LINGUIST List 17.311
Mon Jan 30 2006
Diss: Applied Ling: Raman: 'Inflection As a Marker o...'
Editor for this issue: Meredith Valant
<meredithlinguistlist.org>
Directory
1. Madhavi
Raman,
Inflection As a Marker of Language Impairment in Second Language Learners: A cross-linguistic study
Message 1: Inflection As a Marker of Language Impairment in Second Language Learners: A cross-linguistic study
Date: 30-Jan-2006
From: Madhavi Raman <gayathriramanyahoo.com>
Subject: Inflection As a Marker of Language Impairment in Second Language Learners: A cross-linguistic study
Institution: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages
Program: English Language Teaching
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2005
Author: Madhavi Gayathri Raman
Dissertation Title: Inflection As a Marker of Language Impairment in Second Language Learners: A cross-linguistic study
Linguistic Field(s):
Applied Linguistics
Dissertation Director:
R. Amritavalli
Michael Ullman
Dissertation Abstract:
This thesis investigates the possibility of identifying language impairmentin child learners of English as a second language (ESL) through a series oftests in inflectional morphology in English and in their L1 (hereMalayalam). Our study assumes an approach to reading problems within theparadigm of Specific Language Impairment (SLI), seeing oral languageproblems as predating reading difficulties that arise in reading formeaning rather than in the mere decoding of text.
The investigation of SLI in a second language is particularly problematicas performance in the second language could be confounded by the variableof acquisition itself. In Chapter 2, we raise the issue of testing secondlanguage populations using diagnostic tests that are norm-referenced formonolingual English-speaking populations and caution against instances of"missed identity" and "mistaken identity". Very recently, Paradis (2005)has suggested that language impairment in L2 learners should be identifiedby norm-referencing their performance in the L2 with their own L1performance. This has been an exploratory study in that direction. Weinvestigate difficulties with inflectional morphology using parallel pasttense and plural production and judgment tasks in English and Malayalam.These tasks serve as a probe for the dual-mechanism model of computationand representation of inflections (regular and irregular past tense andplural) in an ESL context.
Our main conclusion from our sample of 17 Malayalam-English bilingualchildren (6 girls, 11 boys, mean age 8 years, 5 months), is that persistentproblems with inflectional morphology in English imply correspondingproblems in Malayalam: i.e., problems in the L2 manifest in the L1 as well.This is evident in the performance of the "outliers" (whose score is belowthe "lower fence" of the group, i.e., 1.5 inter quartile ranges below the25th percentile). Disturbingly, 7 subjects (2 girls, 5 boys) out of oursample population of 17 are identified as outliers in English and Malayalamin a minimum of one pair of tasks and a maximum of 10 tasks (out of 32).Interestingly, a child from the upper end of this continuum wasindependently clinically identified (albeit on tests norm-referenced formonolingual English populations) while our work was in progress.
As hypothesized, performance on real regular verbs is superior to that onirregular verbs, thereby confirming the dual-mechanism hypothesis in thecontext of L2 acquisition. Indeed it seems that real irregulars areencountered so sparsely as to be perceived as novel forms.
The hypothesis that a lack of overregularization of irregular verbs willserve to differentiate the at-risk group from the others does not receivesupport from our data. Rather, it is the error pattern (such as the use ofunmarked forms, the incorrect acceptance of stem forms, the rejection ofpast and plural marked forms) that serves to distinguish these twopopulations. If normality and impairment are two ends of a cline, thenchildren prone to errors, outliers, and those at risk for SLI, lie atprogressive points along that cline.
Our hypothesis that nominal inflections are easier than verbal inflectionsis confirmed for English; there is no significant difference between verbsand nouns in Malayalam. This reflects the acquisitional status of the twolanguages. Correspondingly, performance on Malayalam verbs is better thanon English verbs; but there is no L1 advantage in the case of nouns.
|