rnteractions or difierences

45u

2.0

I .9

I .8 I .7

d :f I 1.4 t 9 1.3 z 1.2

1.1

I .o

VOl. 35. No. 3

Native

I .72

--- /.a ---- --I-

---&

Native English

'*2 Speakers

-a -* -* *- --. I.$--

/--

F i i I . A NOVA I : Cornprison of the mean comprehension scores of borlt g v o q ~ s of pnrtkipmts for the three word or&r patterns.

sentences. The mean scores for 0-V-S sentences were significantly lower than the means for either S-V-0 or V-S-0 types. Third. the fictor of sentence Length as represented in terms of the

pttrtnct or abstnoe of modifbation proved to have an effect on the comprtkarion of both group of participants. The mean comprehension s a m s for tbt losv, modified sentences were significantly higher than for t k shortsr, Usmodifrad stntenccs. This points to the probability that RLodjcKTtios .idr comprehension by producing a ckarcr, betterdefined coIIctpt. This finding &arcs claims set forth by Paivio (197 I ) in the '%may" model of mmory representation. The positive effect of arodirrcrrtion is quite interesting. as the author has Sccn this basic pbmemma operant in tk f o e e n hnguaw learning situation. In the aw.l task, providiry a student with more explanatory and/or d u n d a n t infom&on makes comprehtnrion easier and more effective. Even in one's ti^ hlyurgc, h r i - a volumt of information on a given topic usually f d t a t e s -iq in comp.ri.Oa to receiving only minimal details. The pbrronrtaon suktmthtcs the ckims made by Swinncy and Hakes ( 1976) and M.nlta-Wiborr and Tyler ( 1980) that the presence of a context d w u s the number of maanin8 interpretations.

Glisan 439

Fourth. the data showed a significant effect with respect to position of the key sentence for both groups of participants. The mean comprehension scores for initial sentences were found to k signifmntly lower than the scores for medial and final sentences. Medial and final sentences m a y be understood better because the prior context of the passage aids understanding. This phenomenon. if indeed operant, supports the semantic theories of Clark and Clark (1977) and Oller (1979). w h o acknowledge the importance of pnor context in comprehending a given s t i m ul us.

The fact that lower comprehension scores appeared for the initial sentences points to memory as a probabk effect. Thus. because the final sentence is the last item t o be heard, the information can be more easily recalled. whereas the information in a n initial sentence m a y be forgotten due to the load on short-term memory. This finding is purely tentative; nevertheless, it could be verified through further experimentation with a larger sample of participants and by featuring the same sentence in various positions in the context. If this claim is accurate. it suggests that memory plays a key role in listening t o both the native and target languages. This finding corroborates those of Cook ( 1975; 1977) and Harris ( 1970). who hake proposed that short-term memory is a good indicator of foreign language proficiency and functions similarly in both the native and target languages.

Pattern Retention

Table 3 summarizes the results of the A N O V A for both groups in the retention task. The cell characteristics and combined cell means and standard deviations for the retention task are presented in Table 4. Significant main effects were found for native language (N). word order pattern (0). and position of key sentence (P). Figure 2 compares the mean retention scores of both groups for the three word order patterns.

Again, several observations can be made with respect to the retention performance of both groups of participants. First. not surprisingly. the mean retention scores of the native Spanish speakers were consistently higher under all variables than were those of the English-speaking group. Second. in the case of the English speakers. there emerged a hierarchy of difficulty associated with retaining Spanish surface word order. That IS. they retained S-V-0 order significantly better than V-S-0. while retaining V-S-0 significantly better than 0-V-S. Further, for both groups, the mean

I 49

2 2

98

2 2

98

4 4

1%

I I 49

2 2

9(1

2 2

98

4 4

196

2S.78 60.27

63.8 I 9.60

87.18

20.82 4.22

51.34

2. I 4 2.52

75.58

.oo

.29 19.74

7.48 2.10

37.93

3.10 2.95

39.89

.34 I .47

57.73

25.78 I .23

31.90 4.80

.89

10.41 2.1 I

.52

.54

.63

.39

.oo

.29

.40

3.74 I .05 .39

1.55 I .a .4 I

.09

.37 29

20.96'"

35.116"' 5.40-

I9.87*** 4.03.

1.39 I .63

0.0 I 0.73

9.67*.+ 2.7 I

3.80. 3.63'

0.29 I .25

mestion scores were significantly hi-r for S-V-0 than for the other two pa8$er1~. A M the En@h speakers retained the V-S-0 pattern Siqrificrrdy better than 0-V-S. there is virtually no difference in retention For tlw V-S-0 and 0 4 - S sentences in the case of the Spanish speakers. In m. time is practically no difference between the two groups of putmpmu in tbGir retention scores for V-S-0 sentences. These tendencies deawaarcrtcd by both groups substantiate claims made by Sachs (1967)

. .

TahL 4 A NOVA 2: Ctll charocrerisrics. means. a d standard ckvrarrons for narirv Spanish-spoking

and m m w h R l i s h - s p k r n g groups for rtrmrion task

~~~ ~~

Position Length Word of (+ - Spanish English Order Sentence Modified) Speakers Spc8kers

(0) (PI (L) Means S D Means S D Cell

svo

VSO

ovs

-MOD I 7 1 +MOD I 19 I n r t iul

Media I -MOD 1.71 + M O D 1.67

-MOD I .90 +MOD I .n6 Fi na I

-MOD +MOD I nr t ral

-MOD +MOD Medial

-MOD +MOD Final

. 62 76

.67

.24

10 .57

-MOD 00 +MOD 57

-MOD 76 +MOD I 10

-MOD I 4 3 +MOD 1.24

I nit ra I

Med la I

t-rnal

46 75

46 48

30 36

74 nu 73 U3

77 m 77 75

77 77

75 62

1.10 I 10

I 10 I I 3

I 33 I 2 3

u7 u7

93 I 2 0

u7 93

43 37

CIO 30 93 67

.7b

.71

.71

.7u

.61

.63

.16

.n2

.74

.61

. u2

. u7

.M

.61

. SC,

- 5 3

.t&

.71

A B

c D

E F

G ti I J

K 1

M N

0 P

v R

and Bransford and Franks (1971) indicating that listeners lose the exact surface wording of a given stimulus and retain the information in some other basic form. The similar results of both groups also support Cook's (1978) theory that short-term memory operates in much the same way in both native and target languages, in spite of its reduced capacity in the foreign language.

Third, the factor of sentence length through modification did not significantly affect the retention performance of either group. In general terms. for both groups, the short, unmodified sentences were retained somewhat (though not significantly) better than were the longer. modified sentences. There have been various claims made which indicate that complex sentences necessitate longer processing time (Fodor and Garrett 1967; Forster and OIbrei 1973). Although this may be true for sentences with a number of subordinate clauses, this did not prove to be the case for sentences characterized by a n adjectival phrase modifying the direct object.

462

2.0 I .9

I .8

I .7 I .6 1 1.3

I .J i!

= 1.2

k= 8 1.3 C

1.1

1 .O

Vol. 35. No. 3

”\ Native

Spanish ‘ . I7 -*. ---- Speakers

I .Oi Native - - . . O O ~ ~ O - - - ~ English

09s n Speakers vso ovs svo

F m 2. ANOVA 2: Significant two-way inreroction: comparison of the m8-h scores of both groups of participants f o r the three w’ord

In all probrbility, the modified sentences were not long or complex enough to sub6uRm Uy affmt retention.

-nwSt&tBmd results revealad a significant effect of position of the key 011 the retention performance of both groups of participants. The

sr- (madif& or unmodified) in final position were retained -rrr?ly better t h n thost in the initial o r medial positions. This points to thc p r o h b i ~ t y that t k final sentence or stimulus produces an “echoic dbct” on short-term memory, which thus facilitates retention of the Uuirrrpt pattern. Thest claims support those of Jarvella (1971) and Scarbonw&, Corttst, and Scarborough (1977). indicating that the last

or itcm of a n oral context will be remembered longer by short- W d numory.

A comprrison of the errors made on the retention test offered indirect proof of the usc of similar strategies by both groups of listeners. Table 5 pmaents a comptnrison of the error analysis data for both the English- apeah# and Spanish-speaking groups. As illustrated by the types and ayllibttl of errors mdc, both groups performed in a similar manner. That is, w h cttotj were made in m i n i n g thc V-S-O or 0-V-S patterns. both poup c h the S-V-0 pattern signifmntly more often than any other

or& ptte?m.

. .

GIisan 463

Ti&& 5 Comparison of Error And.vses on &rention Thrlr : Norivt .sgOnrJh-sprelrmg and nariw

En&sh-sproking groups (rorol possible score: Spanish sptakrrs. 252; hglish splorltrr. 360)

Errors Made Native Number of

Correct LWWgc Correct N o Pattern Group RCSpoWSS svo vso O V S Response

Spanish 2 10 English 208 Spanish JJ5 109 English I73 148

svo

vso

30 9 3 104 23 24

25 3 22 17

Spanish I38 87 23 Ennlish 96 I30 I10 ovs 4

24

word order pattern. This finding corroborates those of Sachs (1967). Bransford and Franks ( 197 I ) , and Anderson ( 1974). suggesting that listeners retain information in some "basic" form. Moreover. it supports claims made by Bates and MacWhinney (1981) and G a s (1984) that language transfer and language universals are interacting variables in comprehension of syntax. In addition, this evidence lends additional support to the concept of a basic deep structure posited by the TG model. If we assume that the S-V-0 order is in fact this "basic, underlying" form, our findings further support the claim made by Greenberg (1963) and Hadlich ( 1975) that Spanish should be classified as a n S-V-0 language. This theory of word order processing also supports Hadlich's ( 1975) transformational system for Spanish, in which word order patterns other than S-V-0 are the result of a thematization movement rule which fronts complements. verbs. objects. and adverbs from their normal positions.

This evidence is also a most interesting indication. albeit indirect, that listeners have strategies for processing surface word order. As k v e r ( 1970) has indicated. listeners of S-V-0 languages look for the first noun-verb- noun sequence to be a n agent. action, and object unless the sequence is marked otherwise. The experimental data support the probability that. when listeners hear a n atypical structure, they transform it into the basic actor-action-object string. An interesting observation involves the fact that for four of the 0-V-S paragraphs, the so-called "personal u" was required before the direct object in order to mark a human or animate quality. However. neither comprehension nor retention performance of the two groups was affected by the presence of the word 4. which ckarly marked the

464 Langugt Learning Vol. 35, No. 3

fint noun as being an object. This could be due t o the possibility that there was 600 small 8 rrmpk of sentences including the u. that the u wasdifficult to hear cltuty enough in the context, or that this marking does not eJimiaate tbt need for transforming the sequence into S-V-O. Nevertheless, amre t x w v c experimentation is necessary to examine this finding furtbtr.

IMPLICAnbNS FOR SPANlSH FOREIGN LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY

Tht fact that the experimental data have evidenced a relationship bet- aural comprehension and word order pattern-type points to the inrportuwx of giving students ample opportunities to practice aural

of the various word order patterns of Spanish. In the beginning Itws, of law- instruction, simpk word order patterns should be used as much as pomibk to avoid syntactic compkxity, as suggested by Krashen. Siaoc the reqwncing of wntenct ekments in Spanish often occurs for

rcasona of topicalkation and focus, as well as other stylistic factors, rtudtats d to be aware of the semantic-syntactic conditioning which t- each type of pattern. At present, the majority of textbooks leave the isconclur tion of word order to the intuitions of the students. Since this strdy has mmkd certain comprehension differences of English-speaking students with rerpsct to word order. it Seems to be a n indication that these pa- must bt explicitly presented.

Ahbough Knohen's theory of comprehensible input does not advocate tea&- of grammar ruks, there is presently no substantive empirical tvidtsot to prove that avoidance of grammar instruction in the foreign hn#tms c k r o o m k e d s to language acquisition. Until such evidence apprs. we should approach the teaching task with a wide variety of strat- for increasing our students' abilities to comprehend and utilize the tar@ I.-.

As in pmctmn 8 other grammatical structures, a sequence of aural/ oral exercises could be utilized by the instructor in presenting and practicing Spanish word order. Tha t is, in addition to giving the student conversational input, the "mtc hanical-mcani ngful-com m unica t i ve" t& wucncc could be employed to periodically focus on word order ( h u b t o n and Bw&r 1976). While all types of word order should be

. .

Glisan 445

practiced, emphasis needs to bc placed upon thosc patterns proven to cause comprehension difficulties for Englishapcaking students. in particular, the 0-V-S order. In order to facilitate rapid processing of word order patterns, the teacher should use listening comprehensiondiscrimination exercises in which students must identify the a s n t , action. and object or the word order pntterns of given sentences. Oral manipulation of the patterns can be practiced by means of the following:

1 .

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

repet i t ion dr i l ls ( s tuden t repeats sentences verbat im while internalizing word order patterns and developing auditory memory) substitution drills (student hears a sentence and substitutes new elements [subject, verb, object, etc.]); he must manipulate the word order by placing the sentence ekment(s) in the appropriate slot(s)) transformation drills (student changes one word order pattern to another for practice of word order formation) expansion drills (student adds new elements to sentences while ma nip ula t i ng the order of constituents ) completion drills (student adds his own new information to statements while focusing on the syntactical relationships of sentence elements) free response drills (student responds freely to questions while simultaneously manipulating word order)

Obviously these exercises must never supplant real communicative experiences in the classroom but are designed to facilitate comprehension of normal target language input. Through the application of these pedagogical techniques, students should be better trained to recognize aurally and comprehend word order patterns as well as use them in oral communication.

Another implication of this study for teaching involves the finding that the more detai led. modified sentences increase comprehens ion effectiveness. In a similar manner, providing a descriptive context for a situation o r an idea is likely to be an aid for comprehension. In the author's experience as a teacher, the technique of utilizing listening passages and dialogues in the foreign-language classroom has proven to be a beneficial way not only to present grammatical structures. but also to develop effective comprehension skills. In addition, restating a stimulus in a more detailed. even if somewhat redundant form, usually clarifies the message and resolves any cornprehension difficulties. Thus, foreign language instructors should use aural passages or dialogues which are adequately

4 6 Language Learning VOl. 35. No. 3

M p r i v e ud rbuld be prepared t o r e i t a t e a w l stimuli in an ex- ma- in the face ofcoraprehtnsion pmbkms.

A find implication of this invcst@tion for pedagogy is b a d on the tbrt the final sentence in a given context is the easiest t o remember

and coypltbtld. This indicates that studcnts need to develop a more dkc!ive auditory memory for fomgn bngua~ stimuli, cspecklly for the inforamtion which occurs initially or mcdially in the context. As u1str\lctocI, we can help students to expand their short-term memory capcity by giving t k m practice in repeating progressively longer

and in recalling information which is presented in various posit- in the p.srrrgt.

CONCLUSION

Thir study has been pioneer in examining one grammatical aspect, word order, as it is related to the listening cbmprehension skills of English- cr.ull)tiRi students of Spanish. It has idtntifrad a hierarchy of difficulty for N ~ ~ V C E@irh speakers in comprehendins three Spanish word order p.rterrur. kvtrtbeku, cxtcnrive mearch is ntcessory before a complete tstOretial model can be posited. If future experimentation is done in this an#, tlrt subjcct-object-verb pnttern shouM be included in the testing. This will entail the use of object pronouns, which were excluded from the peortnt study. It would be interesting todiscover the place which the S-0-V sentences w d occupy in the hierarchy of difficulty. Other types of syntactic s!riw should be examined, such as subject-verb-complement and the oocurnl~x of both direct and indirect objects. In addition. sukaqucnt studies might replicate this experiment with English speakers at the and intermediate kvels of studying Spanish in order to complrc aural comprehension abilities and possible strategies.

As thir study hm a h indicated that position of a sentence in an oral context and the kngth of that sentence m a y affect comprehension, further study should investigate more extensively the nature of memory and contextual factors.

Wbilc the data pointed to a hierarchy of difficulty and processing &ratcfier with respect to the Engltsh speakers' retention of the surface word order patterns, thest findings remain to be verified by future experimtntatioca and study. Anyone interested in further exploring these

Glisan 46 7

findings might test aural processing via oral responses (participants repeat sentences a n d / o r answer questions) with various word orders. As previously suegested. a subsequent study could more extensively examine the "personal 4'' marking and its relationship to comprehension of word order.

In addition. the experiment tevcakd a correlation between position of sentence in the oral context and retention of surface structure. Subsequent investigations could test varying types of scntence lengths (c.g.. with ad jec t iva l /adverb ia l modif icat ion; t w o independent clauses; one independent clause and one subordinate clause; more than one subordinate clause, etc.) with a larger sampling of participants.

Finally, the results of this investigation have offered a theoretical basis for the formulation of more effective techniques and materials for teaching Spanish word order. Future studies are needed to examine the nature of syntactic processing in the light of the language acquisition/ learning dichotomy. Moreover, the development of a complete pedagogical framework for Spanish word order remains a n area of additional research.

REFERENCES

Aid. F. M. 1973. Semantic srrucruns in Spanish: A proposal .for instructional materials. Washington. DC: Georgetown University Press.

Anderson, J . R . 1974. Verbatim and propositional representation of sentences in immediate and long-term memory. JournaI of Verbal h r n i n g and Verbal k h v i o r 13: 149 62.

Bates. E. and B. MacWhinncy. 1 9 8 1 . Second-Lnguagc acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic. semantic. and perceptual stratcgm. In Nutive funguugrandforeign language acquisition. ed. H. Winitz. pp. 190-214. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

&ilin. H. 1975. Srudies in rk cogniriw basis of language development. New Y ork: Academic Prcss.

k v e r . T.G. 1970. The cognitive h i s for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the rkveloprnenr of hguage. cd. J .R. Hayes. pp. 279-362. New York: Wiky .

Bmlystok, E. 1981. The r o k of conscious strategies in second language profKiency. Modern

Bransford. J.D.. and J . J . Franks. 1971. The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitiw

Byrncs. H. 1984. The rok of listening comprehension: A theoretical base. Foreign Lungwage

Call. M.E. 1979. O n the r e l t i o n r h p between auditory short-term memory and listening

Chomsky. N. 1957. Synrocric sirurrwes. The H a w e : Mouton. Clark, H.E. , and E . V . Clark. 1977. A y c h d q - v and lungwage: An introduction to languuge.

ww J O W ~ 65~24-35.

4'sYcholog-v 2:331-50.

AWLS I7:3 17-29.

comprehension in a foreign language. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.

New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

448 Language Learning Yo/ . 35, No. 3

Cook. V.J. 197% Sttr(elrtr in thc compnhcnrron of relative ciausts Lotqpage ond Spec h

-. 1977. Co@mtiw ploccutr in second Iaquryc learning. /RA L 15: I 20 -. 1978. M - h n g u a # e hrnrnl: A psychollryuuts perspective hmguuge Teaching

-Evans, M. 1981 . Audrtory comprehension in the French conversation class

Flcrh. R. 19411. A m rt.d.brlity yardstkk. Journal of Applwd Psvcholog) 32 221 33 Fador. J.A.. ud T.G. Bevel. 1965. T k poydcd-l m h t y of lingulstlcs segments Journaloj

Fodor. J.A., and M. Garrett. 1967. Some syntactrc determinants of sententmi compkxity

F-. K.I.. IRd 1. Olbrci. 1973 Semntlc hcuristrn and syntactic analysis c ognrtion

Forr. D.J.. a d D.T. Hakcs. 1978. Psycholtngumrics. An mrrodwtion 10 ihe ps,cholog, of

Ftier. C. 194s. TmcW d b m t n g Eughsh as a foreign hnguage Ann Arbor The Univer-

Fry. E. I-. A t a d r b d i t y formula that saves tune. Jowrel o/ Reading I I 513 I6 and 575 78 k. S. I-. A mvyyrr of intcrhnquor syntax. Longua~ transfer and language universals

Gmmhrg, J.H. 1963. Umwrsolrof kguegc Cambndgc M I T P m Had- R.L. 1975. A cr&wmatrorwrlgrmmar of Spontsh Madnd Editonal Grcdos, S A Hams. D.P 1970. Report on an expenmental groupadministered memor) span test TESOL

H e m . L.G. 1975. Towudr a systemotrc development ot lutening comprehension Russian

Hiep T.V. I-. The input hypothew. An insdc look Foreign hnguuge Anna& I8 I97 203 Juvtlh. R.J. 197 I . Synucts processing of connected speech Journal of Verbal Learning and

Kruhtn. S.D. 1980. The input hypothesis. In Current LFSWS in hilrngrrcrl eciucorion. ed J t

-. I-. Rutcp&s ad pactwe in s e c d &nguagt acqursition Yew Y ork Pergamon

L#ch. G.. and J. Svartvik. 1975 A cornmun(caIiw grammar oj Engluh London Longman Mur loWibon. W.D.. md L.K T y k 1980 The temporal structure of spoken language

urdcrurndiry. Cogmrnm 8: I - 7 I Martin. J.E.. 6. Kdoducj; and J . Gcnay 1971 Segmentation ot KntellceS into phonologwal

pbrua u a function of constituent knfih. Journal of Verbal karning and Verbal & h i o r lG226-33.

Mortbah, D.M.. and A. Momhead. 1977 From signal to sign A Piagetian view of thought 8nd hryurrp during the first t w o yc8rs. In hnguagr perspectives Acquisition. nrvdriorr l u u e r w n r m . ed. R L Schrcfelbusch and L L Lloyd, pp I53 90 Baltimore U n i k t y Park Press.

Mudltr. T. 1974. Another look at how to teach listening and reading comprehension MoJIrn

?UembSi)vr. E., and D.A. Nelson. 1967 kngua hrJponicu moderns New York Holc

I 8 1 o c 12.

AQnru 11:73-W.

M A J o d 65116673.

V& od V d d &lurvcor 4414-20.

plmrprion 1 Ayobt@.Vsm 2:zse%.

2319-47.

-. E- Cliffs, NJ: Pmtrcc-Hdl.

saty 04 M-n Press.

3 4 1 1 15-32

Qcwccr?~ 4203- 13.

J d 103:85-93.

WUM &Itrvww I&-- 16.

Abtrr. pp. 168-80. Waslungton. DC: Georgetown University Press

h S 8 .

J ~ n d 18:IO-23

Rinehrt 8nd Winston.

Gfisan 469

N-. J.L. 1982. The 8 b i h y to dcrednt thr qUnmUi#l UIbJCCt 8d h~ dUh to M i r y Sputirh as a fo- h-: A study with Enghh-spcakiq dub. Ph.D. diurtrtion. uniwnity of PitUbur#h.

Okr, J.W. 1979. tests at school. Ldm: Lonqnur. hv io , A. 1971. I v y aud Wrbolpocesses. New York: Hoh. hukoa . C.B.. and M.N. &udtr. 1976. 7-W WIish as a x c d -: Tichnrqurr

and p r o n h u r s . Cambndw: Winthrop PuMirhtrr. Qurrk. R.. and S. Gntntmum. 1973. A concisegromma of c w r m p o r o r y lhglith. New York:

Harcourt &.a Jomnovich. Rivers. W.M.; M.M. Azcvujo, W.H. H d i n , Jr.;and R. Hyman-Opkr. 1976.Aprocricdgw&

10 ihr reor- of spauh. New York: Oxford University h. Sachs. J.S. 1967. Recognition memory for s y n w k and wmrntk aspects of connascd

discourse. hception a d Avchoph.vsies 2:43742. Scuborough. D.L.: C. Cortcrc; and H.S. Scarborough. 1977. Frequency and repetition effects

in lexical memory. Journal of Experimrnral Psycholoby: Human Perception and Prrl;ormoncv 3: I - 17.

Schksingcr. I.M. 1W. Sentence sirwture and t h t reading procrss. The Ha#ue: Mouton. Snow. C.E. 1 9 8 1 . English speakers' acquisition of Dutch syntax. In N o r i w -e and

.foreign languuge ocquisirion. ed. H. Winitz. pp. 235- 50. New York: New Yotk Acukmy of scicrrcc9.

Swinncy. D.A., and D.T. Hokes. 1976. Effects of prior context upon k x d access during sentence comprrhrnsion. Journal of V e r W hwnutg and V e r W &hovior 15:681-89.

W initz, H., d. I 9 8 I . Native language and forryn 1- ocquisirion. New Y ork: New Y ork A d m y of Scknocs.

Wipf. J.A. 1984. Stratep for teaching second language listening comprchcnsron. Fcuagn languqbr Annals 17.34548.

470 Lsngwge Learning Vol. 35. No. 3

APPENDIX A

w@e hmgmpb8 for Listening Comprehension and Rctarrtioa Test

Tbc followin# arc six of the original 36 paragraphs used in the test. Key Se-nXr 8Ct U n d t d l n e d .

1.

2.

3.

4.

U n p o b n wndh hib. Sicmpre trabajaba mucho para poder comer. Ib. t a b s ks ribdoe al monte a cortar lena que traia despucs en su &to. k r o ocum6 quc uno de 10s dbados se pcrdib en el monte. y U@ h nodm sin que t l pudiera dar con la salida. Cansado de andar par aqui y poralli, rcsolvi6 subir a un arbol con la esperanta de dormir rU ma pea. Eoperaba que alguien lo encontrara muy pronto. (SVO, initirl polition, unmodified.)

Adamlapor Ia calk. La mujcr y su marido habian hallado una cartera ntru de oro. El hombre sabh que tenia quc devolver el o r0 a su duefio. Por otro lado, la mujcr no queria que su marido se lo devolviera puesto que mion hambrc y ahora podrian comprar muchas cosas. S in cmbarp, el hombre, pobre pero honrado. llevo la cartera a la policia. El mibio urn rwompnsa basronre grande. (SVO, final position, modif i . ) Aquel dia futron al ctmenterio a despedir 10s restos de Miguel. Era mhna dt invierno. Ya desde muy temprano el cielo negro les aviso. con su forma de paragwas, quc iba a Ilover. Empez6 a ilover a cantaros. y el vknto agbba 10s parrrguas. El padre y el hermano de Miguel. abnzrdoo. Iloraban de afliccibn. Guilkrmo, amigo de Miguel. aunque tcnk laringitis y fiebrc, cumpli6 su deber. Lurci el una apologiu. (VSO. final position. unmodified).

El maestro don Lucas t e n k un loro que era su debilidad, y que estaba sknpre en una perch a lo puerta de la escuela, a respetable altura para crcrrpr de 10s rnuchachos. Aqucl loro y don Lucas se entendian ptrfcct.mente. D t s p d s de las chscs. cada dia disfrutaban el fresco de la tar&. Tom464 el loro pan con chocolate .frio. Esto pasaba cada

'%e d r c test is 8 v a h b k from the author upon request. Send requests to The Dept 01 H k p a i r L.n#u~w and Literatures. 1309 C-L. University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. PA I 5260.

Glisan 471

tarde. Don Lucas lleg6 a tener mucha confianza en su qucrido loro. (VSO, medial position, modified.)

Uno esplindidu cuju de or0 vio Armundo. Pero no le era posible averiguar lo que contenh aquclla caja dc su tio. Aptnas la intentaba tocar, su duefio la escondia rhpida y nerviosarnente en lugarts recbnditos, hacihdola asi inaccesibk. Cuanto m8s la ocultaba su duefio, mayor era el deseo de Armando de enterarse dc lo que contenia. iEscondia una fotografia. una flor seca. un mech6n de pdo? (OVS. initial position, modified.)

La mujer que estaba sentada al lado dtl hombre lo examin6 asombrada y lanzb un suspiro. Le pregunt6 otra vcz pensando que C1 no habia entendido su pregunta. El hombre repiti6 que llevaba un loro en el bolsillo. La rnujer lo observaba con gran atencion. El hombre dej6 que el lor0 mostrara solarnente la cabeza. i Pues whiske.v pidio el loro! En tono sarchstico, la dama le prcgunt6. i E s alcoholico el loro? (OVS, medial posit ion. unmodified. )

5 .

6.

APPENDIX B

Answer Sheet for Listcdng Comprehension and Pattern Rdention Test

The following are six of the original items utilized in the test.

Word Order Alternatives Comprehension Question (Retention Task)

1 . LComo se ganaba la vida el a . Vendia un pobre leila. b. U n pobre vendia leila. c. Leila vendia un pobre.

bastante grande.

recibib t l .

bastante grande.

lefiador?

2. ~ Q u t le pas6 al hombre despuis a. Recibi6 CI una recompensa de devolver la cartera?

b. Una recompensa bastante grande

c. El recibi6 una recompensa

472 Langwge Learning Vol. 35, No. 3

3. ~9u) 8tda qu+ hrctr Guilknno?o. El k y 6 una apologia. b. Ley6 t l una apologia. c. Una apologia ley6 &I.

4. &Q& had8 el loro rl dimfrutar a. Tomaba el lor0 pan con chocolate

b. El lor0 tomaba pan con chocolate

c. Pan con chocolate frio tomaba el

el ffaco de h t8*? frio.

frio.

loro.

5. hizo el bro? a. j P M s whiskey pidi6 el loro! b. ;Pues pidib el lor0 whiskey! c. iPues el lor0 pidio whiskey!

6. iQut It fwi luba a Armando? a. Vio Armando una esplendida

b. Una espKndida caja de o r 0

c. Armando vio una esplindida

caja de oco.

vio Armando.

caja de oro.

APPENDIX C

1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 1. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12 13.

14. 15. 16. I?. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

No lo es. Tomb esa bebida. Es lo horrible. No va a hablar. Tienc inter&. Es la hija. Es la ciudad de Caracas. &bi6 alcohol. Son nombres de libros. Es la ultima vez. No le hablart. No tome una bcbida.