Tense and Agreement in the Non-Native English of ...

Tense and Agreement in the Non-Native English of Basque-Spanish Bilinguals: Content and Language Integrated Learners vs. English as a School Subject Learners.

PhD Dissertation Author: Izaskun Villarreal Olaizola

Director: Dr. María del Pilar García Mayo (University of the Basque Country) Co-director: Dr. Roger Hawkins (University of Essex, UK)

Department of English and German Philology

-2-

Gurasoei zuen ahaleginagatik

-3-

Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank the members of the committee and the two European experts, Professor Camilla Bardel (Stockholm University) and Professor Florence Myles (Newcastle University), who gratefully accepted to read this work and whose valuable comments, I am sure, will significantly improve this dissertation. Following this, I would like to thank my two directors Professor Mª Pilar García Mayo and Professor Roger Hawkins for their invaluable support and encouragement throughout the entire process. This would not have been possible without their good will and insightful comments. To Pilar, my amatxo académica, thanks a lot for all your support and encouragement and for making me set dates and deadlines throughout the process, and above all, for answering phone calls and e-mails without caring if it was Monday, Sunday or a holiday. Graciñas. To Roger, thanks for accepting to join this project despite your already very busy agenda, and for being one of the most humble big names I have ever met. I have learnt a lot from you two. This dissertation would definitely not have been possible without you two. Third, I would like to show my most sincere gratitude to Professor Vicente Nuñez Antón for helping me out with the statistics. Sorry for all the times I did not understand. Thanks a lot. Next, I owe the opportunity to carry out this thesis to the research group Research in English Applied Linguistics –REAL– and to the Language and Speech Laboratory Group –LASLAB– for giving me the opportunity to work with them and showing me the in and outs of data collection. I am indebted to the members of REAL and LASLAB for giving me the opportunity to use the data needed for my dissertation and for giving me the chance to go to conferences and courses abroad. This would not have been possible without the grant awarded by the Ministry of Education and Science to the author of the thesis (BFF2003-04009-C02-01) to work with REAL. I would like to specially thank Patxi Gallardo del Puerto, Esther Gómez Lacabex and Junkal Gutiérrez Mangado for showing me all I needed to know for REAL, and for making me laugh even when we were so exhausted that we could not think straight. Besides, I would like to thank them for their help with this dissertation: the comments they made and the support they showed whenever I needed it. I also owe LASLAB and all its members the opportunity to return to university, thanks once more, for trusting me.

-4-

In the same vein, I am grateful to all the schools and participants who have provided the data for this dissertation. Sorry for all the inconveniences that our data collection might have caused you. Thanks for making the data collection process easy. Next, I would like to thank the Doctoral Programme Hizkuntzalaritza for showing me that linguistics could be a profession. I would like to thank Dr. Miriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Dr. Alazne Landa for their enormous coordinating effort. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Alazne Landa who helped me out with all the academic problems I had (who were quite a few) and who did her best to find a solution even if she had to fight with Leioa, or leave no stone unturned in finding ways to get money, and as a result, work more than she had to. I would like to thank all the teachers who were involved in the programme and who have helped me out with my essays and enquiries. I am also grateful to Dr. Maria Jose Ezeizabarrena for helping me with one of the final research projects I carried out. In a very special way, I owe a lot to the teachers and students I have met in this programme who helped me in my beginning stages and throughout the process. Thanks to the people from Hizkuntzalaritzako Ikasleen Mintegia, HIM, for the cañita ricas, the singing dinners and the great fun I had with you. I owe special thanks to Celine and Jabitxin who started the Doctoral Programme with me and who have been great mates all along: Lehenengo afaria nere kontu, hurrengoa zeinen kontu?

I would also like to thank Professor Roger Hawkins for receiving me at the University of Essex during my research stay and for allowing me to participate in the meetings of the Second Language Acquisition Research Group (SLARG). I want to specially acknowledge the members of SLARG for their kindness, readiness to help and valuable comments. Professor Harald Clahsen and Dr. Ingrid Leung should also be mentioned as they let me attend their interesting classes on Neuroscience and Age and SLA, respectively.

My colleagues from the Public University of Navarre (UPNA-NUP) also deserve a special place in this dissertation for giving me the opportunity to work with them and for making me feel part of it from the very beginning. Thanks for the coffees, the therapies, lunches, and the will to help with anything I needed to from computers, to classes, to translations, to bibliographies... Thanks!!! Ondoren eskerrak eman nahiko nizkie laborategiko jende guztiari beraien animo eta batez ere, elkarrekin egin ditugun parre guztiengatik. Hor zaudetelako onerako eta txarrerako eta zuekin egotea plazer bat delako! Eskerrik asko momentu honetan

-5-

laborategian zaudetenei (Yolanda Acedo, Agurtzane Azkarai, Irene de la Cruz, Kepa Erdozia, Edurne Petrirena, Idoia Ros, Mikel Santesteban, Iraia Yetano, Adam Zawisewski) eta handik pasatako guztiei (Alaitz Alegria, Leire Diaz de Gereñu, Esther Gómez, Junkal Gutierrez, Ibon Manterola, Julen Manterola, Amaia Munarriz). Mila esker! Hurrengo bazkaria edo afaria antolatzen hasi beharko dugu…

También debo agradecer la paciencia y los ánimos de mis compañeras de penas en CNAI (Centro Navarro de Autoaprendizaje de Idiomas) Mónica Aznárez, Marina Muñoz, Beatriz Romero y Mar Gené. Por todos los ánimos que me dieron y por darme la plastada con cómo iba con la tesis. Pero sobre todo querría agradeceros esas cervecitas y cafés que nos tomábamos… ¡Muchas gracias!

Azkenik nire lagun eta familiari eskertu nahiko nieke nigan sinetsi izana nik neuk ere egiten ez nuenean. Eskerrik asko nere kuadrilakoei behar zenean hor egoteagatik, nere itxialdiak ulertzeagatik eta behar nuen guztietan parrandan nerekin ateratzeagatik. Onenak zarete!!! Eskerrik asko!!!! Familiari, zer esatea erabakitzea zaila da, hitzak motz gelditzen baitira. Eskerrik asko ni honaino iristeko egin duzuen denagatik. Eskerrik asko behar izan dudan guztietan hor egoteagatik: azterketa garaian etxean gelditzeagatik, nere ikasketak beti lehenesteagatik, horren bestetan nere umore txarra aguantatzeagatik, bazkaria noiz izango den galdetzeagatik eta abar luze bat. Eskerrik asko naizena izaten laguntzeagatik.

Azkenik nere aldamenean dagoenari eskertu nahiko nioke. Eskerrik asko Ander gure erlazioan hiru izango ginela onartzeagatik eta prozesuan erakutsi duzun pazientziagatik. Eskerrik asko eta muxu haundi bat pottolo!!

-6-

-7-

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1.

Contextualizing the study .............................................................................................. 14

1.2.

Aims of the study .......................................................................................................... 16

1.3.

The study ...................................................................................................................... 16

1.4.

Conclusions of the study ............................................................................................... 17

1.5.

Organization of the dissertation .................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ON CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING 2.1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.

Canadian content-based immersion programmes ........................................................ 22

2.3.

CLIL programmes in Europe ......................................................................................... 24

2.3.1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 24

2.3.1.1. 2.3.2. 2.4.

CLIL as an umbrella term .............................................................................. 25

Evidence for CLIL in Europe................................................................................. 26

CLIL programmes in Spain ........................................................................................... 27

2.4.1.

CLIL initiatives in monolingual communities in Spain........................................... 32

2.4.2.

CLIL initiatives in bilingual communities in Spain ................................................. 36

2.5.

CLIL in the Basque Country .......................................................................................... 39

2.5.1.

Origins of immersion in the Basque Country ........................................................ 40

2.5.2.

The age factor and foreign language acquisition ................................................. 43

2.5.3.

From an early start to CLIL ................................................................................... 47

2.6.

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER 3: BACKGROUND ON TENSE AND AGREEMENT 3.1.

Theoretical framework .................................................................................................. 58

3.2.

Tense and agreement marking in English, Basque and Spanish ................................. 63

3.3.

Summary of relevant facts of the acquisition of Basque, Spanish and English............ 64

3.4.

Acquisition of non-native English .................................................................................. 65

3.5.

Approaches to explaining the variability/optionality in non-native language acquisition ................................................................................................................... 66

3.5.1.

Representational Deficit (RD) Hypotheses ........................................................... 67

3.5.1.1.

Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis ....................................................................... 68

3.5.1.2.

Interpretability Hypothesis ............................................................................. 71

3.5.1.3.

Contextual Complexity Hypothesis ............................................................... 73

3.5.2.

Non-Representational Deficit Hypotheses ........................................................... 76

-8-

3.6.

3.5.2.1.

Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis .......................................................... 76

3.5.2.2.

UG-Driven vs. Idiosyncratic Marking (UGIDM) ............................................. 79

3.5.2.3.

Feature Assembly Hypothesis ...................................................................... 81

Summary of the chapter................................................................................................ 84

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY 4.1.

Research questions and hypotheses ............................................................................ 85

4.2.

Methodology ................................................................................................................. 87

4.2.1.

Participants ........................................................................................................... 87

4.2.2.

Data collection. ..................................................................................................... 92

4.2.2.1. 4.2.3.

Coding .................................................................................................................. 94

4.2.3.1.

The participants’ labels ................................................................................. 94

4.2.3.2.

Coding of examples ...................................................................................... 95

4.2.3.3.

Coding of tables and figures ......................................................................... 96

4.2.3.4.

Coding of the appendixes ............................................................................. 96

4.2.4. 4.3.

The oral data ................................................................................................. 93

Methodological decisions for counting data ......................................................... 96

Summary of the chapter................................................................................................ 98

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS 5.1.

Cross-sectional within-groups analysis ......................................................................... 99

5.1.1.

5.1.1.1.

Omission of inflection at Time 1: DBH3 ...................................................... 100

5.1.1.2.

Omission of inflection at Time 2: DBH4 ...................................................... 103

5.1.1.3.

Omission of inflection at Time 3: BATX2 .................................................... 106

5.1.2.

Inflection errors ................................................................................................... 109

5.1.2.1.

Inflection errors at Time 1: DBH3................................................................ 110

5.1.2.2.

Inflection errors at Time 2: DBH4................................................................ 112

5.1.2.3.

Inflection errors at Time 3: BATX2 .............................................................. 113

5.1.3. 5.2.

Omission of inflection ........................................................................................... 99

Summary of cross-sectional within-groups results ............................................. 114

Between group analysis .............................................................................................. 115

5.2.1.

Omission of inflection ......................................................................................... 115

5.2.1.1.

Omission of inflection at Time 1: DBH3, CLIL vs. non-CLIL ....................... 116

5.2.1.2.

Omission of inflection at Time 2: DBH4, CLIL vs. non-CLIL ....................... 118

5.2.1.3.

Omission of inflection at Time 3: BATX2, CLIL vs. non-CLIL ..................... 120

5.2.2.

Inflection errors ................................................................................................... 121

5.2.2.1.

Inflection errors at Time 1: DBH3, CLIL vs. non-CLIL ................................ 122

5.2.2.2.

Inflection errors at Time 2: DBH4, CLIL vs. non-CLIL ................................ 123

5.2.2.3.

Inflection errors at Time 3: BATX2, CLIL vs. non-CLIL .............................. 124

5.2.3.

Summary of between group results .................................................................... 125

-9-

5.3.

Longitudinal analysis ................................................................................................... 126

5.3.1.

Time 1 to Time 2 (A) longitudinal analysis ......................................................... 127

5.3.1.1.

Omission of inflection at Time 1 and Time 2............................................... 127

5.3.1.2.

Inflection errors at Time 1 and Time 2 ........................................................ 129

5.3.2.

Time 1 to Time 2 to Time 3 (B) longitudinal analysis ......................................... 131

5.3.2.1. 5.3.2.1.1.

Omission of inflection at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3.................................. 131 Similarities in omission between the longitudinal analyses at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 and the cross sectional analyses .......................... 136

5.3.2.2. 5.3.2.2.1.

Inflection errors at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 ........................................... 138 Similarities in errors between the longitudinal analyses and the cross sectional analyses at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 ..................... 139

5.3.3.

Time 2 to Time 3 (C) longitudinal analysis ......................................................... 141

5.3.3.1.

Omission of inflection at Time 2 and Time 3............................................... 141

5.3.3.2.

Inflection errors at Time 2 and Time 3 ........................................................ 143

5.4.

Summary of the longitudinal results ............................................................................ 144

5.5.

Comparing a CLILG and a non-CLILG with similar hours of exposure but different age at testing time ....................................................................................... 145

5.5.1. 5.6.

Omission of inflection ......................................................................................... 148

Summary of the results ............................................................................................... 152

5.6.1.

Overall within group results ................................................................................ 152

5.6.2.

Overall between group results ............................................................................ 153

5.6.3.

Longitudinal development results ....................................................................... 154

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION 6.1.

Main findings obtained ................................................................................................ 156

6.2.

Language acquisition hypotheses and predictions ..................................................... 159

6.2.1.

Claims and predictions of the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis ............................. 160

6.2.1.1.

A tentative approximation to the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis (PTH) ...... 161

6.2.2.

Claims and predictions of the Interpretability Hypothesis .................................. 165

6.2.3.

Claims and predictions of the Contextual Complexity Hypothesis ..................... 166

6.2.4.

Claims and predictions of the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis and the Feature Assembly Hypothesis ............................................................................ 167

6.2.5.

Claims and predictions of the UG-Driven vs. Idiosyncratic Marking of Forms

Hypothesis. ................................................................................................................... 169 6.3.

Discussing Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................. 170

6.3.1.

Cross-sectional within-group analysis ................................................................ 170

6.3.1.1. 6.3.1.1.1. 6.3.1.2. 6.3.2.

Presence of omissions ................................................................................ 170 Presence of inflection related phenomena ............................................. 171 Determining the source of the high omission rate ...................................... 174

Longitudinal within group analysis ...................................................................... 182

- 10 -

6.3.2.1.

Challenging the Interpretability Hypothesis ................................................ 182

6.3.2.2.

Challenging the Contextual Complexity Hypothesis ................................... 183

6.3.2.3.

Explaining the longitudinal findings through the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis, the Feature Assembly Hypothesis, and the UG-Driven vs. Idiosyncratic Movement Hypothesis ..................................... 185

6.3.3.

Concluding remarks on Hypothesis 1 ................................................................. 188

6.4.


6.5.


6.5.1.

Error occurrences in CLIL and non-CLIL ............................................................ 193

6.5.2.

Cross-sectional comparison of omissions by CLIL and non-CLIL...................... 194

6.5.3.

Longitudinal comparison of omissions by CLIL and non-CLIL ........................... 197

6.5.4.

Limiting the benefits of CLIL ............................................................................... 197

6.5.5.

A call for more Focus on Form in CLIL programmes ......................................... 198

6.6.

Summary of the discussion ......................................................................................... 199

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 7.1.

Conclusions from Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................. 201

7.1.1. 7.2.


7.2.1. 7.3.

Further research ................................................................................................. 205


7.3.1. 7.4.



Closing remarks .......................................................................................................... 208

APPENDIX 4: RESEARCH QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY ............ 209

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 216

- 11 -

Abbreviations The following list outlines in alphabetic order the abbreviations used throughout the dissertation: Af: Affix

FonF: Focus-on-Form

Agr: Agreement

IH: Interpretability Hypothesis

Aux: Auxiliary

ILG: Interlanguage Grammar

BATX1: First year of optional

IP: Inflectional Phrase

secondary education

L1: First Language

BATX2: Second year of optional

L2: Second Language

secondary education

L3: Third Language

BAF: Barcelona Age Factor Group

LASLAB: Language and Speech

C: Complementizer

Laboratory Group

CCH: Contextual Complexity

LF: Logical Form

Hypothesis

MSIH: Missing Surface Inflection

CE: Cambridge ESOL exam

Hypothesis

CLIL: Content and Language

n/a: not available

Integrated Learning

N: Noun

CLILG: Content and Language

Non-CLIL: English as a School Subject

Integrated Learning Group

Non-CLILG: English as a school

Cop: Copula

subject Group

CP: Complementizer Phrase

Non-RD: Non Representational Deficit

DBH3: Third year of compulsory

Num: Number

secondary education

O: Object

DBH4: Fourth year of compulsory

PE: Plurilingual Experience

secondary education

PF: Phonological Form

Def: Definite

Pl: Plural

DM: Distributed Morphology

PP: Prepositional Phrase

DP: Determiner Phrase

PTH: Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis

EG: Experimental Group

PWd: Prosodic Word

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

RD: Representational Deficit

EPP: Extended Projection Principle

REAL: Research in English Applied

ERP: Event-Related-Potential

Linguistics

EU: European Union

S: Subject

F: subset of relevant features

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

FAH: Feature Assembly Hypothesis

SLI:

- 12 -

SLI: Specific Language Impairment T: Tense: T1: Time 1 T2: Time 2 T3: Time 3 TD: Typically Developing UG: Universal Grammar UGIDM: UG-driven vs. Idiosyncratic Marking Theory V: Verb VP: Verb Phrase xxx: incomprehensible string

- 13 -

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Contextualizing the study The goal of this dissertation is to assess the impact of different types of classroom language learning programmes on the acquisition of verbal morphology in a third language (L3), English, by bilingual Basque-Spanish speakers. The two language learning programmes in question are a Content and Language Integrated Learning programme and an English as a School Subject programme. In order to achieve such a goal, the assessment is undertaken within a formal theory of linguistics, namely generative grammar and, in particular, under the most recent incarnation of the theory, the Minimalist Programme or Minimalism (Chomsky, 1995, 1998, 2001). Broadly speaking, two main opposing generative approaches to explaining the acquisition of morphosyntax in a second language (L2) have been adopted which are extendable to L3 acquisition: (i) a representational deficit view in which (postpuberty) L2 acquisition is claimed to involve impaired syntax or phonology (Goad, White and Steel, 2003; Goad and White, 2004, 2006; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou, 2007; Hawkins and Casillas, 2008); and (ii) a non-representational deficit view in which the divergent use of the target language by L2 speakers represents difficulties in mapping or (re)assembling features and not a L1 based syntactic or phonological representational deficit (Prévost and White, 2000; Ionin and Wexler, 2002; Lardiere, 2008, 2009a,2009b).

In the past decade, research on L3 acquisition has been expanding especially within

several

subfields

of

linguistic

inquiry:

applied

linguistics,

applied

psycholinguistics, formal linguistic acquisition studies, bilingualism and language education. Initially, the domain of interest for this L3 research focused mainly on the mental lexicon and issues related to vocabulary development and the multilingual lexical representation and processing (Dewaele, 1998; Cenoz et al. 2001, 2003; De Bot, 2004; Singleton and O’Laoire, 2006). More recently, an emerging subfield of generative non-native language acquisition studies has arisen which investigates questions dealing with the domain of morphosyntax. Some research has focused on providing insights pertaining to the multilingual initial state, and especially to the variables that condition morphosyntactic transfer (Flynn et al., 2004; Bardel and Falk, 2007; Rothman and Cabrelli Amaro, 2010; Rothman, 2011; García Mayo and Rothman, forthcoming). Other work in this nascent L3 field, however, seeks explanatory adequacy looking beyond the boundaries of what can be examined at the

- 14 -

initial L3 state and examines how the study of L3 can shed light on questions related to developmental sequences, feature availability and ultimate attainment (Leung, 2007, 2009; Iverson, 2009; Jaensch 2009, 2011; Villarreal and García Mayo, 2009; García Mayo and Villarreal, 2011; García Mayo and Rothman, forthcoming). The present dissertation adds most directly to this latter initiative.

In the same vein, in the last few years the desire to improve the learning of foreign languages in the present multilingual Europe has led to a burgeoning of Content and Language Integrated Learning programmes (henceforth, CLIL), mainly as the result of the low proficiency levels obtained in traditional language programmes (henceforth, non-CLIL). Some researchers claim that CLIL is the only possible way to increase overall proficiency levels in non-native speakers without taking additional time from the school curriculum. A wealth of research studies has shown that CLIL raises the linguistic competence of the learners (Marsh, 2002; Marsh and Wolff, 2007), and that in fact, the proficiency level attained is higher than that attained by learners following a non-CLIL programme (Wolff, 2002). The implementation of CLIL, more often than not has preceded research (Marsh, 2009) and further studies are needed in order to establish the strengths and weaknesses of such approaches (Lasagabaster, 2010). Recently, there has been a shift in the interest among CLIL researchers and more studies dealing with the impact that CLIL has on specific language areas has blossomed –see, for instance, work on motivation for language learning (Lasagabaster, 2010), the mental lexicon (Moreno, 2009) or specific aspects of morphosyntax (Hüttner and Rieder-Bünemann, 2007; Martínez Adrián and Gutiérrez Mangado, 2009; Villarreal and García Mayo, 2009; García Mayo and Villarreal, 2011). It is precisely in this last line of research where the present dissertation is grounded.

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has shown that there seems to be a uniform pattern of L2 acquisition in speakers of different L1s (Dulay and Burt, 1974; Krashen, 1977; Felix and Hahn, 1985 among the first early studies). The quality of the input the learners receive in their L2 (or L3) classroom, however, could possibly be an important variable for L2 or L3 acquisition resulting in a different developmental sequence and ultimate level of attainment (Piske and Young-Scholten, 2008; Rothman and Guijarro-Fuentes, 2010). The question arises, then, as to whether the acquisition route/path and/or speed in the acquisition of verbal morphology are altered for these learners immersed in a CLIL approach.

- 15 -

1.2. Aims of the study This work studies the L3 English developing morphology of Basque-Spanish bilinguals in CLIL and non-CLIL programmes. Specifically, it focuses on the omission and error production of suppletive inflection -copula and auxiliary be-, and affixal inflection -the third person morpheme –s and the past tense morpheme –ed- is analyzed. The aim of this analysis is threefold: first of all, to contribute to the debate about whether variability in adult non-native grammars is more likely a mapping or an actual grammatical deficit problem; secondly, to determine the extent to which the data inform the notion of suppletive-affixal dissociation in L3 developing grammars; and finally, to examine whether or not a CLIL programme will have an effect on the development of the use of the relevant English morphology under study.

This study innovates by analyzing data from a non-traditional set of learners in the emerging field of generative L3 acquisition: simultaneous bilinguals (Basque-Spanish) learning English in a classroom context and differing in the programme they follow at school (CLIL vs. non-CLIL). These L3 data will hopefully make a significant contribution to debates on the mental constitution of adult non-native linguistic systems and to the extent to which (type of) input can affect the development of English verbal inflection.

1.3. The study In order to carry out the present study 134 learners belonging to two educational approaches (CLIL and non-CLIL) were included. All the learners had started learning English when they were 8. The learners were asked to narrate Mayer’s (1969) picture story Frog, Where Are you? and were recorded at three different points in time: Time 1, age 14-15, which was also the first year into a CLIL programme for the CLIL group; Time 2, age 15-16, the second year of CLIL for the CLIL group and finally, Time 3 when they were 17-18 years old and none of the groups had CLIL1.

The recordings obtained were analyzed for the omission and error rate of the following verbal morphemes:

1

The CLIL group had had CLIL one year before (age 16-17), but unfortunately these learners could not be recorded at that time. Time 3 data, therefore, reflect the production of CLIL learners one year after the CLIL approach is finished. - 16 -

Third person singular present –s Past tense –ed Auxiliary be Copula be

Three different analyses were undertaken: a cross-sectional within group analysis, in which each group’s performance for the omission and error proportion was analyzed group internally; a between group analysis where the results for the CLIL group were contrasted against those for the non-CLIL group; and finally, a series of longitudinal analyses of the developmental pattern of these morphemes. Due to the difficulty of tracking the same learners during the four-year period the number of participants in each longitudinal analysis is limited, and thus, the findings of that type of analysis should be taken as if they were case-studies rather than proper longitudinal studies.

Examining oral production data alone certainly posses some limitations (one of them being the fact that the tracking of participants for longitudinal studies is very difficult) and there is a need for more controlled experimental data (see, e.g., Rothman, 2007). However, this type of research has the advantage of having been carried out in an existing educational context, controlling as many factors as possible in the data collection process, which should give ecological validity to it (García Mayo and Villarreal, 2011).

1.4. Conclusions of the study The findings reveal a high omission rate for affixal morphemes in both groups, whilst the omission of suppletive forms is very low (below 10%) across the three testing times. The error rate is constant and low (below 5%) for both groups. While no longitudinal development obtains for the suppletive morphemes, a clear progress is observed for one of the affixal morphemes, the third person present –s, while unexpectedly the past –ed omission rates remain stable for the two groups. The superiority of the CLIL group is not borne out in any of the three times either. As both groups provide suppletive inflection at high rates overall, no differences are observed between them. Affixal inflection, however, reveals a more complicated scenario: the two groups do not differ at Time 1 but the CLIL group outperforms the non-CLIL group

- 17 -

at Time 2. At Time 3, however, the differences observed in the previous testing time disappear and once again the two groups behave alike.

These findings lead to the conclusion that the developing grammars of these L3 learners are not impaired with respect to tense or agreement features and seem to support explanations positing full access to Universal Grammar (UG) in which the underlying reason for the attested variability hinges on mapping or (re)assembling problems between target-like abstract features and their overt morphological realization (e.g. Prévost and White, 2000; Lardiere, 2009a). The findings also point to the conclusion that the dissociation between suppletive and affixal forms also holds in L3 acquisition, which would be in line with previous research on the topic in L2 acquisition (Zobl and Liceras, 1994; Ionin and Wexler; 2002). Finally, I argue that the results featured by the CLIL and the non-CLIL groups might be explained if some type of ceiling effect or plateau is posited for CLIL learners (along the lines of Rifkin, 2005) and I join the claim made by other researchers about the need for a more focus-on-form approach in CLIL programmes (Pica, 2002; García Mayo, 2009).

1.5. Organization of the dissertation The rest of the dissertation is organized in 6 different chapters. Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 provide the background on the two main areas of the dissertation. In particular, Chapter 2 (Background on Content and Language Integrated Learning) features information on the rationale for CLIL as well as on recent research carried out in Europe, in Spain and especially in the Basque Country. Chapter 3 (Background on tense and agreement) defines the theoretical framework adopted in the dissertation, briefly outlines the aspects relevant to the analysis, and concisely characterizes tense and agreement in non-native language acquisition. The chapter concludes by elaborating on the main approaches to explaining variability entertained in this dissertation. Chapter 4 (Research questions, hypotheses and methodology) introduces the research questions raised, the three major hypotheses entertained and the methodology selected to carry out the study, including participants’ descriptions, methodological decisions when counting the data and the coding system used. Chapter 5 (Results) presents the results obtained for the three different analyses carried out: the cross-sectional within group analysis, the longitudinal analysis and the between group analysis. Next, Chapter 6 (Discussion) outlines the claims and predictions raised by the various approaches entertained and discusses the results in the light of

- 18 -

the three hypotheses. Finally, Chapter 7 (Conclusions and Further Research) draws the final conclusions and remarks and suggests new lines of inquiry for future studies.

- 19 -

Chapter 2: BACKGROUND ON CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING

2.1. Introduction The interest in effective teaching and learning2 of second, third or other languages, whether in immersion or foreign languages settings3 has become a key issue in multicultural and multilingual Europe. The statement of the European Commission that all European citizens should learn at least two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue and/or national language (European Council, 2002:19; Eurydice Report, 2006) has increased the need to find a successful way in which to integrate the teaching of languages in the school curriculum. In this scenario, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been put forward as a major contributor to meet the European Commission’s goals as it is considered by the European Commission itself that (European Commission, 2003:8):

1. It can provide effective opportunities for pupils to use their new language skills now, rather than learn them now to use later, 2. It opens up the opportunity to learn languages to a broader range of learners as it enhances self-confidence in young learners and in those who have not responded well to formal language teaching, and 3. It provides exposure to the language without requiring extra time in the curriculum.

The need to extend exposure to the target language in a school context in order to promote successful language learning has been widely discussed in the acquisition literature (Gabiña et al., 1986; Cenoz and Jessner, 2000; García Mayo and García Lecumberri, 2003; Genesee, 2004; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato, 2006, Muñoz, 2006; Genesee, 2008, among many others). Even though the link between time and success in language learning is considered a very tight one, its exact nature is far from clear (see for instance Genesee (2004) for majority language learning in which he claims 2

In this dissertation I will not adopt Krashen's (1982) distinction between acquisition and learning. Both terms will be used interchangeably when referring to the process of attaining proficiency in a third language. 3 The term ‘additional language acquisition’ will be interchangeably used elsewhere in order to refer to the acquisition of any other language but the first language, that is to say, to refer to the acquisition of second, foreign or minority languages (http://www.clilcompendium.com/clilcompendium.htm) - 20 -

that the time variable is not so important, in contrast see García Mayo and García Lecumberri (2003) where time is regarded as a very important variable for foreign language learning when age of exposure is considered). Still, exposure to the target language as a variable is an important one for language learning and even more for minority or foreign language learning (Gabiña et al. 1986; García Mayo and García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006). This is one of the reasons behind the spreading of CLIL in recent years as a means to teach primarily foreign languages in Europe: CLIL enables schools to devote more time to a particular language without the need to find a new slot in the school curriculum, as both the language and the curricular content are equally important in a CLIL class.

The possibility of an increase in exposure time to foreign languages without reducing content learning has become even more important in the case of already bilingual societies such as the Basque Country, where there are already two existing languages and where the two languages do not have the same social status (though the official status is the same): Spanish is the majority or dominant language for most of the citizens whereas Basque is the minority language. This dichotomy and the need to support and promote the learning and use of the Basque language has led the various education sectors of the Basque Country to look for language policies that will allow the best time and type of input management possible for language learning. CLIL meets this requirement, and this perhaps explains its spread in the Basque Country, whose language policy is completely aligned with the rest of the European states in which CLIL has also spread as a valuable and successful programme for foreign language learning during the last few decades.

CLIL, therefore, has been considered an optimal solution to the need for better quality input, and has even been considered a unique opportunity (Navés, 2009) for acquiring a better command of language, given the successful results obtained in other countries (Marsh, 2002; Marsh and Wolff, 2007). Most of these studies, nonetheless, focus on holistic evaluations of CLIL learners’ competence. Few fine-grained studies have been conducted in which specific problematic aspects of non-native language acquisition are compared either to native language acquisition or to non-CLIL acquisition (for some examples, see Hüttner and Rieder-Bünemann, 2007; Martínez Adrián and Gutiérrez Mangado, 2009). In particular, little research has been carried out on morphological variability in English as a foreign language (EFL) settings regarding the contrast between learners in CLIL programmes and those in regular EFL programmes (henceforth, non-CLIL programmes). - 21 -

Along these lines and throughout this dissertation, in order to evaluate the extent to which CLIL programmes implemented in the Basque Country guarantee a more successful language learning process, a specific issue in the interlanguage (henceforth, ILG) development of the learners will be in the spotlight: the provision, omission and error rate of tense and agreement inflection by two groups of learners studying English under two different conditions, namely, within a CLIL programme and within a programme that uses English just as a school subject or a non-CLIL programme. Throughout this dissertation the focus will be on the English results of CLIL programmes designed to increase additional language attainment level, and not on CLIL programmes used to promote minority languages in the Basque Country.

Before moving to the specific data of the dissertation, the history of the birth and spread of CLIL programmes will be reviewed. These programmes have mainly derived from Canadian content-based immersion programmes (although other European countries had been using such programmes for a long time in order to teach their regional languages (see, for instance, Cenoz, 1998; Lasagabaster, 2001; Idiazabal, 2003 and Etxeberria, 2004 in the Basque Country, Artigal, 1993 in Catalonia and Baker, 2001 in Wales). Therefore, the following subsections will consider first, the creation of the first content-based immersion (henceforth, CBI) programmes, then CLIL programmes in Europe, followed by CLIL programmes in Spain and finally CLIL programmes in the Basque Country.

2.2. Canadian content-based immersion programmes The Canadian French immersion programmes for English background children started in the 60s, in response to the dissatisfaction caused by the traditional teaching of French at schools, and to a specific political and socio-economical situation (Lambert and Tucker, 1972, Genesee, 1987, Muñoz, 2003). Due to the positive French results obtained by the students enrolled in such programmes, parents all over the country demanded immersion programmes for their children. The popularity of these programmes dramatically increased in the 70s and 80s due not only to parents’ interest but also to the fact that the federal government offered economic support to the schools that implemented such programmes (Muñoz, 2003). According to Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart and Swain (1998) this interest in reinforcing individual bilingualism was aimed at reinforcing national unity. The Canadian immersion programmes thus moved

- 22 -

in little more than forty years from a group of 26 English-speaking kindergarten children to a programme of choice for over 300.000 students in the whole Canada (McConnell, 2008).

From the beginning, various studies showed that the results obtained by the learners immersed in CBI programmes were superior to the ones obtained by learners following traditional language courses (Genesee, 1987; Johnson and Swain 1997; Lyster, 2007). Most importantly, it was observed that these superior results in the French language were not negatively affecting the English language, or the overall cognitive and academic development (Lambert and Tucker, 1972; Swain and Lapkin, 1982; Genesee, 1987). Nonetheless, despite the success of such programmes an asymmetry was found: receptive skills like auditory and reading comprehension, at the end of secondary education were close to native, whereas productive skills, such as speaking and writing, and specifically syntax and morphology would not reach nativelike levels (e.g., Swain and Lapkin, 1986; Genesee, 1987). Still, the success of these programmes could not be denied because, as Genesee (2006) claimed, although this asymmetry between productive and receptive skills existed among immersion learners, their performance in both skills was significantly better than that of traditional language class learners.

As Muñoz (2003:4) pointed out “[…] to a large extent the success of Canadian immersion programmes is due to the fact that the L2 is used as the communication language in class, and as the vehicular language for curricular content teaching. That is to say, in immersion programmes French has been used as the means of instruction, not as the object of instruction, and the L2 learning context has been communicative and experiential, completely based on contents.” (Translation mineI.V). This shift in the object of instruction, from the teaching of the target language itself to the teaching of curricular content together with incidental language learning through exposure to comprehensible L2 input (Krashen, 1982; 1985), together with the intrinsic increase in the amount of exposure time have been the two key factors that have contributed to the success which has been so widely attested in the vast Canadian

CBI

project.

As

McConnell

- 23 -

(2008:7-8)

recently

stated:

Immersion programs are neither a panacea nor a linguistic nirvana. […] What they have, however, proven to be able to do without a shadow of a doubt is produce students who, depending on their individual skills, will graduate with a workable to excellent command of the target language, without any academic drawback regarding the mastery of subject content or competence in their native language.[…] Given the challenges in achieving any appreciable level of second language competence by traditional methods, the results of immersion can only be categorized as truly outstanding.

Thus, keeping all the caveats in mind, CBI programmes are presented as very successful language learning programmes. Based on such successful results various European states took up the lessons from the Canadian Immersion Programmes and set their own contextualized immersion language learning programmes in Europe which have turned out to be named Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes.

2.3. CLIL programmes in Europe 2.3.1. Introduction Multilingualism that is to say, the knowledge of a number of languages, or the coexistence of different languages in a given society (Council of Europe, 2001:4) is a defining characteristic of present day Europe. There are around 63 languages spoken (European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, March 2007) by the 27 official member states in the European Union area, including official languages and regional and minority languages. Therefore, learning different languages has become an issue of great relevance in present European society. This is so as the European Union believes that promoting language learning among its citizens will facilitate and promote:

1. Personal mobility 2. Professional mobility in the European market 3. Cross-cultural contact 4. Mutual understanding among citizens

- 24 -

Thus, together with other promotion and awareness enhancing actions encouraged by the conclusions of the March 2002 Barcelona European Summit, in December 2007 the Heads of State or Government of all European Union (EU) Member States signed the Treaty of Lisbon in which it was stated that the EU should respect its rich cultural and language diversity and its cultural heritage should be protected and boosted.

As Ján Figel, the Commissioner responsible for Education, Training and Multilingualism, states in the preface to the 2006 Eurydice Report, languages are a fundamental aspect of the cultural identity of every European. Therefore, many different policies have been proposed and many different actions and programmes have been developed for their promotion. As a result, […] since the early 1990s European Union language policies have shown a growing need to adopt an educational model to account for the diversity of European programmes and to ensure that everyone can become proficient in several languages. As CLIL appears to comply with EU policies for multilingualism, it has rapidly been adopted as an umbrella term by the European Network of Administrators, Researchers and Practitioners. Their aim is to create a label for different European approaches to bilingual education. This has been reflected in the adoption of CLIL by EU institutions and the support given to a number of CLIL projects, studies and experimental initiatives as an integral part of foreign language teaching (Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán, 2009a: xi).

2.3.1.1.

CLIL as an umbrella term

The term CLIL emerged in the 1990s as an umbrella acronym which defined a continuum in which both language and content where included and in which neither of them was preferred intrinsically (Marsh, 2002). CLIL was defined as a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language (Marsh, 2009). Thus, CLIL offered cover to different models that were implemented in Europe and which varied in the emphasis given to language or content (Coyle, 2007). CLIL was “[…] a pragmatic European

- 25 -

solution to a European need” (Marsh, 2002: 11)4, a need “[…] to support and develop a plurilingual and pluricultural competence in our future citizens” (Coyle, 2002: 27) but in a non-conventional way: both the learning of a content subject and the learning of an additional language were combined and stressed.

In Europe, CLIL programmes have been implemented to learn languages with different status such as regional languages, L2s or foreign languages. Even though CLIL as an educational approach used primarily for teaching mainly foreign languages has gained in popularity in the last decades, the teaching of content through a target language has a strong tradition in language maintenance programmes in the Basque Country (see Lasagabaster, 2001; Idiazabal, 2003; Cenoz, 2009), as well as in other European areas such as Catalonia (Artigal, 1993) or Wales (Baker, 2001). Nonetheless, CLIL programmes have flourished in the last decades mainly due to their important role in foreign language acquisition. As Muñoz (2003) claims one (and probably the most important) advantage of implementing CLIL programmes in foreign language contexts is that there would be an increase in the number of hours of exposure to the foreign language, which will be used in comprehensible ways and with authentic purposes.

2.3.2. Evidence for CLIL in Europe As Marsh (2009) points out, CLIL practices have often preceded field research supporting the benefits of adopting an additional language as the medium of instruction for successful language learning, usually derived by the diverse socio-economic and political contexts experienced across the countries. In the late 1990s, however, research on CLIL as an educational approach for foreign language learning started to show that in certain contexts CLIL programmes seemed to raise learners’ linguistic proficiency (Coyle, 2007), which reached higher levels than in non-CLIL programmes (Wolff, 2002). These results are similar to those in Canadian immersion studies in which better results are also reported for the learners in immersion programmes (Genesee, 2006).

4

The term CLIL is no longer used exclusively to label a wide variety of bilingual programmes in Europe, according to Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008) CLIL is extensively being implemented in Asia and Australia. - 26 -

As the wide-spread early introduction of English in schools did not generally produce the expected results (García Mayo and García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006 for particular cases in Spain), CLIL was considered a valuable approach because (Muñoz, 2007) it:

1. provides plenty of input beyond the limits of the traditional language class; 2. provides real and meaningful input for the learner; 3. motivates the processing of meaning

In fact, different studies support the theoretical benefits of CLIL (Coyle, 2007; Marsh and Wolff, 2007) and show that CLIL programmes seem to raise learners’ overall proficiency levels compared to those learners in non-CLIL programmes.

Hüttner and Rieder-Bünemann (2007) looked at the macro and micro-level production of 44 (aged 12) learners at two secondary schools in Vienna contrasting the programmes they follow at school: a CLIL vs. non-CLIL group (henceforth, non-CLILG). The CLIL learners had received instruction through English for seven years at the time of the study. Hüttner and Rieder-Bünemann (2007) concluded that the CLIL group (hereafter, CLILG) had a perceptible advantage in the command of the micro-level features of the narrative (anchor tense consistency and correct use of verbal forms) and of some macro-level features (referring to plot elements). The overall results pointed to an advantage for the CLILG over the non-CLIL one.

However, as recently pointed out by Van de Craen et al. (2007), more detailed research is needed because the potential benefits of CLIL programmes are not so clear-cut.

2.4. CLIL programmes in Spain Foreign language learning has attracted a lot of interest in recent years. Different European studies (European Commission, 2005; Eurydice, 2006) have shown that Spaniards are among the European citizens with the lowest foreign language abilities. More specifically, according to a European Commission (2005) report, 64% of the population claims to be monolingual, and thus, can only speak their mother tongue

- 27 -

(European Commission, 2005; Fernández Fontecha, 2009). This lack of foreign language abilities and the desire to conform to the European norms (1+2: mother tongue plus two foreign languages, Council of Europe, 2002) have made Spain turn to CLIL programmes as a possible solution to enhance the success of foreign language learning at least among the population in full time education.

The territorial division and the diverse linguistic reality of the different Autonomous Communities of Spain have had an impact on the educational policy of the Autonomous Communities. The education power is decentralized –with varying ranges of freedom- and as a result, each autonomous community has responded differently to the common need for foreign language learning.

Spain is divided up into 17 Autonomous Communities and 2 Autonomous Cities, 6 of which are bilingual communities5,6. 6 of these territories have two official languages: Spanish (official in all Autonomous Communities) and a regional7 language: Basque, Catalan8 or Galician. The following table and figure illustrate the official regional languages of Spain and their approximate geographical location, respectively:

5

Navarra is only partly bilingual as its territory is divided up into three linguistic areas: (a) the Basque speaking area; (b) the mixed area (Basque and Spanish); (c) the non-Basque speaking area. 6 In Catalonia, and more specifically, in the Aran Valley (northwestern part of Catalonia) there are three official languages: Aranese, Catalan and Spanish. In accordance with the Law 16/1990, of 13th July on the special status of the Aran Valley: “Aranese, a form of Occitan and spoken in Aran, is an official language in the Aran Valley. Catalan and Spanish are also official h languages in accordance with article 3 of the Statute of autonomy” (last access on the 20 of December, 2010 http://www.caib.es/conselleries/educacio/dgpoling/user/catalaeuropa/angles/angles9.pdf). Still, Catalonia will be considered a bilingual community as most of its territory is, in fact, bilingual. 7 The term regional language might not reflect the reality of these languages. This is so, as all three languages are also spoken beyond the border of the Spanish state. Galician is spoken in some Northern parts of Portugal; Catalan is spoken in Andorra and parts of Sardinia and France; Basque is spoken in Navarra and across the border with France. The alternative term minority language does not necessarily describe the reality of these languages either, as Cenoz (2009) points out “Minority languages are often ‘small languages’ such as Basque or Navajo but they can also have millions of speakers such as Catalan or Quechua” (2009: 57). Thus, throughout this dissertation both terms will be used interchangeably. 8 There is an ongoing debate whether the language spoken in Valencia is a variety of the Catalan spoken in Catalonia or whether it is a different language. As is not relevant for my purposes, it will be referred to as Catalan but I do not want to subscribe to any of the theories for or against such statement. - 28 -

Table 2.1: Official regional languages and Autonomous Communities where they are spoken

Official

Regional Autonomous

Language

Community

Aranese

Catalonia

Basque

The Basque Country Navarre

Catalan

Catalonia Valencia The Balearics

Galician

Galicia

Figure 2.1: Map of official Languages in Spain

Aranese Basque Catalan Galician Spanish

(Adapted from, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spain_languages.PNG Accessed on th

December 20 2010)

Spanish education is decentralized and the power to make educational decisions is transferred to the different Autonomous Communities. The power of decision is larger in bilingual communities than in monolingual communities. The Ley Orgánica de Educación (2006) (‘Organic Law of Education’) establishes a core curriculum at primary level: 65% for the majority Spanish speaking regions and 55% for the Autonomous - 29 -

Communities with regional languages. That is to say, monolingual communities can decide on the 35% of their primary curriculum, whereas this percentage rises up to 45% in the bilingual communities. This varying degree of autonomy (derived from being a bilingual or a monolingual community) has had an impact on the educational policies which have been put forward, and more particularly for the present purposes, on the foreign language learning policies implemented in the Autonomous Communities. The main consequence is that traditionally bilingual communities have paid more attention and devoted greater effort to the development of programmes, models or proposals to promote the acquisition of the regional languages, which has influenced the later development of foreign language learning policies. This trend, however, is being reversed as some monolingual communities, Andalusia for instance, have put forward groundbreaking actions for multilingual language learning.

In the next few lines the linguistic policies which have been promoted in these monolingual and bilingual communities will be briefly reviewed. The focus will be specifically on the CLIL initiatives put forward. Prior to this endeavour and being aware that the organization of the education system varies across countries, a schema of how Spanish education is organized will be provided. This structure is common to all the Autonomous Communities and it is independent of the education policies promoted in each one.

The following table illustrates the organization of the educational system in Spain. Broadly speaking, it is divided into 4 separate cycles. Compulsory education goes from primary education (beginning at age 6) to compulsory secondary education (ending at age 16).

- 30 -

Table 2.2: The organization of the educational system in Spain

Education Cycle

Age

Course age

Courses

Non-

Nonapplicable

range Infant Education

0-6

applicable Primary Education

Compulsory

6-12

Secondary 12-16

Education

10

Optional Secondary Education 16-18

6-7

1go maila9

7-8

2. maila

8-9

3. maila

9-10

4. maila

10-11

5. maila

11-12

6. maila

12-13

DBH 1

13-14

DBH 2

14-15

DBH 3

15-16

DBH 4

16-17

BATX 1

17-18

BATX 2

-Non-applicable: infant education is considered an indivisible cycle -Maila: Basque term for ‘level’ -DBH: Derrigorrezko bigarren hezkuntza (Compulsory secondary education) -BATX: Abbreviation for each optional secondary level.

Subsequently different CLIL attempts which have been carried out in monolingual and bilingual communities will be considered. Bilingual or multilingual education is not a homogeneous phenomenon (Fernández Fontecha, 2009) and thus, different instructional models have been created to respond to the linguistic necessities of the areas. Among the different monolingual communities, CLIL initiatives carried out in Andalusia, Madrid and La Rioja will be reviewed. As for bilingual communities, Catalonia and Galicia will be mentioned. The situation in the Basque Country will be dealt in detail in the next section, as it is the Community in which the current study took place.

9

Throughout this dissertation Basque terms and abbreviations when referring to course levels will be used. 10 Instead of going into optional Secondary School, it is also possible to get into vocational training. - 31 -

2.4.1. CLIL initiatives in monolingual communities in Spain There are fewer studies of CLIL in monolingual communities and thus, they have traditionally attracted less attention (Fernández Fontecha, 2009). Nonetheless, various communities such as Andalusia, La Rioja and Madrid have gained importance in the Spanish CLIL scene due to the promotion of pioneering plans or initiatives which have been reported very successful in their communities.

First, some studies (Llinares and Whittaker, 2006a, 2006b; Llinares, Dafouz and Whittaker, 2007; Whittaker and Llinares, 2009) carried out in the Autonomous Community of Madrid as part of the UAM-CLIL research project will be looked at. The data for the UAM-CLIL project comes mainly from a project signed in 1996 between the British Council and the Spanish Ministry of Education in which a number of schools agreed to teach a partially integrated English/Spanish curriculum. The schools agreed to teach English as a foreign language, Social Science in English and a third content subject in English depending on the availability of specialists ready to teach the subject through English (Whittaker and Llinares, 2009: 215).

In particular, these authors focus on lexico-grammatical, discursive, and pragmatic oral and written performance of the CLIL learners involved in this project. They analyzed the data from a genre perspective (along the lines of Halliday, 2004) and looked for “[…] the features characteristic of different genres belonging to different subjects at different educational levels […]” (Llinares and Whittaker, 2006b: 30). Their data comes from two secondary schools teaching a partially integrated curriculum whose learners are in their first year of secondary education. In this scenario, Llinares and Whittaker (2006b) looked at the oral and written production of a group of these learners and found no statistical differences in the linguistic features used for written or oral language –the main differences were related to the type of processes and circumstances used.

In another study, Llinares, Dafouz and Whittaker (2007) focused on written production, and concluded that first year secondary school students’ use of the most common words in their texts was parallel to that found in their textbooks. Besides, these students showed control of the process types and circumstances required for the task. On the contrary, they hardly used any modality expressions ([…] we have not to , eh, make dirty the city, an example taken from Whittaker and Llinares, 2009) or expansion of the content clauses by elaboration (“that is…” etc.).

- 32 -

Finally, in a recent study, Whittaker and Llinares (2009) looked at both the oral and written production of the same students and concluded the following: on the oral part, the students participated in discussions and responded to initial ideas and information; on the written part, the texts were generally informative and included reworking of the language when expressing the content they studied. What is more, the authors highlighted the rise in fluency for the individual tasks done later in the year (2009: 229). Yet, when the linguistic features were looked into in detail, the authors concluded that the learners were limited in the expression of complex sentences and were not aware of the register features of the written text for the discipline. The authors concluded, however, that “[…] students can be seen to be moving towards the features they need for success in the disciplines studied” and that “[…] their learning should be evaluated in the light of the achievement in non-CLIL learners […]” (2009: 231). They also claim, however, that they have not found comparable studies against which to test their results.

In conclusion, it seems that these CLIL learners perform positively with respect to general features, but when a detailed linguistic analysis is carried out, their performance is more limited. Yet, these results need to be read in isolation and not in contrast with a comparable student group learning Social Science in Spanish. Although this comparison would be most desirable, it has not been done yet, as the authors themselves point out (Whittaker and Llinares 2009: 230).

The attention will be directed to La Rioja now, an autonomous community which has been carrying out systematic analysis of students who are learning foreign languages under a CLIL approach. Most of this research is being carried out by the GLAUR research group of the University of La Rioja (http://glaur.unirioja.es/). Their studies focus mainly on aspects of lexical competence contrasting CLIL versus nonCLIL learners. Overall, their results indicate a better performance of the CLILG when overall vocabulary production is analysed (Jiménez Catalán et al. 2006), or when lexical transfer is looked at (Agustín Llach, 2009), and even when receptive vocabulary is compared and the language level is measured through a cloze test (Jiménez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe, 2009).

Nonetheless, less positive results are also attested. Moreno (2009) reports on a study carried out with 130 11-12 year-old learners at the end of primary education studying in two different learning contexts: a CLIL context vs. a non-CLIL context. In this study the learners needed to perform a free word association task. Moreno - 33 -

observed no significant differences between the CLIL and the non-CLILG as regards associations. She concluded that “[…] it seems that regardless of their teaching approach and hours of formal instruction, they seem to be at similar states of their lexical incorporation into their mental storage” (2009:106). Thus, she calls for further research to determine the effectiveness of CLIL to increase learners’ foreign language competence. Thus, it seems that the positive results expected from CLIL learners are not always obtained and as Fernández Fontecha (2009:09) states further research is needed in order to determine the long-term effects of CLIL instruction.

To complete the overview of the CLIL research undertaken in some of the monolingual communities of Spain the results obtained in Andalusia will be examined. Even though Andalusia is not a bilingual community, it has been particularly concerned with bilingual and multilingual issues in recent years (Fernández Fontecha, 2009). The Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo (PFP), Consejería de Educación, 2005) is a consequence of this interest. Broadly speaking, this Plan aims at promoting bilingual sections in state schools. The Plan seeks that through the implementation of 74 strategic policies over a 4 year period running from 2005 to 2009. As Moore (2009:92) puts it the Plan represents a turning point in state language policies from an economic perspective: just over 140 million euro has been earmarked for investment in human and technical resources, teacher training, mobility and the innovation of curricula design (for more details see the PFP (2005) document of the Regional Ministry of Education). The task of evaluating such programmes is being undertaken by a research group from the Pablo de Olavide University. The evaluation “[…] comprised questionnaire and interview based assessments of learner, teacher, administrative and parent satisfaction; questionnaire and interview-based overviews of classroom practice and empirically gathered observations of bilingual project learners’ linguistic achievements (compared with mainstream control groups)” (Moore, 2009:101; Moore refers to Casal and Moore, 2009; Lorenzo, Casal, Moore and Alfonso, 2009; Lorenzo, Casal and Moore, 2010 for further results on this comparison). To understand the results obtained with this Plan a study carried out by Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010) will be examined. Their results were obtained from a very broad sample of CLIL and non-CLIL students. About 1300 students belonging to 61 randomly-chosen institutions were included: 684 were primary school learners aged 9-10 and 636 secondary school learners aged 13-14. Learners attending different bilingual sections (English, French and German) were selected, although control groups could only be established for the English primary and secondary groups as the other initiatives were implemented institution-wide and no choice for mainstream monolingual education was - 34 -

offered. To measure their linguistic outcomes 4 tests targeting the basic 4 language skills (reading, listening, writing and speaking) were administered11. The results obtained when measuring linguistic outcomes and competence levels showed that CLIL learners outperformed non-CLIL learners in all levels and for all languages with a global average score of 62,1% vs. 38%. The authors highlight the importance of the result as the CLIL learners had only had one year and half of CLIL. Besides, Lorenzo et al. (2010) call for further research as they claim that besides the already attested greater lexical range for CLIL learners (Dalton-Puffer, 2007) “[their] study suggests that the advantage extends to structural variety and pragmatic efficiency, hence encompassing language growth at lexico-grammatical12 and discourse levels” (2010:427). They claim that their study, as previous studies (e.g. Burmeister and Daniel, 2002), demonstrates a non-linear correlation between exposure and competence (2010:427). When results are looked at by language, it seems that French bilinguals have a greater command of receptive skills, while English bilinguals obtain better results in the productive skills. German bilinguals, however, perform worse than the other two bilingual groups. Lorenzo et al. (2010) suggests that the benefits reported for the English bilinguals only after one year and a half of CLIL teaching could be due to the fact that they have benefited from the French and German sections’ insights, even though French and German bilinguals have been in bilingual sections since the beginning of primary. Besides, they also draw their attention to the debate on the “age factor” (Singleton and Ryan, 1989, 2004). Nonetheless, it could also be claimed that the non-linearity of the correlation between exposure and competence could be due to the fact that it is in the first stages in which a more robust development is observed, while the gains in subsequent stages are more progressive and less abrupt, or even that the benefits could reach a plateau or ceiling effect (Rifkin, 2005; García Mayo and Villarreal, 2011). Returning to the “age factor” effect, the authors suggest that advantages have already been found for late (Wesche, 2002) and low frequency learners (Marsh, 2002). The authors suggest that:

11

The authors also report results on L2 use in CLIL classrooms and on educational effects of CLIL beyond the L2. The data were based on questionnaires administered to teachers. Since these results are beyond the interests of the present dissertation, they will not be commented on. 12 Yet, since the tests used for testing the four basic skills are not described in detail, it could not be decided if their main focus was to test whether the learners could convey or understand meaning in the L2, that is, whether the focus was on communication as promoted by the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001), and if accuracy and correctness had any relevant role in the evaluation of the learners’ performance. - 35 -

This may be attributable to the fact that increasing cognitive and meta-cognitive abilities and more advanced [first language] L1 academic proficiency —as typical of later primary or early secondary learners— can offset the neurologically psycholinguistic advantages of an early start. It also seems logical that the quality and quantity of input/exposure be just as important as age (Muñoz 2008), and CLIL implies both more and more meaningful L2. (Lorenzo et al., 2010:429)

Thus, these authors defend that late starters provided they are presented with “[…] sound manipulation of exposure time can optimise their resources” (2010:429) clearly advocating for the benefits of CLIL.

As a summary, it should be highlighted that encouraging results and initiatives are reported in these communities. However, as Fernández Fontecha (2009:15) reveals further research is needed in various aspects concerning CLIL such as CLIL acquisition and CLIL teaching, but also in the exploration of the effectiveness of CLIL in terms of learners’ L2 proficiency and accuracy. This final task will be considered in this thesis by comparing the provision and omission of verbal morphology by Basque-Spanish third language (thus, L3) English learners.

2.4.2. CLIL initiatives in bilingual communities in Spain Leaving the Basque Country aside, as it will be dealt in detail in the next section; this section will very briefly show the general trends for CLIL language learning observed in Catalonia and Galicia. Catalonia, together with the Basque Country, has been one of the most important promoters of the importance of multilingualism in Spain, whereas CLIL initiatives in Galicia have been strongly promoted recently.

CLIL experiences in Catalonia started in the early 80s, although it was not until the 90s when the first innovative experiences were implemented (Navés and Victori, 2010). Initially, the projects were mainly aimed at creating appropriate materials for CLIL (see the webpage of CIREL, http://phobos.xtec.cat/cirel/cirel/, for downloadable materials). It was not until the late 90s or beginning of the 21st Century when public schools were asked to participate in CLIL innovative projects aimed at improving learners’ competence. Recently the number of public, private and semi-private schools involved - 36 -

in such programmes is very large and keeps increasing year by year. As Navés and Victori (2010) state, research in the Catalonian context is scarce, although several studies have been carried out analysing the oral and written interaction pattern of secondary and tertiary CLIL learners (Escobar and Nussbaum, 2008; Moore, 2009, Dooly and Moore, 2009; Gallart, forthcoming), still only a few examine possible gains in proficiency, content or both (Vallbona, 2009; Roquet-Pugès, ongoing research). Yet, Muñoz, already in 2002, described CLIL as possibly “[…] the only realistic way of increasing the competence in foreign languages of the largest number of young citizens” (p. 36). She stated that children’s language proficiency did not benefit from an early start if it did not involve an increase in the amount of hours and in the meaningful input (Muñoz, 2002; 2003; 2006). Therefore, Muñoz defends CLIL as a qualitative change that can render formal context language learning successful.

Two studies belonging to the nascent CLIL-non-CLIL comparison field in Catalonia presented by Navés and Victori (2010) will be outlined in more detail. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of these two studies is that they crave to establish whether CLIL learners outperform older non-CLIL learners and not just age-matched ones. These studies compared CLIL and non-CLIL learners from different grades and Catalan schools. The learners involved had taken one CLIL course in which a content subject such as science, arts maths or crafts was taught through CLIL. The instruments used were a subset of the battery tests developed and used by the Barcelona Age Factor Group, BAF. The first study, Study I, focused on the general language proficiency and looked at a total of 837 students from 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th grades. To gauge proficiency a multiple choice listening test, a cloze, a multiple choice grammar test and a dictation were administered. The results showed that CLIL learners outperformed non-CLIL ones in each test. Yet, the 9th grade non-CLIL learners also obtained positive results as far as the grammar test was concerned. Furthermore, they showed that CLIL grade 7 learners had a parallel proficiency (including all the measures) to grade 8 and grade 9 non-CLIL learners, and CLIL grade 8 learners also surpassed non-CLIL grade 9 learners. Thus, CLIL learners were better than gradematched non-CLIL learners, and 7th and 8th graders performed better than 2 and 1 higher grade non-CLIL learners, respectively.

The second study, Study II, looked at the learners’ writing skills and included 695 students from grades 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 (only non-CLIL learners are included at grade 11 and 12). The GRAL timed writing composition was used and it was analyzed for accuracy, fluency, syntactic complexity and lexical complexity. Fluency was assessed - 37 -

by means of essay length; syntactic complexity by means of clause per sentence ratio and subordinate clause per sentence ratio; lexical complexity was analysed using the Giraud’s index (word types squared divided by total number of words) and accuracy by the percentage of error-free sentences. As for fluency, their results revealed that for each grade CLIL learners wrote more words, and at grades 9 and 10 wrote longer essays than non-CLIL learners in grades 10, 11 and 12. When syntactic complexity was looked at for clauses per sentence, the index improved as learners got older and moved to higher grades both for CLIL and non-CLIL. Still, CLIL learners proved to produce equal proportions as older non-CLIL learners: grade 10 CLIL learners the same as non-CLIL 12 grade learners, CLIL 7th and 9th graders as many clauses as grade 11 non-CLIL learners, and CLIL 5 grade learners similar to 7 grade non-CLIL learners. It was the older (12 graders) non-CLIL learners, however, who produced the higher rate of complex subordinate clauses per sentence. Yet, CLIL learners still seemed to be ahead of grade-matched non-CLIL learners: 7 grade CLIL learners outperformed non-CLIL learners in grades 9 and 10, and wrote sentences as syntactically complex as those from grade 11 non-CLIL learners. A similar pattern was found for lexical variation: higher grade learners exhibit wider lexical variation (11th and 12th grade non-CLIL learners, as the study did not include counterpart CLILGs). Still, no significant differences were found between CLIL learners at grade 5 and non-CLIL 7 grade learners, and CLIL learners at grade 7 and non-CLIL learners at grade 9. Finally, when the proportion of error-free sentences was looked at no steady increase was observed as the age of the learners and the exposure time increased. The authors attribute it, partly, to the fact that the measures used for writing are very sensitive to complexity measures. Navés and Victori (2010) concluded that the results obtained from Study I and Study II confirmed that CLIL learners outperformed their non-CLIL counterparts for most of the tests administered in line with results obtained by Muñoz and Navés (2007), Lasagabaster (2008), Victori and Vallbona (2008), Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán (2009b) and Villarreal and García Mayo (2009). Furthermore, Navés and Victori demonstrated that “[…] when learners are at grades 7 and 9 and have received CLIL instruction they achieve a level equivalent to or even higher than learners a couple of grades ahead in many of the domains of language” (2010: 47).

Moving on to the Galician context, CLIL pioneering experiences in Galicia started in 1999 in 12 secondary schools and have spread nowadays to 200 primary and secondary schools. This increase has been promoted by the Languages Plan, an action plan aimed at fostering the learning of environmental and additional languages. According to the directive currently in force regulating the CLIL practices in Galicia, - 38 -

CLIL experiences take the form of bilingual sections. As San Isidro (2010:58) describes it in bilingual sections:

[s]ubjects are taught on a bilingual basis (Additional LanguageGalician or Additional Language-Spanish), although the percentage of use of the additional language increases as the students make progress. In a bilingual section two teachers –the CLIL teacher and the English/French teacher— collaborate so as to include the CLIL programme in the school linguistic project and to design the syllabus of the non-linguistic subject.

Very few studies exist up-to-date in which CLIL in Galicia has been studied (but see San Isidro, 2009a). San Isidro (2010) presents a study in which he contrasts CLIL and non-CLIL students to confirm the educational value and effectiveness of such an approach in secondary schools. This study included 154 CLIL and 133 non-CLIL learners of ten different schools across Galicia (5 rural and 5 urban). All the students were in DBH4 and the CLIL learners had been studying through CLIL for 2 years. The author wanted to test whether CLIL learners surpassed their non-CLIL counterparts in a global language skill test which included reading/writing, listening and speaking13. The results confirmed that the CLILGs significantly outstripped non-CLILGs in the overall English competence and in each skill test taken individually. Furthermore, 87,7% of CLIL students passed the test in which a minimum of 50% of the marks was required in order to pass it, while only 45,1% of non-CLIL ones did. Thus, he concluded that the quantitative results obtained bore out the “effectiveness of CLIL in a bilingual region where the additional language is a third language (Cenoz and Jessner, 2000; Lasagabaster, 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008a; San Isidro, 2009b).

2.5. CLIL in the Basque Country The need to speak at least one foreign language has become an issue of great relevance in our society. In the specific case of the Basque Country, its willingness to be integrated in the permanently developing European society has driven continuous research on language teaching and learning with the aim of finding the most efficient

13

The author also entertained two other hypotheses: (1) That no statistical differences between male and female CLIL students were expected; and (2) that there would not be any difference between students enrolled in rural or urban contexts. These variables have not been included in this dissertation so they have been discarded from the detailed account. - 39 -

approach that will allow its students to meet the language requirements needed to become fully-active citizens of the macro-European society which is being created.

Even though, as mentioned above, CLIL as an educational approach used primarily for teaching foreign languages has gained in popularity in the last decades, the teaching of languages through a content subject has a very old tradition in the Basque Country and in other European areas such as Catalonia or Wales (Artigal, 1993; Baker, 2001).

2.5.1. Origins of immersion in the Basque Country Bilingual and even trilingual (Basque, Spanish and French) programmes can be tracked back as early as the end of the nineteenth century in the Basque Country (Cenoz, 1998). Nonetheless, under Franco’s regime (1939-1975), Basque was banned from formal education settings. Despite all these legal obstacles, in the 1960s groups of enthusiastic parents and teachers in the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) fought for and succeeded in re-opening a number of private Basque-medium schools (Ikastolak14), schools which still continue to play a primary role in the protection and promotion of the Basque language (Cenoz, 1998; Lasagabaster, 2001). Although these schools did not obtain official recognition from the regime at the beginning, the number of students attracted to them forced Franco’s government to recognize them eventually (Cenoz, 1998). The end of Franco’s regime brought a more positive context for the Basque language which resulted in the passing of the Basic Law on the Standardisation of Basque (1982).

It was then when Basque became an official language together with Spanish in the Basque Country. Consequently, every student’s right to be taught in Basque or Spanish was recognized and Basque and Spanish became compulsory subjects at school. Three linguistic models15 were established (Cenoz, 1998; Lasagabaster, 2001):

14

In their origin, back in the 60s, the Ikastolak were created to guarantee the teaching through Basque to Basque-born children (Idiazabal, 2003). However, Spanish-born children entered the Ikastolak and the results turned out to be amazing: Spanish-born children were learning a new language (became bilingual) and at the same time, a more appropriate educational model was being built thanks to the effort of teachers and parents. Thus, the Ikastolak were the first ones in the Basque context to put forward what later came to be labelled as immersion programmes (especially after Lambert and Tucker published the results of their research carried out at St. Lambert in 1972, Idiazabal, 2003 see this article for a more detailed description of the process). 15 Initially there were 4 bilingual models: A, B, C and D (MEC, 1979). Two variables were used to distinguish them: mother tongue and sociolinguistic situation. As a result, Model A was aimed at Spanish born children brought up in a Spanish environment; Model B for Spanish born - 40 -

1. Model A in which all subjects are taught in Spanish but the Basque language is taught as a subject for 4 to 5 hours a week; 2. Model B in which more or less 50% of the subjects are taught through Basque the rest through Spanish (with variation from school to school, Arzamendi and Genesee, 1997); 3. Model D in which all subjects are taught through Basque but the Spanish language is taught as a subject for 4 or 5 hours.

The enrolment trends of the students in the Basque Country in the various linguistic education models have changed since they were established in 1983. Even though at the beginning Model A was the most popular one with about 60% of pre-university student enrolment, the last available figures (2009) show that Model D is the most frequently chosen, with over 50% of the enrolment rate. Table 2.3 shows the evolution figures of the models from 1983 to 2009:

children brought up in a semi-Basque environment; Model C for half-Basque born children brought up in a Spanish environment; and finally, Model D for Basque born children brought up in a Basque environment. When the Basque Government and the Education Department finally th passed the law that made the teaching of Basque compulsory (11 July 138/1983 Bilingual Decree) only three models were established: Model A, B, and D. This reduction was based more on parents requests’, school plans and on teacher training than on the earlier mentioned sociolinguistic factors (Idiazabal 2003, see this article and the articles mentioned therein for a more detailed description on the subject). - 41 -

Table 2.3: Pupils by bilingual education model (%). Non university general education regime A. C. of Euskadi Model A Model B Model D

(Table adapted from Eustat and Dept. of Education Basque Government Teaching Statistics)

These three linguistic models were aimed (and still are16) at students of different backgrounds and each represented a different type of immersion programme. Yet, any family had the free choice to register their son or daughter in the model they thought appropriate independently of their home background. Still, researchers tend to identify these different models with different target populations (Cenoz, 1998; Lasagabaster, 2001, 2007a, 2007b): (i)

Model A: It is a model intended for native speakers of Spanish who choose to be instructed only in Spanish. The Basque language and its literature are taught as a second language for about an hour a day.

(ii)

Model B: It is a model aimed at Spanish native speakers who want to acquire bilingual levels both in Spanish and Basque. Both Spanish and

16

There is currently a widespread feeling that the linguistic models which were very useful at the time they were created are no longer useful. Various options have been proposed to substitute for the three school models, such as the ‘Model D only movement’ or the movement which claims that each school should have the right to choose the amount of Basque taught, provided a certain amount is guaranteed. After March 2010 the Education Department of the Basque Government has put forward the Hezkuntza Marko Hirueleduna, the Trilingual Education Framework (Hezkuntza, Unibertsitate eta Ikerketa Saila, 2010a, 2010b). As an experimental approach, it will be evaluated for 3 years and at the end of this period a definitive proposal will be established (provided reasonable consensus has been reached). In short, the Trilingual Model seeks to strengthen Basque, consolidate bilingualism and activate English, through a broad framework in which the individual autonomy of schools is promoted. This Framework determines that each school participating needs to teach in and through each of the three languages (Basque, Spanish and English) for about 5 to 6 hours a week. This is the minimum of dedication after which each school can decide on its individual linguistic project and as such, define the amount of school time devoted to teaching in and through each language.

- 42 -

Basque are used as the languages of instruction for about 50% of the school time. Thus, it is similar to Canadian Early Partial Immersion Programmes in which both English and French are used to teach to a majority-group English speaking children from the very beginning (Cenoz, 1998; Genesee, 1987; Lasagabaster, 2007a, 2007b). (iii)

Model D: It is a dual-oriented programme. It is a first language maintenance programme for L1 Basque speakers, as well as an Early Total Immersion Programme (parallel to the Canadian ones) for native Spanish speakers.

When measuring language proficiency in Basque evaluation results (Gabiña et al., 1986; Sierra and Olaziregi, 1989, 1991; Sierra, 1996) indicate significant differences in proficiency among the three models where students in Model D are the most proficient ones and students in Model A are the least proficient ones, clearly showing a positive relation between the time devoted to Basque and its proficiency (Cenoz, 1998: 262). Research has consistently demonstrated that Model D students are the only ones that can reach balanced bilingualism (Gabiña et al., 1986).

2.5.2. The age factor and foreign language acquisition The Ikastolak were constantly trying to find ways to enhance the language proficiency of their students. The language acquisition knowledge accumulated from the evaluation of the linguistic abilities acquired in the two official languages of the Basque Country by students enrolled in the three linguistic models showed that an increased amount of input (Model A vs. Model D) could facilitate the acquisition of languages. Besides, their belief that there was a need to take advantage of the natural early language learning mechanisms available to children hurried the need to teach foreign languages at an early stage, as early as infant school at age 4. The idea of increasing the input by an early introduction of the foreign language, English in this case, derived primarily from the thought that it was the best way to increase the input to the language without taking too much time from the regional language, Basque, so that its acquisition would not be at risk by an increase in the time devoted to the foreign language teaching.

- 43 -

In order to control for the so-called age factor (Singleton and Ryan, 2004) various research studies were carried out (see García Mayo and García Lecumberri (2003) for studies carried out in the Basque Country, and Muñoz (2006) for studies carried out in Catalonia). Research accomplished in the context of the Basque Country (e.g., for morphosyntax see García Mayo, Lázaro Ibarrola and Liceras, 2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2006; Lázaro Ibarrola, 2002; Perales Haya, 2004; García Mayo and Lázaro Ibarrola, 2005; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2005, 2008b; García Mayo, 2006; Gutierrez Mangado and García Mayo, 2008; Perales Haya, García Mayo and Liceras, 2009; for phonetics see García Lecumberri and Gallardo del Puerto, 2003; Gallardo del Puerto, 2005; for overall written and oral comprehension and production skills see Cenoz, 2003; Doiz and Lasagabaster, 2003, among others) - involving participants who were already functionally bilingual (Basque-Spanish) and to whom English was taught as a third language- compared the progress of 11-year old-beginners with that of 8-year-old and 4-year-old beginners. Essentially, the findings show that when the number of hours of instruction is held constant, the older beginners significantly outperform the younger beginners (parallel results were obtained by the BAF group in Catalonia see, Muñoz (2006)). As Lasagabaster (2007b) points out it could be that the more advanced cognitive development of the older learners could facilitate the learning in formal contexts in all of the earlier mentioned aspects. Thus, when the amount of time devoted to foreign language learning in formal contexts is the same, older learners obtain better results than younger learners.

Within the backdrop of the age-factor effect, two generative studies dealing with the oral production of two different groups of Basque-Spanish bilinguals learning English as their L3 will be looked at. The data for these two studies also comes from the Language and Speech Laboratory group17 (LASLAB) database so the defining characteristics of these learners are comparable to the ones that will be presented in this dissertation.

In the first study, García Mayo, Lázaro Ibarrola and Liceras (2005) included 58 participants divided into three groups depending on the age of first exposure to English (Group 1 4-5 years; Group 2 8-9 years; Group 3 11-12 years). All the learners

17

To find more information on the members and interests of the group see http://www.laslab.org/ More detailed information on the group will be provided in Chapter 4. - 44 -

(irrespective of their onset age) had had 4 years (396 hours) of formal exposure to English. The participants had to narrate two stories: The well-known story “Frog, Where are you? (Mayer, 1969) which was common to all participants. A second story that varied depending on the age-group. These authors wanted to explain the morphosyntactic development of these participants by specifically analyzing the insertion of is before lexical verbs and the insertion of subject personal pronoun he before a lexical verb (García Mayo et al., 2005:446-447), a systematic error also attested in other datasets (see García Mayo et al., 2005: 147 for references to studies which have found similar phenomena). They concluded that an age factor effect was observed “[…] not in terms of overall proficiency but in terms of structuring the input” (2005:472): Group 1 learners used placeholder is (and lacked personal subject pronouns, produced very few independent lexical verbs and thus, used default is overwhelmingly); Group 2 used placeholder he (and showed a modest occurrence of he default and subject pronouns, and exhibited a pronounced increase in independent lexical verbs); finally, Group 3 showed a significant decrease of placeholder he (and exhibited a significant increase both in subject pronoun and independent lexical verb use). Thus, as the authors themselves pointed out (2005:473), it seemed that the age factor determined the element that filled a syntactic position, but did not influence the need for or the occurrence of the syntactic position itself.

Along the same lines and working with parallel age-groups, Perales, García Mayo and Liceras (2009) reported work carried out on sentential negation. Seventy eight (78) participants were included in this research. They were arranged in three groups depending on their English onset age. As in the previous research the students had to narrate both Mayer’s (1969) frog story and a different story depending on the agegroup. This study, however, reported on the results obtained at two testing times: the first one after 4 years of teaching (308-396 hours) and the second one, after 6 years (506-594 hours). This enabled the authors to observe the development of sentential negation in the participants’ ILG. Perales et al. (2009) concluded that “[…] learners do not seem to rely on the relation between inflection and negation, but rather they seem to rely on superficial word order” (2009:26). More precisely, “[…] learners seem to analyze the input in search of a lexical unit that can function as an independent lexical entry” (2009:24). Age factor effects were observed when the type of independent - 45 -

lexical entry provided was analyzed: Group 1 learners showed preference for anaphoric no in both test times (55% and 75%); Group 2 learners resorted to anaphoric no in the first interview (66,2%) while they turned to n’t contraction by the second interview (70,6%); finally, Group 3 preferred the contracted n’t negator almost across the board (95,3% and 97,7%) (2009:25). Thus, along the lines of García Mayo et al.’s (2005) study, also in Perales et al.’s (2009) study the age factor seemed to have an effect in the element which filled in the syntactic slot that resulted from some type of L1 transfer: the agreement features and their structural position in García Mayo et al. (2005) and the search for an independent negative marker that preceded inflection in Perales et al. (2009).

To conclude, it needs to be underlined that though these two studies report a more target-like performance of older learners in institutional settings further research dealing with an increased input context should be undertaken as it has been suggested that learners can only benefit from early starts in formal settings if the amount of input is increased (Muñoz, 2002; Larson-Hall, 2008). This is precisely the context for the present study: a group with an increased exposure to English input (the CLILG) contrasted with a group with the regular English as a school subject exposure (the nonCLILG).

Along the lines of these studies, and aiming at the age factor effect, the Basquemedium schools, the Confederation of Ikastolak, also carried out research in order to analyze the performance of their early start learners (onset age 4) in contrast to their later start learners (onset age 818). Garagorri (2002) reported on the results obtained by these two groups and he showed that the early starters (who had had English for 10 years) outperformed the later starters performing around 25% better in all the variables that were measured. Specifically in the variables which traditionally have been considered as more difficult for additional language learners: oral and written productions. The following table illustrates the variables and results obtained by the early and later start groups (Garagorri, 2002):

18

It is not revealed whether Basque or Spanish is the mother tongue of the learners included in their research. Yet, all these learners attend a Basque medium school since (at least) age 3. - 46 -

Table 2.4: Comparison between the early start and the later start group (Garagorri, 2002)

Early start group

Later start group

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Written production

8.93

4.15

5.62

4.47

Reading comprehension

8.62

3.91

6.90

4.52

Oral comprehension

15.76

5.15

11.90

6.42

First grammar test

9.47

2.88

7.10

3.38

Second grammar test

4.47

3.99

2.37

3.41

Oral production

13.10

4.84

9.48

4.94

(Table adapted from Garagorri, 2002)

In conclusion, it seems that the benefits of an early foreign language learning start are not conclusive (Garagorri, 2002 compared to García Mayo and García Lecumberri, 2003). And what is more, that the attested proficiency level of these young learners is still far from the language command acquired in natural contexts. It seems as if the increased input exposure obtained by the early start needs to be enhanced or complemented if the potential benefits of the early start want to be preserved. Is CLIL the solution then? In the next section, up-to-date CLIL research undertaken in the Basque Country will be presented.

2.5.3. From an early start to CLIL An early introduction of a foreign language does not seem to be the only way in which to enhance the foreign language learning capacity of the learners immersed in formal school settings (Muñoz, 2002, 2003; Lasagabaster, 2007b). The teaching of curricular content through an additional language also increases the amount of input to which these learners are exposed to and, as a consequence, it could possibly speed up the rate of acquisition of that language (Lasagabaster, 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008a).

Against this backdrop, Egiguren (2006) revealed that curricular teaching through a foreign language can obtain parallel results to the ones reported after an early foreign language learning start. Egiguren (2006) claimed that only one year and a half of teaching of Arts through English was enough to obtain parallel results among learners who have started learning English at 4 and learners who have started learning English

- 47 -

at 8 but are evaluated when they are the same age. These positive results obtained by Egiguren (2006) had already been defended earlier by Cenoz (1998) who carried out a study in a Model D school and stated that the teaching of content subjects through a foreign language was beneficial for the developing of the foreign language abilities (and was not detrimental for Basque and Spanish acquisition, or content subject acquisition). Thus, CLIL seemed to be a very valuable option to teach languages in an already bilingual community, the Basque Country, and what is more, in a community with a broad experience in teaching languages, Basque, indirectly through content subject teaching.

One of the main agents in the research and defence of the importance of CLIL for foreign language learning in the Basque Country is the Confederation of Ikastolak. Keeping up their innovative spirit and considering the multilingual challenges of the European society, in 1990 the Ikastolak created the Ikastola’s Plurilingual Language Project (Elorza and Muñoa, 2008) with two main aims “[…] to attain the maximum degree of development that Basque requires in its linguistic area, and […] to ensure that Basque speakers are able to learn and use other languages.” (2008:85). In 1991, and as part of this Plurilingual Language Project, the Ikastolak started Eleanitz-English (Muñoa, 2003) (Multilingual-English, my translation), a programme in which English is introduced at age 4 to benefit from the language learning capacities of these early years and to increase exposure time to English without endangering the status of Basque, the vehicular language at school (Elorza and Muñoa, 2008:87). The project also encompasses the teaching of curricular subjects through a foreign language (English) until compulsory secondary education is over (age 16).

They had to ensure, however, that this early introduction of English19 would not negatively affect the two languages that were already part of the reality of the Basque Country, Basque and Spanish, and more specifically the Basque language due to its regional language status. Their conception that an early introduction of English would significantly improve English ultimate attainment was based, on the one hand, on their own results from Spanish born children who were early immersed in a Basque school

19

According to the project “Eleanitz-ingelesa” proiektuaren aurkezpena (n.d.), schools integrating the Confederations of Ikastolak were surveyed about the need to decide which foreign language was to be taught, French or English. All the Ikastolak decided that English was their choice, so English became the principal foreign language to be taught in the Ikastolak project. - 48 -

and obtained Basque proficiency levels similar to Basque born children and, on the other hand, on the “Early Double Immersion Program” (Genesee, Tucker, Lambert, 1978) which was successfully implemented after age four in Canada and the United States (from “Eleanitz-ingelesa” proiektuaren aurkezpena p.1). Aware of the fact that a mere early introduction to English as a subject was not a determining factor20 to ensure that at the end of compulsory secondary education (sixteen years-old) the learners will be able to “carry out everyday communication in English both orally and in writing” (“Eleanitz-ingelesa” proiektuaren aurkezpena p.3, translation mine, I.V.), they designed what they called the “Multilingual-English Programme” in which learners from 4 to 16 years would be involved. This programme included an early introduction to English as well as the teaching of one content subject, social sciences, through the English language.

Muñoa (2003) reported on the results obtained when an experimental group (EG) that started learning English at age 4 and at 14-15 had had a year of Social Sciences in English was compared to a control group (CG) that started learning English at 8 and studied Social Sciences in Basque and were part of the Multilingual-English programme of the Ikastolak. The findings revealed that the EG obtained better results in the English proficiency tests and in the test that measured content knowledge, even though the test was carried out in Basque and the EG had studied Social Sciences in English. Muñoa (2003) claims that the EG overcomes the CG in all the English related tasks (the results on content knowledge reported in the study will not be mentioned as it will not be dealt in this dissertation, yet, they are also positive). Table 2.5 illustrates the figures from the proficiency tests:

20

As mentioned above, when measuring proficiency in Basque evaluation results indicate significant differences in proficiency among the three models (Gabiña et al., 1986; Sierra and Olaziregi, 1989, 1991; Sierra, 1996) where students in Model D are the most proficient ones and students in Model A are the least proficient ones, clearly showing a positive relation between the time devoted to Basque and its proficiency (Cenoz, 1998:262). The Ikastolak draw from these results to claim that teaching English from early on is not sufficient to ensure the basic communication standards in English. - 49 -

Table 2.5: Results obtained by the Control Group and the Experimental Group in the tasks designed to measure their various English skills.

Group Control group Mean N Stand. Dev.. Experimental group Mean N Stand. Dev.. Total Mean N Stand. Dev..

Listening

Writing

Reading

Speaking

Grammar

3.78 185 2.545

3.600 185 2.3582

3.495 185 2.2412

5.452 53 2.5518

3.130 185 1.8009

5.03 291 2.517

4.396 291 2.3358

4.149 291 2.3942

6.261 90 2.1945

4.517 291 1.9987

4.54 476 2.597

4.086 476 2.3741

3.895 476 2.3553

5.961 143 2.3572

3.978 476 2.0380

(Table adapted from Muñoa 2003: 14)

Muñoa (2003: 17-18) calls our attention to the fact that the greatest difference between these two groups lies in the grammar-type tasks (CG mean scores 3.130, EG 4.5). She claims that this is striking as the Multilingual English Project follows a communicative approach. This means that these learners (from 4 to 16 years) have not received overt teaching of grammatical content at school, the focus being on curricular content and meaning. Henceforth, she concludes that the evaluation of the CLIL experience is very positive and that the results seem to confirm the effectiveness of such approaches.

Moving in the same direction, the Department of Education, University and Investigation (DEUI) of the Basque Government started a plurilingual teaching programme in 1996. It started with an early introduction of English or French and in 2003-2004 it also included the teaching of content subjects through foreign languages, mainly English. The study compared CLIL and non-CLILGs at two points in time in compulsory (ages 13-16) and optional (16-18) secondary education (ISEI-IVEI, 2007). The findings showed that the CLILGs obtained overall better results than the nonCLILGs in oral and written production and comprehension. Besides, the study claimed that the content knowledge acquired did not decrease when the teaching was carried out through the English language, and that the level was similar to that obtained by the non-CLILGs taught either through Basque or Spanish, depending on the linguistic model they are in.

- 50 -

Drawing from this research, Alonso, Grisaleña and Campo (2008) reported on the results obtained in 6 of the 12 schools participating in the ISEI-IVEI (2007) study. Similarly, they looked at the results obtained from the tests measuring the linguistic competence, and knowledge level of the subjects that were taught through English (they also looked at language learning strategies and teachers’ and learners’ opinion, but they will not be commented). In this study, 6 schools participated. There were 3 groups of learners from each school and each group was tested twice. In order to measure their language proficiency a Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) exam was administered. A different Cambridge ESOL (CE) exam was passed according to their expected English level (probably based on the school level or years of Plurilingual Experience): Figure 2.2: Groups, Test times and type of exams.

CSE: Compulsory secondary education (DBH) Post compulsory: optional secondary education (BATX) PE: Plurilingual Experience (Taken from Alonso, Grisaleña and Campo 2008: 39)

The results of the experimental groups (EG) in the plurilingual experience (PE) were significantly higher than the control groups for all the skills measured. Nonetheless, all the EG performed already better at the first testing time, in other words, they were preselected to enter the CLIL programme. Thus, their CLIL results could also be affected by the fact that these learners were intrinsically better English language learners than the learners in the control groups, and not only by the new approach, CLIL. A similar idea is stated by the researchers when reporting the teachers’ impression about the global performance of the EG students being superior to that of the other groups. Alonso et al. (2008: 44) suggest that “[…] this could be due both to the prior selection and to the high motivation and interest on the part of the families and students”. All in all, they concluded that their results (only the language related results have been reported here) “[…] confirm the educational value and - 51 -

effectiveness of the Plurilingual Experience set up in some Secondary schools of the Basque Department of Education” (Alonso et al. 2008: 47). What is more, they claimed that PE increases the rate of learning of the vehicular language. This claim is utterly important as there is an urgent need to learn languages, if the citizens of the Basque Country want to conform to the European requirements (mother tongue and/or regional language plus two foreign languages). CLIL seems then an appropriate companion to reach the objective.

Outside of these two institutions (Confederation of Ikastolak and the Department of Education, University and Investigation) few independent studies have been carried out in the Basque context regarding the effectiveness and validity of CLIL approaches by comparing the performance of CLIL vs. non-CLIL learners.

The LASLAB group of the University of the Basque Country has recently (2006) started a project with the aim of studying whether the implementation of CLIL programmes yields the results that have been claimed by the Ikastolak and the public education sector in the Basque Country, and by other international agents that have long before implemented similar models in Europe, Canada or the United States. Most studies by LASLAB members to date deal with a holistic evaluation of the students’ proficiency (Lasagabaster, 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008a, among others) and little finegrained research has been conducted on the impact that a CLIL mediated approach may have on the realization of specific aspects (Gallardo del Puerto, Gómez Lacabex and García Lecumberri, 2009 for pronunciation and Martínez Adrián and Gutiérrez Mangado, 2009; Villarreal and García Mayo, 2009; García Mayo and Villarreal, 2011 for specific grammatical aspects).

Lasagabaster (2008) conducted a study in which he included 198 secondary education learners who started learning English when they were 8. The participants were divided into 3 groups: Group 1, a non-CLILG made-up by 28 learners studying at DBH4; Group 2, a group of 113 DBH4 learners who have been in a CLIL mediated programme for 2 years (4 hours a week per year); Group 3 a group of 57 DBH3 CLIL learners who have only had CLIL for a year (4 hours a week). He used several tests to measure various skills: the standardized Oxford Placement Test was used to measure grammar and listening skills; letter writing to measure writing skills (specifically focusing on content, organization, vocabulary, language usage and mechanics); and speaking skills (operationalised as pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency and content) were measured through the narration of the frog story (Mayer, 1969). - 52 -

Lasagabaster’s analysis revealed that Group 2 outperformed the non-CLILG 1 in all the writing and speaking aspects compared. And what is more, that Group 3, a year younger than Group 1, also outscored Group 1 in the grammar test and in the overall English proficiency scores (reached by adding together the results of the four tests) Therefore, the author (2008: 38) concluded that CLIL is effective even in a bilingual community which offers very few opportunities to use the additional language (English) outside the school context. Nevertheless, he calls out for more research in order to gather information that will lead stakeholders to make sound decisions based on empirical evidence.

Ruiz de Zarobe (2008a) carried out another holistic study. She compares the speech production of 3 groups: two CLILGs, differing on the amount of content-based instruction, and a non-CLILG. These three groups had to narrate Mayer’s (1969) frog story and their data was analyzed longitudinally. The following table taken from Ruiz de Zarobe (2008a:65) illustrates her groups. All learners had started learning English when they were 8: Table 2.6: Information on the corpus analyzed in Ruiz de Zarobe 2008a: 65

-Secondary: compulsory secondary education DBH nd -Pre-University: 2 year of optional secondary education Batx2

Their

production

was

analyzed

according

to

the

following

parameters:

pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency and content (its adequacy). The types, tokens and type/token ratio were also studied to check their productive vocabulary in the task.

Ruiz de Zarobe concluded that as for productive vocabulary no significant differences were observed for the tokens and types used among the three groups, yet, - 53 -

differences were observed when the type/token ratio was compared between the CLILGs and the non-CLILG. She related this significant difference to “[…] a more lexical richness and somehow a higher language level than the non-CLIL counterpart” (2008a: 69). As for the other 5 parameters of speech production investigated, the two CLILGs significantly outperformed the non-CLIL in every single one. Moreover, she observed a positive relationship between the amount of exposure through English and a more target like performance, that is to say, the CLILG with the greatest content exposure achieved higher proficiency results in the task than the CLILG with less exposure. Yet, both groups performed better than the non-CLILG. The longitudinal results, on the other hand, were not so straight forward, no statistical increase in proficiency throughout the years was observed for the CLILGs (only in vocabulary for the CLILG with greater exposure). This somehow contrasted with the progression observed for the non-CLILG throughout the years: “[…] in the non-CLIL group there is a positive relationship between grade and linguistic outcomes with significantly better results on fluency (…) and content (…)” (Ruiz de Zarobe 2008a: 69). Although their speech proficiency was lower, they significantly progressed from year to year and this development was indeed prominent. Ruiz de Zarobe pointed out, however, that when the linguistic outcome of the three programmes was compared both CLILGs performed more accurately than the non-CLILG “confirming the effectiveness of the CLIL approach on speech production outcomes” (2008a: 69). As Lasagabaster (2008), Ruiz de Zarobe (2008a) also concludes by saying that this type of programmes is very interesting for already bilingual communities which need to accommodate foreign language learning in their curriculum.

These two studies deal with global evaluations of oral and written English proficiency and generally speaking, their findings are very positive suggesting a clear advantage of CLIL learners over non-CLIL learners (although less clear results are also obtained regarding the longitudinal progression of CLIL learners, see Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008a).

The next three studies, on the other hand, deal with more specific aspects of language learning and their results although positive are not so categorical. Gallardo del Puerto, Gómez Lacabex and García Lecumberri (2009) studied the pronunciation abilities of 28 Basque-Spanish bilinguals (onset age 8) with the aim of comparing the effect of CLIL as opposed to non-CLIL traditional classroom teaching. The CLIL learners had a mean age of 14,65 and mean exposure of 980 hours, whereas the nonCLIL learners had a mean age of 14,57 and a mean exposure of 721 hours. The - 54 -

participants had to narrate Mayer’s (1969) picture story Frog, Where are you?. The authors presented two minute excerpts of the productions to five listeners (British English native speakers) whose task was to judge the learners’ pronunciations on the basis of three different aspects: degree of foreign accent, foreign accent intelligibility and foreign accent irritation.

The expected superiority of the CLIL learners was only partly borne out: CLIL learners were considered to have a more intelligible foreign language accent than nonCLIL learners; as for the irritation effect not all raters graded CLIL excerpts significantly less irritating, but if analyzed together CLIL learners foreign accent was notably less irritating than that of non-CLIL learners; no statistical differences where found, however, when the degree of foreign accent was compared. Based on previous research (see 2009: 74 for references), Gallardo del Puerto et al. claimed that nonphonetic aspects (grammatical, lexical and/or oral fluency) might have contributed to the impression of a more intelligible and less irritating speech. Yet, Gallardo del Puerto et al. (2009: 75) claim that the positive effect of CLIL in the linguistic outcomes (intelligibility, in particular) of the learners is more noticeable than the beneficial effect of an early instruction, which seems to indicate that “[…] exposure can be a much more influential variable than age in the acquisition of FLs [Foreign Languages] in purely formal contexts”.

Martínez Adrián and Gutiérrez Mangado (2009) looked at whether the L1 effects attested in other datasets -null subjects and objects, placeholder is/he (along the lines of García Mayo et al. 2005), *don’t plus inflected verb or isn’t plus lexical verb (as in Perales et al. 2009) - will be minimised by participation in a CLIL programme. Their informants were 19 (10 non-CLIL and 9 CLIL) 14-year-old learners that started learning English when they were 8 and had been learning English for 7 years (1155 hours for CLIL, 792 hours for non-CLIL). The participants had to narrate Mayer’s (1969) frog story, as well. Their results indicated that CLIL learners only outperformed non-CLIL learners in the non-use of placeholders, that is, non-CLIL learners produced placeholders with a higher frequency. As for the other morphosyntactic features (null subjects and objects, and the use of negative *don’t and *isn’t), no differences were observed between the groups. As the authors pointed out (2009: 193), however, “[…] a tendency to minimise L1 effects” was observed among the CLIL learners, as they tended to avoid null arguments in general. These authors suggest that the exposure

- 55 -

difference between the groups (363 hours) might not be sufficient to obtain significant differences in some of the features under investigation and they call for further research to investigate whether statistically significant differences are observed after a longer period of instruction.

To finish with the overview of studies that have recently been carried out in the Basque Country, the study by Lázaro Ibarrola and García Mayo (forthcoming) will be introduced. In this study 15 CLIL learners were included and they were recorded while narrating Mayer’s (1969) Frog, Where Are you? at two different points in time: age 13 (after one year of CLIL) and age 15 (third year of CLIL). The authors sought to explore the effects of a CLIL programme on two aspects: on the use of the L1 in discourse markers and repair sequences, and on the morphosyntactic development of their ILG. As this dissertation does not contemplate the pragmatic aspects of language, only the morphosyntactic aspect of the research will be reported. Lázaro Ibarrola and García Mayo (forthcoming) expected a morphosyntactic development from the first to the second recording in: (i) the number of correctly inflected lexical verbs; (ii) the range and accuracy of pronouns; (iii) the use of subordinated structures. From their results they concluded that: (i) there was a more accurate provision of inflection in the second testing time, but this growth in accuracy was mainly located in the provision of irregular past forms; (ii) there was an increase in the accurate use of pronouns, as well as in the range of pronouns used; (iii) there was a significant increase on the number of subordinates from testing time to testing time. As their study did not include a comparable non-CLILG, the authors compared their results to other similar groups of non-CLIL learners. As a result, they suggested that CLIL learners might be at a higher development stage than non-CLIL learners but that the different CLIL and non-CLIL settings might “[…] render the results hardly comparable” (Lázaro Ibarrola and García Mayo, forthcoming). These authors call for further research that will help to “[…] identify context-bound specific linguistic gains and context-free (universal) linguistic gains” among a variety of context where CLIL is implemented.

The overall results that have been obtained so far in the Basque Country point to the effectiveness of CLIL programmes to increase the rate of acquisition of additional languages (Muñoa, 2003; Lasagabaster, 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008a; Alonso et al. 2009, among others). Nonetheless, this quantitative difference gets blurred when the target aspect of the investigation is narrowed down (Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2009;

- 56 -

Martínez Adrián et al., 2009, Villarreal and García Mayo, 2009), and its longitudinal development is considered (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008a; García Mayo and Villarreal, 2011). More specific studies are needed in order to delimit the scope of the effectiveness of CLIL approaches for additional language learning. This is the precise context in which the present dissertation needs to be understood. Throughout it, explicitly defined aspects of the oral production of Basque/Spanish learners of English will be examined in order to contribute to the delimitation of CLIL effects on additional language learning.

2.6. Summary This chapter has presented the origins of CLIL programmes both outside and inside the Basque Country. First, Canadian Immersion studies have been reviewed; followed by various CLIL initiatives that are being undertaken in Spain. Finally a more detailed description of CLIL in the Basque Country has been presented, as this is the context where the data of this dissertation has been collected. Drawing from the studies reported in this chapter some observations seem to stand out: CLIL programmes promote higher overall proficiency levels when compared to non-CLIL programmes. When the aspect under study is an explicitly defined linguistic property of the target language the superiority of CLIL learners is not so categorical. The benefits of CLIL are not evident longitudinally Non-CLIL learners progress more gradually than CLIL learners.

- 57 -

Chapter 3: BACKGROUND ON TENSE AND AGREEMENT

Within formal approaches to how language acquisition proceeds, there are two main opposing views: nativist or Universal Grammar (UG) approaches and Emergentist approaches. As Hawkins (2008: 613) puts it nativist approaches to language acquisition (including SLA) assume that “[…] given a set of innate linguistic features, and computations over those features constrained in certain ways, together with linguistic experience, learners will deduce mental grammars. Such grammars underlie the comprehension and production of language”. Conversely, Emergentist approaches, although varying on the role given to deductive knowledge (Hawkins, 2008), maintain that language learning happens as a result of associative/statistical learning from input frequencies with minimal deductive learning (Hawkins, 2008, and references therein), as a result of a cognitive non-linguistic mechanism (Ellis, 2002; Tomasello, 2003; O’Grady, 2005, 2008). The present dissertation will be framed within the so-called nativist approaches and thus, the attested optionality or variability will be analyzed as “[…] (in)consistent application of grammatical constraints on the use of L2 grammar” (Tsimpli 2006: 387).

This chapter will be structured as follows: first, the theoretical framework adopted in this dissertation will be briefly outlined, only highlighting the aspects relevant to the current analysis; secondly, tense and agreement marking in Basque, Spanish and English will be sketched, followed by a section including a brief description of tense and agreement acquisition in Basque, English and Spanish; fourthly, a review of the main approaches to explaining variability/optionally (a phenomenon that will be shown to be a key feature of the non-native data reported later in the dissertation) will be presented; finally, a summary of the chapter will be sketched identifying the facts most relevant to the investigation reported in subsequent chapters.

3.1. Theoretical framework Generative linguistics delves into both the mental representation of the subcomponents of language, such as syntax, semantics, phonology, etc. and the interfaces between these subcomponents and other components of mind (such as Logical Form or Phonological Form). Human beings are genetically endowed with language and as a consequence children are born with innate linguistic knowledge (Universal Grammar or - 58 -

UG) which constrains the form that any language can take21. This linguistic knowledge, UG, comprises linguistic primitives (principles) and a superset of features, functional and lexical categories. It is the combination of these innate properties which causes cross-linguistic differences (parameterization), and it is precisely, the diverse combination of the principles and parameters22 which creates particular grammars (García Mayo and Rothman, forthcoming).

The most recent step of the generative programme has been what Chomsky (1995, 1998, 2001) has called the Minimalist Program. In Minimalism, language is viewed as a cognitive system that comprises a computational component which is purely syntactic and has two interface levels23:

Logical Form (LF) responsible for the interface between language and the conceptual-intentional system and, as such, encoding all the semantic information of syntactic representations Phonological Form (PF) is where the interface between language and the sensory-motor system occurs. It includes all the phonetic output.

These two interfaces are sensitive to different types of features. Interpretable features24 are read only at LF and contribute to the meaning assigned to constituents. Uninterpretable features are not readable at LF (in fact have to be deleted before the

21

See Chomsky (2007) for the claim that there is only one human language (UG) with variation between languages residing in the lexicon: “it seems to me no longer absurd to speculate that there may be a single internal language, efficiently yielding the infinite array of expressions that provide a language of thought. Variety and complexity of language would then be reduced to the lexicon, which is also the locus of parametric variation […]” (2007: 24-25). 22 At the moment there is an ongoing debate in which the need for parameters in SLA and in Generative linguistics in general, is being questioned (see the 2009 second issue in Second Language Research for arguments for or against the need for parameters in language acquisition). For instance, Lardiere (2009a) argues that SLA is not a matter of parameter resetting but a process of acquiring and reassembling features in lexical items through Contrastive analysis and calls for the need to eliminate parameters. On the other hand, Montrul and Yoon (2009) suggest that UG constrains feature selection and (re-)assembly in L2 acquisition and that parameters, understood in a specific way, need to be maintained. Nevertheless, this discussion is beyond the scope of this dissertation and the notion feature will be used without any implications for or against the need to eliminate parameters from linguistic theory. 23 White (2009) adds another external interface level: the interface between grammar and the parser which she claims is receiving considerable attention at the moment in the L2 literature. She refers the reader to Clahsen and Felser (2006) and Dussias and Piñar (2009). The parser assigns structural representation to utterances and, as such, it must interface with the computational system. 24 As Hawkins and Casillas (2008) point out the only interpretable features which are relevant to realise agreement properties on verbs are person, number and grammatical gender. They also include respect following Corbett (2006) but insist that it is controversial. - 59 -

derivation reaches the LF interface), but they are necessary for derivation of grammatical strings at PF. Uninterpretable features drive syntactic computations and as such are responsible for cross-linguistic variation in the syntax. Parameters, which capture systematic differences between languages, are determined by different choices of interpretable and uninterpretable features. Using Tsimpli’s words, “[…] the process of native language acquisition comprises acquisition of lexical, interpretable, and uninterpretable features, which will determine the parametric properties of the language acquired” (2006: 390). Moreover, the selected features are assembled by the child into computations that derive hierarchically-structured representations for the pairing of meaning with forms (Lardiere, 2009a: 175).

Table 3.1 presents the features that are relevant to the study reported later in this dissertation25. Since it is focused on the acquisition of tense and agreement verbal morphemes, only the features responsible for such morphemes located in the tense head (T), the verb head (V) and the Determiner Phrase (DP) in the specifier position of the Verb Phrase (VP) will be included. Moreover, to set the discussion on a more concrete footing, the distribution of features in the derivation of the specific sentence He sees the frog is presented in Figure 3.1 (based on Hawkins (2009: 212) proposed template for morphosyntactic structure):

25

An obvious shortcoming for any feature-based approach is that the exact inventory of features is not agreed on. Hence to provide an exhaustive list of the interpretable and uninterpretable features involved in the current analysis is not my aim, but rather, to show the minimum number of features involved in the relevant cases. In any case, this lack of a fixed inventory is not exclusive of Minimalism, as the Principles and Parameters Theory also suffered from the same difficulty when trying to determine what could be a principle (and a parameter) and what could not, which directly affected the number of principles and parameters proposed. - 60 -

Table 3.1: Interpretable and uninterpretable features for Tense and Determiner Phrase

Categories Interpretable Features Uninterpretable Features Agreement: number Agreement: person

Finiteness [±finite] T

Agreement: V

Tense [±past]

EPP [± strong]

Case: Nominative

[±Affix] [±strength] Agreement: person

V

Agreement: number Agreement: tense Person

DP

Agreement: Case

Number

Figure 3.1: Morphosyntactic structure for “He sees the frog” TP

T T

VP

+finite -past DP Case: Nominative 3person EPP +singular -strong Agr: Case Agr: number Agr: person +Af He Agr: V

VP

V

sees

DP D

NumP

+Definite Agr: Case the

Num +singular

NP

3person Agr: number frog

As suggested in the Minimalist Program, the person and number features of nouns and pronouns are interpretable, relevant to the semantic interpretation, whereas the features agreeing with them in T are uninterpretable and thus are motivated for the

- 61 -

grammaticality of the derivation, and may have consequences for pronunciation at PF. The uninterpretable features are assigned a value by their interpretable counterparts of another category. It is precisely this need for being valued that triggers movement. To illustrate how the model works, the example sentence He sees the frog26 will be used in order to show how the various features interact. T has the interpretable features (hence, relevant for meaning) [+finite] and [-past] which establish that the sentence is finite and is anchored in the present. Besides, T also assigns nominative case to the subject of the sentence (He) precluding something like Him/His sees the frog. The pronoun in the VP, He, has an uninterpretable case feature (Agr:Case) that needs to be valued by an interpretable feature in T27. T has also an Extended Projection Principle (EPP) feature which forces the subject He to move from its position as an argument of see in the VP to merge with TP. The [strong] feature of T in English has a negative value such that lexical verbs do not raise to merge with T. T in Basque and Spanish, however, has a [+strong] feature, which means that main verbs merge with T. T also has certain uninterpretable features, relevant for the grammaticality of the expression, like Agr:number, Agr:person, and Agr:V. These uninterpretable features in T need to agree with the interpretable person and number features of the subject (He) and when relevant, they are expressed phonologically as in this case, He sees, (but I/you/we/you/they see). Remember that it was said that for a sentence to be grammatical all the uninterpretable features need to be assigned a value, need to agree with an interpretable feature. T also has the uninterpretable features [+Af] and [Agr:V] which show that T is affixal. These features need to be valued by a local host through lowering to the main verb or through the merging with T of another kind of verb (copula, auxiliary or modal). Finally, in order to account for the direct object, the frog, V is assumed to have an interpretable feature that values the uninterpretable case feature of the as accusative: this interpretable feature possibly relates to the fact that see, in this use, implies an internal argument. Other interpretable features of V have been excluded from the account as they are not relevant for the morphosyntactic structure of the clause. This is, then, what it is assumed (following Hawkins, 2009) to be the minimum necessary for the syntactic representation of tense and agreement.

26

The explanation follows the account given by Hawkins (2009: 213-14). It is usually assumed that the interpretable feature [finite] of T values the uninterpretable Case feature of the subject. 27

- 62 -

3.2. Tense and agreement marking in English, Basque and Spanish Basque, Spanish and the target language, English, are typologically different languages. Basque is an SOV (Subject Object Verb) ergative-absolutive language with non-Indo European roots and unknown origin. Spanish is a SVO nominative-accusative language of Latin origin. Finally, English is a Germanic nominative-accusative SVO language. Notwithstanding, Basque and Spanish share two main characteristics:

They belong to the group of null-subject languages They have rich verbal morphological paradigms

English, on the other hand, does not allow null subjects and the lexical verb only agrees with the third person singular subject in the present tense.

Verbs in Spanish agree with their subjects and are inflected for the following (see Montrul, 2004: 87-103, for details): person (1st, 2nd and 3rd) number (singular and plural) tense (present, past, future and conditional) aspect (perfective and imperfective) mood (indicative, subjective and imperative)

Basque verbs agree with the subject, direct object and indirect object. Due to this rich agreement system, all arguments (subjects, direct and indirect objects) can be dropped. Basque verbal inflection instantiates the following (see Ezeizabarrena (1996: 45), and Arregi (2000) for details): person (1st, 2nd and 3rd) number (singular and plural) agreement (absolutive, ergative and dative) tense (present, past, future and conditional) aspect (perfective and imperfective) mood (indicative, subjunctive, potential and imperative)

- 63 -

English, the L3 for the bilingual participants in the study, has tense morphemes consisting of free morphemes (copula and auxiliary be), a suppletive paradigm that marks number and person overtly, and affixal inflections (-s and –ed) as bound morphemes. The bound –s morpheme marks person agreement and habitual aspect, but there is no agreement feature for the past morpheme –ed. In interrogative and negative sentences with lexical verbs, a dummy auxiliary do marks tense and agreement features. In this study only copula and auxiliary be and the two bound morphemes –s and –ed will be considered.

3.3. Summary of relevant facts of the acquisition of Basque, Spanish and English In general, children with no abnormal language pathology have little problems when acquiring tense and agreement morphology. In studies on the oral production of children acquiring languages with a rich inflectional paradigm, it has been reported that from their initial multiword productions (around 1;8 -2;0) they use first, second and third person singular morphemes and agreement errors are rare (Bel, 2001 for Spanish and Catalan; Guasti, 2002 for Italian; Torrens, 2002 for Spanish). Research on BasqueSpanish bilingual children (Barreña, 1995; Ezeizabarrena, 1996) reports that the development of each language takes place in a way similar to that in monolinguals28. As for English, accuracy rates with tense and agreement morphemes tend to be correlated and the morphemes exhibit similar growth curves after they emerge in children’s speech (Brown, 1973; Zobl and Liceras, 1994). Overall, L1 children do not seem to have global difficulties with tense and agreement morphology: while they may omit morphology that is obligatory in an adult grammar early on, when that morphology is supplied, it is almost always supplied accurately.

28

But see Barreña, Ezeizabarrena and García (2008) where they argue that the degree to which Basque is present in the input is influential for lexical and grammatical development from 23-24 months onwards, and especially after 27-28 months. They found out that no differences emerged among children who were monolingual (100% of Basque input) and those who were Basque-dominant bilinguals (60-90% of Basque input). Bilingual children from non-dominant Basque family environments (less than 60% of Basque input), however, showed a different developmental pattern characterized by lower scores on vocabulary size, complexity and morphological production. - 64 -

3.4. Acquisition of non-native English A lack of consistency (also referred to as variability or optionality) when producing target verbal endings is a characteristic of most non-native language learners irrespective of their mother tongue and the language they intend to learn. Learners produce verbal forms which are bare and overtly lack tense and/or agreement features (in languages like English) or use non-finite forms in finite contexts in target languages with richer tense/agreement morphology like French and German (Prévost and White, 2000).

The morpheme studies found that there is a certain acquisitional pattern for English acquisition that is maintained by learners with different L1s: most frequent copula be >auxiliary be >past –ed >-s least frequent. Nonetheless, some of these elements pose extended problems to non-native language learners resulting in productions which vary in the frequency with which these elements are provided. Another highly interesting fact is the asymmetry which has been widely attested in the production of suppletive inflection -auxiliary be and copula be- and affixal inflection -past –ed and third person singular present –s-: while suppletive native-like proportions are attested very early on in the learners’ ILG, affixal inflection tends to be omitted even in advanced stages of acquisition. Most importantly this seems to be independent of the L1 of the non-native language learners. Several studies have documented the early emergence and mastery of copula and auxiliary be both in L2 child and adult learners (Dulay and Burt, 1974; Zobl and Liceras, 1994; Haznedar, 2001; Gavruseva, 2002; Ionin and Wexler, 2002). A number of studies have also reported a dissociation in frequency of suppliance between suppletive and affixal morphology, for example Dulay and Burt (1974) in their study of child L1 Spanish and L1 Cantonese learners of English and Andersen (1978) with adult Spanish learners. Ionin and Wexler (2002) analyzed the spontaneous oral production of 20 L1 Russian child learners and found that they used suppletive inflection at a significantly higher rate than affixal inflection. More recently, Hsieh (2009) reports on a similar dissociation between copula be and affixal –ed and –s among L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English. Paradis et al. (2008) also encountered a similar dissociation in their study of 24 child learners of English from a variety of L1 backgrounds. These children were compared to age-matched typically developing (TD) English L1, and specific language impairment (SLI) peers. Paradis et al. found that the L2 children were less accurate than both the TD and the SLI groups but no differences were found between those groups for the use of the unbound morphemes (copula and

- 65 -

auxiliary be and also dummy do in their study). As Paradis et al. (2008: 713) state their findings reinforce the claim that the unequal development of bound and free morphemes is a hallmark of English L2 acquisition.

Various approaches have been proposed to explain such performance. The approaches relevant for the current data will be outlined in the following section.

3.5. Approaches to explaining the variability/optionality in non-native language acquisition Variability in non-native language acquisition is a phenomenon attested for diverse languages and phenomena. For instance, fluctuation in the presence or absence of determiners or the use of definite or indefinite determiners, production or omission of subjects in required contexts, fluctuation between finite and non-finite verbs, inconsistent realization of finiteness morphology and so on. Theories ascribe this variability to diverse causes and, as a result, their predictions for developing grammars differ. Theories attempting to ascertain the source of such variation can be collapsed into two main approaches: on the one hand, those predicting permanent optionality due to a total or partial impairment in the functional categories or feature values associated to such features (Meisel, 1991; Eubank, 1993/94; Eubank et al., 1997; Hawkins and Chan, 1997; Beck, 1998; Franceschina, 2001; Hawkins and Liszka, 2003; Hawkins and Hattori, 2006; Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulo, 2007, Hawkins and Casillas, 2008, among many others). On the other hand, others claim that this is developmental and attribute it to several factors (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996, 1998; Epstein, Flynn and Martohardjono, 1996; Haznedar and Schwartz, 1997; Lardiere, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2007a, 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Schwartz, 1998a, 1998b; Prévost and White 1999; 2000; Herschensohn, 2000, 2001; Ionin and Wexler, 2002; among many others):

initial lack of L2 functional categories initial availability of L1 feature values for L2 acquisition problems associating phonological exponents to underlying morphosyntactic features problems with the specifications of such features problems with the selection and reassembly of features.

- 66 -

These are L2 acquisition arguments but are also being adopted to explain the acquisition of third languages (see García Mayo and Rothman, forthcoming; and the 27 (1) issue in Second Language Research, and references therein for the nascent field of generative L3 research)29. In this dissertation these hypotheses will be extended to explain the data, arguing that the learners included in the present study do not have problems with their underlying grammatical configurations, and hence the observed variability is the result of a post-syntactic problem, a morphophonological problem at PF, which hinders these learners from producing the expected inflectional forms. Hypotheses positing deficits in representations are challenged then, and the claim that it is more a problem with the morphophonological (re)assembly and/or production of vocabulary items is defended.

3.5.1. Representational Deficit (RD) Hypotheses Impairment hypotheses vary depending on the degree of impairment ascribed to the functional categories/and or features. In this subsection three recent RD theories30 will be outlined: the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis of Goad et al. (2003) and Goad and White (2004, 2006), Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulo’s (2007) Interpretability Hypothesis and

Hawkins

and

Casillas’

Contextual

29

Complexity

Hypothesis

(2008).

The

Yet, as García Mayo and Rothman (forthcoming) point out when talking about the initial state of L3 acquisition: “[A]s it is the case that one cannot assume that the initial state of L1 and L2 are the same, one cannot make such an assumption for L2 and L3/Ln precisely because L3/Ln learners have more transfer sources for initial hypotheses”. The data included in this dissertation do not consider the initial state but the learners’ ILG. Furthermore, these learners are either simultaneous bilinguals or balanced bilinguals so both Basque and Spanish have been learned when they were children and most probably at the same chronological time; the relevant features that are being looked at (tense and agreement morphology) are quite similar in their L1s (meaning that Basque and Spanish are highly inflected), and few hypotheses have been proposed to account for the ILG of L3 learners (hypotheses proposed for the L3 initial state: L2 Status Factor (Bardel and Falk, 2007, Falk and Bardel, 2011); the Cumulative Enhancement Model (Flynn et al., 2004), the Typological Proximity Model (Rothman, 2010), and the Absolute L1 Transfer (De Bot, 2004). See García Mayo and Rothman (forthcoming) for an explanation of how to test such hypotheses. I resort to L2 acquisition hypotheses which will be shown to be appropriate in order to explain and understand the L3 ILG of these learners. 30 Hawkins and Chan’s (1997) Failed Functional Features Hypothesis and Hawkins’ (2003) Representational Features Hypothesis refer to end-state grammars and not to developing grammars as that of the learners included. As a result, they will not be described in this subsection. Nonetheless, it is considered that the essence of their claims is captured by the Interpretability Hypothesis of Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulo (2007): (a) the availability of native language functional features for L2 acquisition throughout the entire life; (b) the fact that parameterized, uninterpretable, L2 features are subject to a Critical Period; and (c) the unavailability of these Critical Period related features to post-critical period learners In fact, Hawkins (2009) reanalyzes Hawkins and Liszka’s (2003) proposal under this new hypothesis. Yet, the compensation role of interpretable features defended in Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulo (2007) is not proposed in the hypotheses proposed by Hawkins and colleagues. - 67 -

Interpretability Hypothesis and the Contextual Complexity Hypothesis argue for a deficit at the syntactic level, the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis, on the other hand, contends that it is prosodic representation what is impaired, and not syntactic representation. In any case, all these hypotheses believe that there is some-type of permanent deficit for L2 acquisition with respect to features or operations which are not present in the L1.

Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis

3.5.1.1.

According to the advocates of the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis (PTH) (Goad, White and Steele, 2003; Goad and White, 2004, 2006) morphological variability is due to the transfer of L1 prosodic constraints. Difficulties occur whenever the L2 requires a representation which is not available in the L1. To solve this, learners sometimes resort to L1 prosodic structures, and some other times adapt their native prosodic structures in ways allowed by UG. An example from White (2009: 63) will be used to illustrate their claims31. English past tense can be realized through regular (say peeled) or irregular inflection (felt or won, for instance). The syntactic representation underlying the two verb forms is the same. The prosodic representation, however, is different:

(3.1)

Syntactic and Prosodic Representations

a. Regular inflection Syntactic Representation

Prosodic Word (PWd) adjunction

CP

C

PWd

PWd

TP

peel

T' T ±past

d

VP V peeled

31

For a more detailed account and prosodic representations see Goad et al. (2003); Goad and White (2004, 2006). - 68 -

b. Irregular inflection Syntactic Representation CP

C

Prosodic Word (PWd) internal PWd

PWd

TP

fel

t

won

T' T ±past

VP V felt won

In the model assumed by Goad and White, regular inflection is realized through PWd adjunction, while pseudo-inflection (felt) and ablaut (won) are PWd internal. As a consequence non-native language learners need to integrate both syntactic and phonological representations in order to provide English past tense morphemes appropriately. According to the PTH, learners have problems acquiring the prosodic representations of the L2 and this will cause them problems with the production of inflection, and they will resort to other mechanisms based on transferred L1 prosodic structure.

These statements stem from investigations (Goad et al., 2003; Goad and White, 2006; White, 2008) in which L1 Mandarin speakers of English were included. Mandarin lacks overt morphological realization of tense and agreement, and thus, it has no PWd adjunction. Although these learners had tense in their ILG, they could not assign the appropriate prosodic structure (PWd adjunction) to the English inflection, and, as a consequence, omitted past inflection or assigned L1 structure to inflected forms. Goad and White (2006) designed an experiment to further test the predictions of the PTH (for ultimate attainment) using Mandarin L2 English learners. Ten (10) Mandarin intermediate L2 English speakers and 9 native English speakers were included. The participants had to carry out a combined sentence completion and production task: learners were presented on a computer screen with a lead-in phrase and two endings varying in tense (present vs. past or present vs. perfective). They had to choose the contextually favoured ending (they had 12 seconds to do so) and had to say the chosen ending aloud (from memory). They concluded that there was no fossilization in

- 69 -

the syntactic domain, that is to say, that Mandarin L2 English speakers could represent [±past] as the learners showed high accuracy rates in the sentence completion task, and as no differences emerged in the production of past and perfective forms. Despite the high accuracy rate obtained, the authors observed a difference between regular inflection (peeled) and pseudo inflection (kept) provision and they argued that it was due to the different prosodic representation assigned to them by the L2 speakers, namely that regular inflection was adjoined while pseudo inflection was not. Most importantly, they claimed that these results called for a reanalysis of the earlier proposal made by Goad et al. (2003) where they claimed that Mandarin speakers had to permanently analyse English inflection PWd-internally. Therefore, they reformulated their hypothesis and contended that the L2 ILG of learners is constrained by prosodic representation, and as a result the inflectional morphology requiring representations not present in their L1s will be initially problematic. Yet, they claimed that these representations are acquirable combining licensing relations available from the L1. Thus, if an L1 lacks the licensing relations required for an L2 prosodic representation these learners will not be able to acquire them and the result will be a permanent failure to produce them.

Merging Goad et al. (2003) and Goad and White’s (2006) proposals this is the ILG developmental pattern that can be outlined: Stage I: Inflection will be omitted across the board or accommodated by steminternal analysis. Stage II: Inflection will be produced only when it can be incorporated to the PWd. Stage III: PWd adjunction will be acquired if the required licensing conditions are available from the L1.

However, there are some potential problems for the PTH account: A higher provision is observed for plural –s marking on nouns than for the present third person singular –s verbal agreement (White, 2008). This is not predicted as these two morphemes are suffixes and are claimed to be prosodified through PWd Adjunction. The provision rate should then be parallel for both morphemes. As tempting as it seems to analyze the current results under the PTH view, it would be a very complicated and daring task as the recording quality and the task is not the most adequate to discern phonetic subtleties relevant for this

- 70 -

type of analysis. The results would necessarily call for further and more constrained experiments and data collection procedures32.

3.5.1.2.

Interpretability Hypothesis

In the Interpretability Hypothesis (thus, IH) put forward by Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007) the central claim is that there is a Critical Period for accessing uninterpretable features at the LF interface, while interpretable features are available throughout life. L2 target-like performance is due to a compensatory strategy through which interpretable features are assigned when L2 input is encountered that cannot be parsed by the current grammar. The L2 learner performance is not constrained by the same kind of representation that native speakers of the target language might have, but by a grammar where an interpretable feature ‘stands in’ for an uninterpretable feature. Thus, an apparent target-like PF output obscures non-target syntactic representations.

In other words these are the predictions made by the Interpretability Hypothesis (2007: 224-225): Uninterpretable features are subject to Critical Period constraints, and as such those not already instantiated in the L1 grammar are inaccessible to L2 learners33. LF-interpretable features are accessible to the L2 learner, even if different from the native language. L1 transfer effects are expected at all stages of L2 acquisition, development is expected even in syntactic phenomena that involve uninterpretable features, through the use of interpretable features whose aim is to constraint the acceptability

of

ungrammatical

syntactic

phenomena

(Tsimpli

and

Mastropavlou, 2007) -the compensatory role.

32

Nonetheless, a tentative approximation to the PTH will be accomplished in Chapter 6. Due to the scarcity of data relevant to test such hypothesis discussion on the PTH will be abandoned after this preliminary attempt. Collecting specific data to test the effect that prosodic structure exerts on Basque Spanish learners’ production is a highly interesting task worth pursuing for further research. 33 Tsimpli and Mastropavlou (2007: 177) state that “[…] all groups [child and adult L2 learners, and SLI children] should show evidence for differential performance in interpretable versus uninterpretable features on the grounds that the latter are difficult to access in any developmental process other than normal L1 development. The underlying reasons for inaccessibility of uninterpretable features are associated with critical period constraints or genetically based deficiencies in the analysis of the input”. - 71 -

To test such claims the authors carried out a study with a group of intermediate (n=21) and a group of advanced (n=28) Greek learners of English. An English native control group was also included. The aim of the study was to test the degree of acceptability of resumptive pronouns in embedded interrogatives through a bi-modal acceptability task. The effects of animacy and d-linking on the acceptability of pronouns were also studied. Once the learner saw and heard a sentence, s/he had to rate it according to a 5 point scale (-2 to +2). They concluded that “[…] resumptive uses of agreement on the verb or clitic pronouns in the L1 are transferred as parametric options to the developing L2 grammar. In the absence of subject–verb agreement on L2 verb forms and clitic pronouns, the learner imposes the resumptive option on English L2 pronouns in questions, following a process of morphological misanalysis of these L2 items. L2 development involves compensatory use of interpretable features, like [animacy] or [d-linking], which appear to improve the non-target use of L2 pronouns” (2007: 237). A performance difference between the intermediate and the advanced learners was also observed in certain aspects: intermediate learners were at a different ILG stage and had not probably built the interpretability constraints yet in order to restrict ungrammaticality. As explained by the authors the inaccessibility of uninterpretable features (post-Critical Period) leads to a misanalysis of the input in advanced L2 grammars and their non-target production is explained by the assignment of the relevant interpretable features on the problematic elements of the L2 grammars. They claim that this assignment is both possible as the interpretable features are accessible and necessary as the uninterpretable features are inaccessible in the postCritical Period L2 grammar. They claim that this is so as UG does not permit optionality in advanced L2 grammars, and as such, the compensation strategy is viewed as an option provided by UG adopted by L2 grammars when encountered with uninterpretability related problems in the L2 input34. The underlying reason behind the assignment of interpretable features to inaccessible uninterpretable context is to regularize their distribution.

Development is predicted over time (Tsimpli and Mastropavlou, 2007: 156): Stage 1: the L2 grammar fails to analyze the input appropriately and as such there is true optionality in the use of the relevant items Stage 2: there is a misanalysis of the input, that is, a nontarget feature specification which constrains the use of the L2 grammar

34

This compensatory strategy is also attested for L2 in Tsimpli (2003) and in SLI data by Paradis and Gopnik (1994, 1997) and Tsimpli and Stavrakaki (1999). - 72 -

As a consequence there will be a development towards a more target-like performance, although the underlying representation will not be target-like.

Potential limitations to this hypothesis are sketched below: The complete inventory of features is not categorically established, which, in principle, is a drawback for hypotheses claiming that the underlying reason for variability is the unavailability of uninterpretable features after the Critical Period. It is hard to explain how speakers of languages that select uninterpretable features show variability in their L2 ILG. What is more, this variability is also attested among speakers of languages assumed not to have these features such as Chinese (see Hsieh, 2009 for a recent study). The asymmetry between suppletive and affixal so broadly attested in speakers of different L1s is hard to explain.

3.5.1.3.

Contextual Complexity Hypothesis

The Contextual Complexity Hypothesis (CCH) put forward by Hawkins and Casillas (2008) maintains that the reason for the difference in the frequency of forms attested in early L2 speech “[…] is an effect of the storage of Vocabulary items with contextsensitive contexts of insertion” (2008: 603). They claim that context-sensitive contexts or statements are costly, and as such, the need to access more terminal nodes implies a higher cost and as a consequence, a higher probability for not supplying the relevant form.

The Contextual Complexity Hypothesis is verbalized as follows (Hawkins and Casillas, 2008: 603): The probability with which a Vocabulary item is retrieved during the derivation of a syntactic expression is a function of the number of sister terminal nodes required to specify the context in which it is inserted. The more sister nodes required to specify the context, the greater the probability that the entry will not be retrieved.

These are the context sensitive vocabulary entries postulated for L2 grammars:

- 73 -

Figure 3.2: L2 Context-sensitive vocabulary entries

(Hawkins and Casillas, 2008: 602)

To test the CCH Hawkins and Casillas (2008) designed an experiment in which two groups of L2 learners (10 L1 Spanish speakers and 10 L1 Chinese speakers) and a native English group participated. These participants had to go through a sentence completion task based on Bock and Miller (1991). The participants were shown a verb or an adjective on a computer screen for 2 seconds. Then the intended subject for the verb or the adjective appeared for 4 seconds. This subject was either a simple DP (my brother) or a complex DP where the NP was followed by a Prepositional Phrase (PP) complement (The brother of my best friend) or preceded by a genitive modifier (My best friend’s brother) (Hawkins and Casillas, 2008: 606). When the provided subject disappeared, the participant had to utter a complete sentence aloud which included the subject and the verb or adjective that had been given. They expected that if L2 learners’ vocabulary entries are indeed context-sensitive and this context-sensitive statement string is disrupted the retrieval of the form will be affected. Besides, /ız/ forms will be more frequently provided than /s/ forms. Indeed their results were confirmed: suppliance of /s/ was disrupted with an intervening PP for lexical verbs and only in cases where there was a mismatch between the singular copula form and the plural intervening noun for the /ız/ form; /ız/ was supplied more frequent than /s/ and no overgeneralization of any of the forms was observed. Most importantly, this behaviour was observed in both groups of learners thus, it seems that all L1 learners go through the same acquisition process.

The authors thus claimed that such L2 grammars are not very different from those of native speakers, crucially differing on the vocabulary entries: while L2 grammars specify the context of insertion of phonological exponents by defining co-occurring syntactic terminal nodes, native grammars specify the features of the terminal node into which the exponent is inserted.

As the ILG of the learners develops the frequency with which these forms are supplied increases, Hawkins and Casillas (2008) argue that it is the input/output - 74 -

frequency which increases the level of activation of the Vocabulary entry. Once a critical level of activation of a context-sensitive Vocabulary entry is reached, it triggers the selection of a UG-provided uninterpretable syntactic feature. They conclude that the grammars of the learners whose L1s have these uninterpretable features will restructure whereas the learners whose L1s lack these features will keep the contextsensitive vocabulary entries. They claim that initially building context-sensitive vocabulary entries might have learnability advantages: “Constructing Vocabulary entries that are statements of superficial co-occurrence with other categories bearing interpretable syntactic features might be a low-risk learning device until sufficient evidence is accumulated to determine the generalisability of agreement” (2008: 611), that is to say, the syntactic uninterpretable features.

Thus, the CCH predicts a process of acquisition divided into the following stages: Stage I: Context-sensitive vocabulary entries are available to all L1 learners, thus, a similar pattern is observed for different L1 languages when learning English. Stage II: Once a critical level of activation is reached L1 learners whose L1 has the relevant uninterpretable features will restructure the vocabulary entries. Stage III: Convergence is expected among the learners whose L1 selects the relevant uninterpretable features; those learners whose L1s do not instantiate these features will permanently fail to analyze the vocabulary entries.

To finish with the presentation of the CCH, some possible problems faced by the hypothesis will be sketched: It is not clear how to differentiate between learners who have restructured (because the L1 selects the relevant features) and learners who have not but have a high level of activation for the stored forms. When the L2 vocabulary entries restructure then all the problematic morphemes are expected to blossom. Once the restructuring takes place increasing numbers of inflection in subsequent recordings would not be expected. There is a potential problem with how the contexts for the various morphemes are described. One can potentially fiddle with how contexts are written to make them conform to what Hawkins and Casillas (2008) claim. What these authors need is some independent criterion for deciding what features of the context are relevant for writing entries in the Vocabulary, which they do not have (p.c. Roger Hawkins, August 2010)

- 75 -

3.5.2. Non-Representational Deficit Hypotheses Other researchers have cited evidence that appears to be problematic for representational deficit hypotheses (Haznedar and Schwartz, 1997; Lardiere 1998a; 1998b; Prévost and White 1999; 2000 and Haznedar, 2001, among many others). These researchers maintain that the L2 learners in their studies have knowledge of morphological and syntactic phenomena of English verbs. In this section Prévost and White’s (1999, 2000) Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis, the UG-driven vs. idiosyncratic marking35 of Ionin and Wexler (2002) and Lardiere’s Feature Assembly Hypothesis (2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009a, 2009b) will be outlined.

3.5.2.1.

Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis

Prévost and White (1999; 2000) building upon the Missing Inflection Hypothesis of Haznedar and Schwartz (1997) labelled their view of optionality in L2 as the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (thus, MSIH). Under this view, L2 learners have abstract features for tense36 (T) and agreement in their ILG representation, but sometimes they exhibit problems with the realization of particular forms, sometimes resorting to default forms. Haznedar and Schwartz (1997) claimed that when Erdem (the Turkish child they studied) produced verb inflection, it was highly correct and that when uninflected verb forms were produced they were not exactly uninflected but rather missing inflections, suggesting a problem realizing the morphological form of finite verbs (1997: 266) and not a syntactic deficit, such as Tense underspecification. Prévost and White (2000) found out that though quite inconsistent, verbal morphology, when used, is systematic, suggesting that there is no impairment at an abstract level. Prévost and White (2000) found out these results in a study carried out with two L1 Arabic speakers learning L2 French and 2 speakers of L1 Spanish and L1 Portuguese learning L2 German. All of them were learning these languages in naturalistic environments and they were interviewed once a month for over three years (for the French learners) and over two years (for the German learners). Their data showed that finite forms hardly occurred in non-finite contexts (less than 6% for the French learners and less than 8,5% for the German learners), after a preposition or other verbs (less than 6% for L2 French and less than 7,5% for L2 German) or after a negator (under 3% for L2 French, under 5,4% 35

This account has been separated from the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis because of the precise predictions that the UG-driven vs. idiosyncratic marking makes. Still, it should be noted that Ionin and Wexler (2002) resort to the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis when explaining the defaults of their data. 36 They use the term finiteness. - 76 -

for L2 German). Furthermore, they found little evidence for agreement errors, that is to say, mismatches between person, number and gender inflection as in they sees the frog. As Hawkins (2009: 218) words it, these speakers have T with [± finite] features represented as well as the uninterpretable Agr:person and Agr:number features which are valued by the interpretable person and number features of the subject. They, however, exhibit problems with the realization of morphological expression of such features and resort to default forms.

Moreover, Lardiere (1998a; 1998b; 2000) found similar results when she analysed the L2 English of an end-state Chinese speaker, Patty. She observed that Patty had knowledge of syntactic phenomena related to English verbs such as nominative case assignment, verb placement, and so on, but still failed to supply the target inflectional morpheme in about 30% of the contexts. Lardiere (2000) concluded that more than a certain type of impairment, learners had ‘mapping problems’ between abstract features and surface forms.

In order to explain the default forms or mapping problems encountered in their participants’ productions these authors (Prévost and White, 2000) turn to Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz, 1993). In DM a clear distinction between grammatical features (such as tense, person, number and gender) on a given inflected form and the node that hosts them in the syntax is drawn (Prévost and White, 2000: 127). According to DM insertion occurs when the vocabulary item to be inserted has features non-distinct to the syntactic terminal node. Although the features of the target terminal node are fully specified, the features of the vocabulary item could be partially specified or underspecified (Lumsden and Halefom, 1998). A vocabulary item can be inserted in the hosting node even if its features do not exactly match. Forming a proper subset of the feature bundle of that node is a sufficient condition for insertion (Prévost and White, 2000: 127). Forms can compete for insertion and the one that is most specified and best matches the hosting node gets inserted37. The following

37

This is referred to as the competition condition by Hawkins (2009). This condition constraints the insertion of forms for native speakers. The competition condition states: “Insert the form whose features maximally match those of the terminal node” (Hawkins 2009: 225). For Hawkins (2009) L2 learners lack the competition condition, and as a result allow less specified features to be inserted even when a more specified form is also available. Although the competition metaphor is key, the verb lack is too strong. If the learners completely lack the competition conditions, it is, then, hard to explain the presence of both inflected and non-inflected forms in their oral productions, as well as to explain how learners acquire this competition condition. Saying that L2 learners are not required to satisfy this condition might be a more appropriate way to capture the variability characterizing their production. - 77 -

Figure shows the alleged context of insertion for the phonological entries in the vocabulary based on Hawkins (2009: 224):

Figure 3.3: Context specifications for vocabulary entries in the lexicon (from Hawkins, 2009) /(ı)z/ [T, BE, -past, Agr:+sing, Agr: 3p] /s/

/[V, -past, Agr:+sing, Agr: 3p]+ _____

/d/

/[V, +past,]+ _____

/Ø/

/[V]+ _____

/: 'in the context of X' +_____ : 'put the form to the right of X'

According to Prévost and White (2000: 127-28), L2 learners though they have acquired the relevant features of the terminal nodes in the syntax, have problems with feature specification of the associated items. Thus, if some features are underspecified, nothing prevents them from entering into the syntax provided that there is not any mismatching feature that would clash with the features of the terminal node. Thus, they argue that in adult L2 acquisition non-finite forms are underspecified for finiteness [α finite], while finite forms are specified as [+finite]. This accounts for the data they got in which non-finite forms, underspecified for finiteness, appeared in finite positions but not vice versa.

Brought into minimalist terms the MSIH maintains that syntactic representations are complete in the ILG of the L2 learners, and that they have access to the complete feature inventory provided by UG, even though those features are not instantiated in their L1. The explanation for the variability observed in their production then, is not one of representational deficit but relates to the mapping between levels of representation. It is a post-syntactic problem38, in particular, it is a problem on the spell-out of PF, when producing the morphophonological realizations of the syntactic features. The MSIH states that this problem is intensified under communicative pressure.

The MSIH is faced with certain shortcomings: 38

But see White (2009) where she speaks about interfaces. She distinguishes two type of interfaces: (i) grammar external interfaces; and (ii) grammar internal ones. Broadly speaking she explains that grammar external interfaces are what has earlier been explained to be LF and PF (she also includes the parser as a third external interface), while grammar internal ones are Syntax/Semantics, Syntax/Morphology, Phonology/Morphology. White (2009) places the MSIH inside this syntax/morphology interface, hence, grammar internal. - 78 -

It cannot predict in advance when underspecified forms are going to surface, with the exception of not expecting finite forms in non-finite positions if they are not considered defaults. It only accounts for the forms once they are present. So it is very difficult to falsify it. This account does not predict an asymmetry between suppletive and affixal forms, and cannot explain why suppletive forms are said to be inflected notably more than non-suppletive forms. It does not provide an explanation for the development in the production of inflected forms which is observed longitudinally.

3.5.2.2.

UG-Driven vs. Idiosyncratic Marking (UGIDM)

In minimalist theory all finite verbs must raise from their lexical layer to the functional layer to check features such as tense and agreement. In the case of English, however, only be forms raise overtly to check those features. Thematic verbs raise covertly (their movement is not visible in the morphophonological spellout of the sentence structure) to the functional layer, which is a marked operation cross-linguistically. On the basis of this difference between be and thematic verbs, Guasti and Rizzi (2001) made a proposal for L1 acquisition in the following terms: if a feature is checked overtly, it is expressed morphologically (as long as the relevant morphological paradigm exists in the language). Features that are checked covertly may or may not be expressed morphologically, depending on language-specific rules. The implication is that children will have fewer problems with free morphemes because they raise to check features overtly in the syntax, whereas bound morphology will cause more problems, as checking takes place covertly because of lack of V-movement.

Ionin and Wexler (2002) extend this analysis to child L2 English acquisition on the basis of data by 20 L1 Russian children with varying length of immersion (from 1 month to 2 years) and age-range (3;9 to 13;10). As for their English command, the children were described as “[…] not entirely comfortable speaking English” (2002: 104) although they could speak and understand it. For the experiment, learners were encouraged to talk about their friends or schoolwork, or to describe pictures in storybooks. These are the results they obtained:

- 79 -

Table 3.2: Percentage of omissions in obligatory contexts and Tense/agreement errors in morpheme use (based on Ionin and Wexler, 2002: 106-107)

Omissions Errors

Third person -s 78% 5%

Past tense -ed

Auxiliary Be

Copula Be

58% 0%

33% 7%

16% 9%

Morpheme omission was significantly higher for affixal forms (-s and –ed) than for suppletive forms (auxiliary and copula be) while errors were almost non-existent. Besides, they claimed that this high use of inflected be instances could not be due to transfer from Russian, since Russian lacks an overt be in the present tense and only has auxiliary be in compound future tense. Following Guasti and Rizzi (2001), they argued that this difference was due to the different raising possibilities of the two verb types. L2 learners initially consider morphological agreement to be a reflex of verb raising, and that is why such a high percentage of inflected forms are found for the suppletive be forms (overt movement, thus universal), unlike with the lexical verbs (covert movement, thus language specific). They argue that in the domain of verbal agreement, universal rules are available to child learners early on while languagespecific rules take a long time to acquire. As a result they argue that their L2 children know that morphological expression is obligatory for be forms (following Guasti and Rizzi they raise to Agr and check their feature overtly), but have not yet mastered the English-specific rule requiring agreement morphology on unraised lexical verbs in certain contexts (for the third person singular present –s and the past –ed)39. Zobl and Liceras (1994) argue that bound morphology is problematic for adult L2 acquisition but, unlike Guasti and Rizzi, they do not maintain that position for child L1 acquisition and do not say anything about child L2 acquisition.

Some potential problems for this account could be the following: As Ionin and Wexler (2002: 118-9) themselves point out, it is not clear then why be forms should be omitted at all. In order to account for this type of omission Ionin and Wexler resort to Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993) as a possible explanation. They suggest following Prévost and White (2000) that it could be a temporary block of access to the lexicon which could be produced by processing reasons or communication pressure (2000: 129). It is not clear,

39

Following Prévost and White (2000) these authors argue that the uninflected forms found in finite positions may be understood as defaults. - 80 -

however, as Ionin and Wexler (2002: 119) point out what the nature of this “access/retrieval” difficulty is. Languages in which all verbs raise to Agr overtly then should show similar proportions of omission between suppletive and affixal forms, which apparently does not happen (Prévost and White, 2000).

3.5.2.3.

Feature Assembly Hypothesis

Lardiere (2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009a) argues for the Feature Assembly Hypothesis (FAH). She contends that learnability problems arise when figuring out how grammatical features are morphologically combined and conditioned in the L2. She claims that the way these features are idiosyncratically assembled and realized in each language, whether inflectionally or lexically, or even overtly or covertly, constitutes the real nub of cross-linguistic variation (2005: 179). These difficulties affect both interpretable and uninterpretable features40 (Montrul and Yoon, 2009). As a consequence, Lardiere defends that selection is not the focus of variability but, rather, feature assembly, that is, learning the way in which grammatical features are morphologically combined and conditioned (she calls this competence morphological competence).

To illustrate her claim, once again, Lardiere reports on the production by Patty, her Mandarin and Hokkien Chinese speaker who has been living in an English speaking country for over eighteen years. In previous studies Lardiere had shown that Patty’s nominative case-marking on pronouns is appropriate and completely conditioned by finiteness in T. Moreover, Patty’s subjects are always appropriately raised. Given minimalist assumptions Lardiere (2005) assumes that Patty’s T in English has the appropriate EPP feature entailing the appropriate agreement relation, despite the fact that she does not always mark agreement and specially, regular third person singular s agreement (Lardiere, 1998b, 1999). Besides, she also frequently fails to mark tense (Lardiere, 1998a). As Lardiere states, her results contradict Radford and Ramos’ (2001) prediction that a failure to mark tense or agreement should lead to associated errors in case-marking. Lardiere (2005) draws our attention to the fact that Patty’s L1 Chinese has neither overt case-marking nor overt agreement. However, she continues, it appears that subjects are also raised, at least over modals, in Chinese, implicating the presence of an EPP feature which in turn implicates the presence of abstract 40

Contrary to what is defended by the syntactic representational deficit accounts which establish the source of variation on uninterpretable features only. - 81 -

agreement (2005: 189). The author illustrates this with an example she takes from Li and Thompson (1981: 303) repeated below:

(3.2)

Zhangsan John

hai

dei

xie

still must write

yi-pian

lunwen

one-CL dissertation

‘John still has to write a dissertation.’

As Lardiere postulates Chinese might have some type of agreement, albeit abstract, she concludes that the acquisition of nominative case marking in English by a native Chinese speaker does not involve resetting of a parameter in terms of syntactic feature selection, but, rather, it involves the acquisition of morphological knowledge about how the lexical items for pronominal raised subjects in finite clauses are assembled in English. She considers this knowledge as part of morphological competence.

Further evidence for the FAH is provided by a study in preparation (Montrul and Ionin, to appear) about Determiner acquisition presented by Montrul and Yoon (2009). In these studies a Korean-speaking group learning English, a Spanish-speaking group also learning English, and an English-speaking group learning Spanish are included. Korean does not have determiners, Spanish has determiners specified as [D, ±Def, ±Pl; ±Generic], while English characterizes them as [D, ±Def, ±Pl]. Thus, the Korean speakers had to select and map features onto a specific morphological form, Spanish speakers had to reassemble the features subtracting the interpretable [±Generic] feature from the bundle of features contained in the Spanish Determiner category, and finally the English speakers needed to select the [+Generic] feature of Spanish articles. They observed that almost 60% of the Korean speakers had acquired the English articles and its features, whereas this was not the case for the English and Spanish speakers: the authors concluded that adding the [+Generic] feature to Spanish determiners was easier than subtracting the [+Generic] feature. They concluded that feature re-assembly (unlike feature selection) is a difficult task even when the L1 and the L2 share the same features. Still, they claim that reassembling features is possible as near-native participants achieved target-like performance. They argue that the source for the difficulty in feature re-assembly lies on the complexity to break up bundles of features which form syncretic categories (Giorgi and Pianesi, 1997 cited by Montrul and Yoon) of two or more features bundled and mapped onto a single morphological unit. Furthermore, they claim that although feature re-assembly is more complex than feature selection, adding a feature to a syncretic complex is easier than - 82 -

subtracting from a learnability perspective. They say that “unlearning is more difficult than learning, because if learning proceeds on the basis of positive evidence, it is easier to detect the existence of something in the input and infer its availability and correctness than to notice the absence of something and thus infer impossibility of a given interpretation” (Montrul and Yoon, 2009: 308).

More research (in the lines of Ionin and Montrul, to appear) is needed to further refine the proposals and predictions put forward by the FAH. Its pursuit should inevitably take into account these initial drawbacks:

The set of features available has not been established yet, and neither have the features which seem to be problematic. This difficulty can be extended to all the approaches under the Representation Deficit view as well, as (lack of) uninterpretable feature selection is key to their claims. As Lardiere (2005, 2007b) herself indicates, it is necessary to investigate the assembly of features itself: how it occurs, whether certain configurations are more difficult than others, how the L1 assembly affects the L2 (re)assembly41 and so on. Lardiere (2005: 178) maintains that this limitation can also be extended to linguistic theory and she quotes Chomsky (2001: 4) where he explicitly avoids addressing the issue: S0 determines the set {F} of properties (‘features’) available for languages. Each L makes a onetime selection of a subset [F] of {F} and a one-time assembly of elements of [F] as its lexicon LEX, which we can take to be a classical ‘list of exceptions,’ putting aside further issues. (Chomsky, 2001, p. 4, emphasis added by Lardiere, 2005). The FAH does not make an overt prediction for the asymmetry between suppletive and affixal morphemes. Still, Lardiere argues that “[h]ow particular features are idiosyncratically assembled and realized in each language, whether as inflections or free functional elements, whether overtly realized or not, whether interpretable or uninterpretable, etc., will obviously play a role in determining crosslinguistic variation and can pose a substantial and complex learning problem for second language learners” (2007b: 241-42). It seems, 41

As for feature re-assembling Lardiere (2009a) defends that feature selection is insufficient to model the complexity of the remapping of form and meaning in L2 acquisition. Thus, she advocates a greater role for L1 through contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 lexical items, perhaps on an inductive basis not guided by UG. For an account arguing for parameters and UG-guided re-assembling see Montrul and Yoon (2009). - 83 -

then, that the FAH could potentially predict the asymmetry. This would be, nonetheless, that different features have been selected and/or that these features are reassembled differently in suppletive and affixal inflection.

Although the FAH is still in its initial stages, and certain core elements to the hypothesis need to be studied in more detail, the predictions made as to the difficulties faced when (re)assembling features in L2, or L3 as in the present analysis, makes it highly attractive.

3.6. Summary of the chapter This chapter has contextualized this dissertation within the generative framework. More specifically, it has addressed the debate concerning the underlying source for the variability or optionality in tense and agreement production observed among L2 learners. Six different hypotheses have been presented to deal with this issue: three representational deficit accounts and three explanations arguing that L2 learners do not have representational deficits. Among the representational deficit (RD) accounts, two of them (Interpretability Hypothesis –IH- and Contextual Complexity Hypothesis –CCH-) argue for a syntactic deficit linked to unavailability of uninterpretable features to post Critical Period learners (IH and CCH), as well as to context sensitive specifications of vocabulary items (CCH). The final RD account, the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis (PTH), argues that the source of the variability is not syntactic but prosodic. Among the non-RD accounts, on the other hand, the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (MSIH) maintains that learners have problems with the mapping of forms from the abstract features to their morphophonological exponents. The UG-driven vs. idiosyncratic marking (UGIDM) states that the marking of forms which raise covertly is extended as the marking of such forms is not universal, and fluctuates from language to language and even in the same language. Finally, the Feature Assembly Hypothesis (FAH) argues that the learnability problem comes from the fact that L2 learners have to realize how grammatical features are morphologically combined (reassembled) and conditioned in the L2.

In the next chapter, Chapter 4, the research questions and hypotheses are presented and the study carried out with CLIL and non-CLIL learners is described. Chapter 5 outlines the results obtained in the study, while Chapter 6 discusses the results along the lines of the hypotheses entertained in the dissertation.

- 84 -

Chapter 4: RESEARCH QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY

The present chapter outlines the research questions formulated and the hypotheses entertained. Afterwards, the method of investigation chosen will be presented which includes a description of the participants involved, of the data collection process, of the coding system used, as well as of the methodological decisions taken when counting the data.

This is how the chapter is structured: section 4.1. features the research questions which gave rise to the study and the hypotheses considered; section 4.2. details the methodology followed including the main characteristics of the participants involved (4.2.1.), the type of tasks administered (4.2.2.), the various coding systems used such as the coding of the participants, of the examples and of the tables and figures (4.2.3.), and finally 4.2.4. presents the working decisions made to analyze the data. The chapter concludes with section 4.3. which sketches briefly the information presented in this chapter.

4.1. Research questions and hypotheses The main issue investigated in this dissertation is the development in the production of suppletive (copula and auxiliary be) and affixal (-s and –ed) morphology in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals in CLIL and non-CLIL programmes. In order to do so, the following research questions were raised:

What patterns of use of English suppletive and affixal verb morphology (copula and auxiliary be, 3rd person singular present tense –s and past tense –ed) will be found in the production of Basque-Spanish bilingual learners of English?

Will the patterns of use differ from those found in existing research with L2 speakers?

Which of the hypotheses about L2 development outlined in Chapter 3 will be most consistent with the patterns of use found?

- 85 -

What will the effect of exposure to English CLIL programmes have by comparison with exposure to English in non-CLIL programmes? In light of proposals attempting to explain variability in previous studies on the L2 acquisition of these morphological elements in English and on the difference in the amount of classroom input CLIL learners receive, the following hypotheses are entertained: Hypothesis 1: the L3 English of the bilingual learners in this study will not be impaired either locally or totally as far as tense and agreement morphology markers are concerned. Thus, it is expected that in both CLIL and non-CLILGs the non-target like forms will be more omission errors, such as he see, than commission errors like they sees. Previous work with the non-CLIL database (Lázaro Ibarrola, 2002; Perales Haya, 2004; Villarreal and García Mayo, 2009; García Mayo and Villarreal, 2011) has also reported this finding. Hypothesis 2: There will be a dissociation in frequency of suppliance: suppletive inflection will appear earlier than affixal inflection and will be produced with a higher frequency. Affixal –s and –ed will be omitted more frequently than copula and auxiliary be. This hypothesis is based on previous findings on the acquisition of L2 (and L3) English such as Zobl and Liceras (1994), Ionin and Wexler (2002) and Villarreal and García Mayo (2009) and García Mayo and Villarreal (2011). Hypothesis 3: CLIL learners will exhibit a more target-like performance than non-CLIL learners (Wolff, 2002; Genesee, 2006; Lasagabaster, 2008, 2010; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2007, 2008a). The CLILG will produce finiteness morphemes more frequently than the non-CLILG (Villarreal and García Mayo, 2009), as they have followed a programme with a focus on communication and the input they have been exposed to is quantitatively and qualitatively different from that of their non-CLIL peers. A significant number of errors is not expected in any of the groups, as both have been exposed to English for quite a number of years.

In order to collect data bearing on the research questions and hypotheses, an oral story-retelling task was designed. The methodology used is described in the rest of the chapter. - 86 -

4.2. Methodology 4.2.1. Participants In order to measure the effects of a CLIL approach on the development of the use of English tense and agreement morphology (in particular, on the development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes) in L3 learners of English who are Basque-Spanish bilinguals, 134 learners were selected for the study. These learners were divided into two main groups: an English as a School Subject group (hereafter, non-CLIL) and a Content and Language Integrated group (henceforth, CLIL). The following table illustrates the main characteristics of the two groups. Table 4.1: Distribution and main characteristics of the participants

Group NonCLIL CLIL

Participants per course

Age at testing

Onset

DBH3

DBH4

BATX2

age

DBH3

DBH4

BATX2

23

29

15

8

14-15

15-16

17-18

27

27

13

8

14-15

15-16

17-18

Group

Content

Non-CLIL CLIL

Amount of English hours at school

Extra

DBH3

DBH4

BATX2

classes

No

693

792

990

No

Yes

875-910

1120-1155

1443

Yes

The participants were distributed in three different high schools in the Basque Country, two in Gipuzkoa (AL and GL) and one in Bizkaia (AR). All the learners who belong to the non-CLILG attended the same school in Gipuzkoa (GL), whereas the participants in the CLILG came from two different schools (AL and AR). Yet, all three schools used Basque as the main language for instruction. All the participants were fully bilingual in Basque and Spanish and were learning English as their third language (L3). As Cenoz and Valencia (1994) put it, this context can be defined as additive trilingualism, or as Cenoz (2009: 52) recently described it as multilingual education as both “[…] multilingualism and multiliteracy in Basque, Spanish and English have become the aim”.

- 87 -

The difference between the two groups (CLIL and non-CLIL) stems from the fact that the learners in the non-CLILG receive only English language arts classes, whereas the CLIL learners are part of an innovative language learning approach (at least for foreign language teaching) in which one or various curricular subjects are taught through the target language, the English language besides the regular English language arts class.

Thus, the participants in the non-CLILG started learning English when they were 8 and received 3 hours of English per week, which means that, after 6 years (right before DBH3) they had received 594 hours of English instruction and finished school after 9 years of English instruction with a formal exposure of 990 hours. The participants in the CLIL programme, however, also started learning English at school when they were 8 and have had English as a school subject 3 hours per week as well for 6 years. When they were 14 (in DBH3), however, they entered a CLIL programme, in which a curricular subject (which varied depending on the school) was taught using English as the language of instruction for 4 or 5 hours per week. These learners entered the CLIL programme in DBH3 with an approximate exposure of 630 hours, and finished school in BATX2 with an approximate exposure of 1443 hours. Table 4.2 illustrates the classes the learners had in English (both CLIL and regular English classes) since age 8 (the onset age).

- 88 -

Table 4.2: Subjects in or through English in our corpus

CLIL

Before DBH3

DBH3

AL

AR

English language

English language

Geography, technology (4

Geography, tutoring, religion or

h.) + English language (3

alternative (5 h.) + English

h.)

language (3 h.)

History and Computer DBH4

Non-CLIL

science (4 h.) + English language (3 h.)

BATX1

n/a

BATX2

n/a

GL English language English language

Classical culture or modern English literature, tutoring, religion

English

or alternative (4 h.) + English

language

language (3 h.) Laboratory Techniques + English

English

language (3 h.)

language

English language (3h.)

English language

Note: n/a indicates that no language samples for that group are available

As for the English input they received outside school, none of the learners in the non-CLILG received extra-English classes outside school, thus, all their English input came exclusively from school. That is to say, this group only received three hours of English language arts class per week which made up for all the English input they had. This means that in DBH3 they had had approximately 693 hours of formal English instruction, in DBH4 792 hours and 990 hours in BATX2. The CLILG is more heterogeneous, however. Most of the participants included in this group received extraEnglish classes outside school. By heterogeneous it is meant that there is a great variation as to the amount of hours of English instruction they receive outside school: a minority of them did not receive any extra classes, while some others received as many as 1440 hours42. As for the approximate number of hours of English received at school,

42

Appendices 4.1. - 4.3. include the hour estimation of extra English classes outside school by participant and course (the extra hours are aggregated for each course). Appendix 4.4. presents the extra input questionnaire distributed among the learners. In order to see whether the amount of classes received outside school was related to better scores on some independent linguistic measures (Oxford Placement Test (Allan, 1992), and five measures used to evaluate the participants’ oral performance in the narration task: pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency and content) scatter graphs were plotted and they showed that no linear relation held between them. Therefore a linear relationship does not exist between having more or less extra hours and higher or lower scores on these independent measure - 89 -

this group had had an exposure of 875 to 910 hours of English at first data collection time (DBH3), from 1120-1155 hours at DBH4, and about 1443 hours at the final course.

Data were collected at three different sampling points (when participants were in three different classes). The first data collection was carried out when the students were enrolled in DBH3, the third year of secondary compulsory education when the learners were 14-15 years-old. In order to facilitate the understanding of the groups and testing times included in the study the table featuring the organization of the education system included in Chapter 2 is repeated below for the reader’s convenience: Table 4.3: The organization of the education system in the Spanish State

Education Cycle

Age

Course age

Courses

Non-

Non-

applicable

applicable

6-7

1go maila

7-8

2. maila

8-9

3. maila

9-10

4. maila

10-11

5. maila

11-12

6. maila

12-13

DBH 1

13-14

DBH 2

14-15

DBH 3

15-16

DBH 4

16-17

BATX 1

17-18

BATX 2

range Infant Education

Primary Education

Compulsory

0-6

6-12

Secondary 12-16

Education

Optional Secondary43 Education 16-18

Non-applicable: infant education is considered an indivisible cycle Maila: Basque term for level DBH: Derrigorrezko bigarren hezkuntza (Compulsory secondary education) BATX: Abbreviation for each optional secondary level.

43

Instead of going into optional Secondary School, it is also possible to get into vocational training. - 90 -

Twenty-three (23) participants were included in the non-CLILG, whilst 27 participants formed the CLILG. Learners in the CLILG had had their first year of curricular teaching using English as the vehicular language. The second data set was collected when the learners were 15-16 years of age and where enrolled in the fourth and last year of secondary compulsory education (DBH4), a year after the first data collection. Twenty-nine (29) learners comprised the non-CLILG, while 27 formed the CLILG. This is the second year of content instruction through the English language for the CLILG. Finally, the last data collection point was BATX2 which is the last year of optional secondary education when the participants were 17-18 years-old. Fifteen (15) students were included in the non-CLILG, 13 in the CLILG. However, although the CLIL learners studied a curricular subject in English in the third and fourth year of compulsory secondary education and in the first year of secondary optional education (BATX1, which is not included in the analysis), they do not get any CLIL in the last year of secondary optional education (BATX2). Thus, the observations in BATX2 are observations made one year after the CLIL programme is over.

The quasi-longitudinal character of the research gave rise to many problems when grouping the data. Due to the fact that some of the learners where not accessible during the four years that takes to go from DBH3 to BATX2 the current study is longitudinal only in some groups. The entire CLIL instruction group is tracked through DBH3 (Time 1) and DBH4 (Time 2), whereas only half of the group (13 subjects) can be tracked in the last year (Time 3). This is due to the fact that in the AL school in Gipuzkoa there was no optional secondary education offered, thus, only half of the group can be followed through the four year period (Time 3), whereas the entire group (27 participants) can be followed in the first two data collection periods (Time 1:DBH3 and Time 2:DBH4).

The picture with the non-CLILG is a little bit more complicated. Since the various projects awarded to the REAL group, currently LASLAB, had different objectives, not all the data collected could be used in this dissertation. Thus, the observations for the non-CLILG are mainly cross-sectional. Twenty-three (23) learners were included in DBH3, 29 in DBH4 and 15 in BATX2. Yet, with some of the learners a longitudinal follow-up could be carried out (more like a case-study44), sometimes through the four

44

Although the heuristic character of case studies is acknowledged, Genesee (2009) also claims that they can “[…] point to what can happen; they provide ample hypotheses for further research; and they provide the opportunity for multiple perspectives on development” (2009: ix). This is precisely how the results obtained from the longitudinal data included need to be - 91 -

year gap and some other times only through two years, either the first and second year (DBH3 and DBH4) or the second and fourth year (DBH4 and BATX2). Thus, 4 learners in the non-CLILG were recorded at three different times in the four year lapse, 15 learners were recorded only twice, 8 of them in DBH3 and DBH4, and 7 of them in DBH4 and BATX2. The remaining 29 participants were only recorded once, 15 in DBH3, 8 in DBH4 and 6 in BATX2. Table 4.4: Number of participants tested in the various testing times

Data collection

non-CLIL CLIL

DBH3-DBH4-BATX2 4

12

DBH3-DBH4

7

15

DBH4-BATX2

7

0

DBH3 only

12

0

DBH4 only

11

0

BATX2 only

4

0

4.2.2. Data collection. The data included in this dissertation comes from the large data-base in third language acquisition collected by the Language and Speech Laboratory Group (LASLAB) at the University of the Basque Country. The data included have been collected since 1996 with a project whose main interest was to determine the influence that age had on the acquisition of English as a foreign language in a formal setting and whose interest has shifted nowadays to the effect that the teaching of a curricular subject through English has on the acquisition of English as a foreign language45. Thus, the data has

interpreted. They need to be understood as suggesting trends as well as new lines for future research. 45 The data included in this dissertation have been collected with projects awarded to the group then named Research in English Applied Linguistics (REAL) and currently Language and Speech Laboratory Group (LASLAB). The following projects had been awarded to the group: The acquisition of English: Linguistic and psychosocial development, 1996-1998 by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture (Project PS95-0025); The Acquisition of English as an L3: a longitudinal Study, 1998-2001 by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture (Research Project PB97-061); The development of English Competence: a longitudinal study, 2000-2003 by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (Project BFF-2000-0000); The acquisition of phonetic, lexical, morphosyntactic, and discourse competence in English: a longitudinal study, 2003-2006 by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (Project BFF2003-04009-C02-01); The development of phonetic, morphosyntactic, lexical and discursive competence in English as a Foreign Language: A longitudinal study, 2006-2009 by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (HUM2006-09775-C02-01/FILO). - 92 -

been collected during various years, some prior to the inclusion of the author in the group and some after becoming part of the group.

As part of a larger study carried out by the research group, various tests were administered to participants to try to evaluate their overall English proficiency. In this dissertation, only one of the tasks that the participants were asked to perform will be analyzed as the others are not relevant for the goals of the present study. The task the learners were asked to carry out was the spontaneous narration of the well-known picture story “Frog, where are you?” (Mayer, 1969).

4.2.2.1.

The oral data

In order to collect the oral data, each informant was asked to tell Mayer’s story individually. The recordings were carried out in the high schools the learners attended and were guided by a trilingual (Basque, Spanish and English) researcher who helped the participants with lexical items they did not know or could not retrieve at the moment of the recording. The researcher always addressed the participants in English, although s/he answered all the questions raised by the participants even if they were produced in Basque or Spanish. Before the narration of the story, the learner had a few minutes to go over the story quickly so that s/he could see what was going on in it; no questions made during this time (this part was not recorded) were answered by the researchers. The narration was not timed and the participant could take as long as s/he wanted to narrate the story. All recordings were audio-taped and later transcribed using the CHILDES programme (MacWhinney, 2000).

In the examples of the learners’ production provided throughout the dissertation the following conventions will appear:

The use of a pound sign (#) indicates a pause. The number of pound signs indicates the duration of the pause. The maximum number of pound signs is three, which is already a very long pause. When a word uttered by a participant is not comprehensible it is transcribed as xxx.

- 93 -

4.2.3. Coding 4.2.3.1.

The participants’ labels

The goal of viewing the data longitudinally for the present study, and the fact that the data were not collected specifically for the study but with other holistic purposes in mind, makes it difficult to identify the development of participants over time. In order to minimize such difficulties the informants were labelled in a way that makes them traceable through the three data collection points (if the data is available). The participants’ label has been formed as follows: the first capital letter C or E encodes the group to which s/he belongs (C, CLILG, and E, non-CLILG), the small letter following it encodes the school level of the participant (a, DBH3, b, DBH4, c, BATXI2), the number immediately following the letter encodes a specific participant in a group. The last capital letter A, B or C encodes the longitudinality of the participant: A means there are data available from this participant from two school levels DBH3 and DBH4, B means that this participant can be tracked in the three stages DBH3, DBH4 and BATX2, and finally, C means that there are two data samples available from this participant collected in the DBH4 and BATX2 levels. Some participants will not have a capital letter at the end of their label: this means that this particular learner does not have a longitudinal follow-up and that there is only a single sample available from this particular learner. The following table summarizes the conventions used when coding the participants: Table 4.5: Symbols used when labelling the participants

Order of the symbols Symbols used Meaning of the symbols First capital letter

Small letter

Number

Final capital letter

E

non-CLILG

C

CLILG

a

DBH3

b

DBH4

c

BATX2

1-29

Participant’s number

A

DBH3-DBH4

B

DBH3-DBH4-BATX2

C

DBH4-BATX2

no letter

Cross-sectional

- 94 -

Because the labelling might initially appear opaque to readers, some examples are provided to familiarize them with these conventions. Even though, it might feel a little odd at first, this labelling is meant to facilitate the tracking of the subjects through the three sampling points. Examples: (4.1.) Ea5A belongs to the non-CLILG (E), s/he is in the first course DBH3 (a),

s/he is participant number 5 (5), and s/he can be found in DBH3 and DBH4 (A). (4.2.) Eb20 belongs to the non-CLILG (E), s/he is in the second course DBH4 (b),

s/he is participant 20 of the group (20), since s/he doesn’t have a capital letter following the number it indicates that only this data sample is available from this participant. (4.3.) Cb1A belongs to the CLILG (C), s/he is in DBH4 (b), s/he is the first subject

of the group (1) and s/he can be found in DBH3 and DBH4 (A). (4.4.) Ec20 belongs to the non-CLILG (E), s/he is in the last course BATX2 (c),

and is the twentieth subject of the group (20). The fact that there is no final capital letter indicates that this participant is only available in this course. (4.5.) Cc2B belongs to the CLILG (C), s/he is in BATX2 (c), s/he is the second

participant of the group (2), and data from this participant can be found in the three courses (B).

Finally, a labelling gap in the final course (BATX2) needs to be highlighted. As regards the non-CLILG, by labelling gap it is meant that there are no number 5 to 12 subjects in the final BATX2 group because if there were their labelling will clash with other labels in DBH4. As a consequence, it was decided to exclude such numbers from the labelling in the last course BATX2 of the non-CLILG (and only in this group). Thus, the labels in BATX2 non-CLIL go from 1 to 4, and then from 13 to 23. In the CLILG, only subject number one and number thirteen are missing. Thus, the numbers in the CLILG go from 2 to 12 and from 14 to 15. A full list of all the participants in the study can be found in Appendix 4.5.

4.2.3.2.

Coding of examples

The examples that will be presented in this dissertation will be labelled: Between brackets. - 95 -

The first number will be the number of the chapter followed by the number of the example. The two numbers are separated by a dot. For instance, (4.2.) indicates that it is example number 2 in the fourth chapter. Consequently, the numbers will start from zero in every chapter.

4.2.3.3.

Coding of tables and figures

The coding of the tables and figures will also follow the same conventions of the examples, excluding the brackets. They will show the number of the chapter followed by the specific number of the table or figure. The two digits will be separated by a dot, e.g.: 4.2

4.2.3.4.

Coding of the appendixes

There will be an Appendix for every chapter that needs it so the general number of the Appendix will correspond with the chapter. Thus, this chapter (Chapter 4) will have an Appendix 4 in which to include all the information considered relevant. All the individual Appendices included inside this larger Appendix (Appendix 4 according to the example) will be preceded by the number of the chapter and followed by the specific number of the Appendix and also separated by a dot. Thus, Appendix 4.5 is the fifth Appendix for chapter 4.

4.2.4. Methodological decisions for counting data When facing data analysis certain decisions were made as to what should be counted as an analyzable verbal utterance and what should be excluded from the analysis. Establishing such conventions is extremely important mainly when analyzing oral data as foreign language learners’ data tends to be quite messy -full of false starts (4.6.), pauses and doubting particles (4.7.), and incomprehensible utterances (4.8.), for instance- due to the spontaneous character of the oral medium and the insecurity learners feel by the fact that that they are being recorded. These, among some other reasons, make their production sometimes obscure and hard to follow.

(4.6.) ## the the boy is is no the boy take her frog (4.7.) # eeeh then the owl eeeh # eh persecute the the boy (4.8.) eh no Alfred eh see said the # arratoia (mouse)

- 96 -

Following Ionin and Wexler (2002: 105 footnote1) it was counted as an ‘analyzable verbal utterance’ any utterance containing a finite verb, a non-finite verb or a missing copula, as well as an overt or null subject. Eliminated from the counting were:

a) All formulaic utterances such as how do you say X? or I don’t know because they can be considered chunks or rote-learned material (Myles, 2004).

b) Instances of existential there with a copula verb like there is or there are if only one of the forms is uttered during the narration. If the learner demonstrates that this structure is productive in his/her ILG, i.e, s/he shows different forms of it such as em in the mountain there are bees and one mouse eh in a hole there is a mouse then they are included in the counting and they are counted as appropriate instances of copula be. If only one of the forms appears then it is eliminated.

c) Repetitions of adult speech such as the one illustrated in (4.9.) when the repeated part is a verb: 46

(4.9.) CHI : # encontró (found)

INV: find CHI: find a bee bee house

d) Utterances containing portions of direct speech (he say be quiet).

e) Repetitions of the same utterance such as (4.10.) where only the last occurrence is counted: (4.10.) … but they don’t look nothing, o sea (I mean) they don’t look nothing,

f) Any utterance that is interrupted at verb level like (4.11.) or not comprehensible like (4.12.): (4.11.) they find a deer which is… (4.12.) …eeeh it is eeeh on xxx into the wood wood

g) Any utterance containing a verb form that does not require a change to the stem when the tense is modified such as (4.13.) and (4.14.): (4.13.) … the dog eeeh put the head into the bottle (4.14.) … when he saw it he put on her his clothes

46

CHI: child or the language learner in our case; INV: investigator - 97 -

h) Any irregular verb form in the past (example (4.15.)), as according to models such as the dual-mechanism model (Pinker and Prince, 1992) regular and irregular verb forms are processed through two distinct systems: regulars through a rule-governed system, and irregulars, through an associative memory system47. Present forms of irregular verbs requiring the third person present –s are included ( see example (4.16.)) as well as instances in which the past form is used as the base form to add regular inflection such as the third person –s (example (4.17.) or even the past –ed (example (4.18.):

(4.15.) # he went to the street (4.16.) and the deer eh throws the boy to a to a lake (4.17.) and he tooks the frog (4.18.) and he founded the frog with his family

4.3. Summary of the chapter This Chapter has presented the two groups of learners included in the study: the CLIL Group (CLILG) and the non-CLIL Group (non-CLILG). These two groups have participated in three different testing times: Time 1:DBH3 (age 14-15), Time 2:DBH4 (age 15-16), and Time 3:BATX2 (age 17-18). The participants were asked to narrate Mayer’s (1969) picture-story “Frog, Where Are You?” and their production was recorded and later analyzed.

In the following chapter, Chapter 5, the results obtained from the recordings will be presented. Three different types of analyses will be considered: a cross-sectional within group analysis, a between group analysis and longitudinal analysis. The findings obtained will be discussed in the following chapter, Chapter 6.

47

The reader is referred to Gor (2010) for an updated review of the theoretical positions dealing with inflectional morphology processing. - 98 -

Chapter 5: RESULTS

This chapter will feature the results obtained after data analysis. For the sake of clarity, this data will be presented in four different sections: section 1 features the results from a cross-sectional within-groups analysis in order to test hypotheses one and two; section 2 reports the outcomes of a cross-sectional between-group analysis in which the superiority of CLIL learners will be tested in line with the third hypothesis. In section 3 the data obtained at Time 1 when the participants were in DBH3, at Time 2 in DBH4 and Time 3 when they were in BATX2 will be analyzed longitudinally. In section 4 two groups with similar hours of exposure will be compared. Each section considers omission of inflection and inflection errors separately. Significance was set at α = .05.

5.1. Cross-sectional within-groups analysis 5.1.1. Omission of inflection First the omission rate of verbal inflectional morphemes in obligatory contexts will be analyzed. By obligatory context it is meant any context in which a native adult speaker would use an inflectional morpheme. These are the four morphemes under analysis: a) third person –s b) past tense –ed c) auxiliary be d) copula be

Table 5.1 illustrates the number and percentages of omissions produced by each group at the three testing times: Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3. Although the data from the CLILG and the non-CLILG is presented in separate columns, in this cross sectional analysis no CLIL vs. non-CLIL contrasting analyses will be undertaken. As a consequence, six groups will be considered: DBH3, DBH4 and BATX2 in CLIL and DBH3, DBH4, and BATX2 in non-CLIL. .

- 99 -

Table 5.1: Number and percentage of omission at each testing time for CLIL and nonCLIL

CLIL Morphemes

Time

1: Time

Non-CLIL 2: Time

3: Time

1: Time

2: Time

DBH3

DBH4

BATX2

DBH3

DBH4

BATX2

190/267

82/185

26/119

110/153

161/218

29/235

71,16%

44,32%

21,84%

71,89%

73,85%

12,34%

Past tense – 21/44

56/136

30/74

2/9

26/41

45/103

ed

47,72%

41,17%

40,54%

22,22%

63,41%

43,68%

2/106

2/77

0/39

11/102

3/96

3/48

1,88%

2,59%

0%

10,78%

3,12%

6,25%

1/113

1/145

1/73

1/107

3/137

0/135

0,88%

0,68%

1,36%

0,93%

2,18%

0%

214/530

141/543

57/305

124/371

193/492

77/521

40,37%

25,96%

18,68%

33,42%

39,22%

14,77%

3rd sing. –s

Auxiliary be

Copula be

All inflection

3:

The analysis concluded that in suppletive forms (auxiliary and copula be) the omission was related to an absence of the copula and auxiliary be and not to the use of a nonfinite be form (cf. Ionin and Wexler, 2002). In fact, no instance of nonfinite be was found in the corpus. Only regular verbs are included in the analysis48. The rationale was the need to compare truly affixal forms that did not require a change to the stem, against truly suppletive forms (auxiliary be and copula be) (Ionin and Wexler, 2002: 105).

5.1.1.1.

Omission of inflection at Time 1: DBH3

In order to focus my discussion, the results presented in Table 5.1 are examined independently for each of the three sampling times. Table 5.2 shows that at the first sampling time there is a high omission rate of affixal inflection for both groups, in particular with the third person present singular morpheme –s: both the CLILG and the non-CLILG omit it around 71% of the contexts in which this morpheme should be produced. The omission proportion of the past tense -ed is also high, even though it

48

As mentioned above irregular forms to which regular verbal endings (third person singular –s and past –ed) were added are also included, as it was thought that the learners were treating them as regular verbs, for instance, falled. - 100 -

stays below 50%. Nonetheless, the CLILG omits it twice (47,72%) as much as the nonCLILG which omits it in 22,22% of the contexts, 2 out of 9.

Table 5.2: Omission at Time 1:DBH3 by CLIL and non-CLIL

Morphemes 3rd sing. –s

CLIL

Non-CLIL

190/267

71,16%

110/153

71,89%

21/44

47,72%

2/9

22,22%

Auxiliary be

2/106

1,88%

11/102

10,78%

Copula be

1/113

0,88%

1/107

0,93%

All inflection

214/530

40,37%

124/371

33,42%

Past tense – ed

Suppletive morpheme omission, on the other hand, is very low. The two groups omit auxiliary be and copula be in less than 2% of the contexts with the exception of auxiliary omission in the non-CLILG, where the omission rate is a little higher than 10%. Initially, this high omission rate for a suppletive inflection is not expected, even though it is much lower than the omission frequency of the affixal morphemes. Furthermore, this omission is produced by 6 different participants (23 subjects constitute the group). One of them produces 4 instances, but even if this participant is removed, the omission proportion is high (7/98, 7,14%) compared with the other instances of suppletive omission. Two participants omit auxiliary be twice (Ea11A and Ea13) whereas the remaining 3 participants (Ea8A, Ea14, Ea22) produce a single omitted instance. 26,08% of the group produces at least an instance of auxiliary omission. Parallel results are not found for the copula. These examples show prototypical omissions made by the participants49:

a) –s omission (5.1.)

and he continue with his with his froggy search (Ca1A)

(5.2.)

and he look in in a tree (Ea1B)

b) –ed omission (5.3.)

the dog start running and all the bees went eeeh detrás (after) (Ca14B)

(5.4.)

the boy continue with finding the frog (Ca24A)

49

As explained in Chapter 4, the codes after each utterance refer to different individuals in the database. - 101 -

c) Auxiliary be omission (5.5.)

and she and he shouting to frog (Ca2B)

(5.6.)

and the dog and boy sleeping (Ea13)

d) Copula be omission (5.7.)

he interested (Ca20A)

(5.8.)

…the frog not in the in the house (Ea3B)

As can be observed, both groups show a very low omission rate for suppletive inflection (although an unexpected 10% of omission was obtained for the non-CLILG auxiliary). A bilateral conditional binomial test for related measures shows that the CLILG omits auxiliary and copula be with frequencies that can be assumed to be statistically equal (t = 1.10, p = 0.27) whereas the non-CLILG omits those suppletive morphemes with frequencies that are statistically different (t = 10.34; p

Tense and Agreement in the Non-Native English of ...

Tense and Agreement in the Non-Native English of ...

Suggest Documents

Tense and Agreement Morphemes in the Speech

Racializing the Nonnative English Speaker

Tense and Agreement Morphemes in the Speech ... - Semantic Scholar

Tense Encoding, Agreement Patterns, Definiteness and Relativization ...

english tense ranjit - dkdave.in

english tense ranjit - dkdave.in

THE ACQUISITION OF TENSE AND AGREEMENT ... - IDEALS @ Illinois

The Use of Tense and Agreement by Hungarian-Speaking Children ...

THE ACQUISITION OF TENSE AND AGREEMENT ... - IDEALS @ Illinois

Hybrid Agreement in English

Variation in past tense formation in the history of English.

teaching the english tense: integrating naive and formal grammars in ...

Exploring Semantic Information in English Tense

ENGLISH TENSE RANJIT.pdf - Google Drive

Enhancing Blog Readability for Nonnative English Readers in the ...

Representing Regularity: The English Past Tense - CiteSeerX

English Verbs-tense revision chart.pdf - share-in-english - home

The Effect of Typographical Features of Subtitles on Nonnative English

Problems in Mastering English Tense and Aspect and ... - IOSR Journals

Time and Tense in English and Swedish Social Interaction - GUPEA

Time, Tense and Aspect in Nonstandard English: An ... - GUPEA

FUTURE TENSE SYSTEMS IN ENGLISH AND PERSIAN: A ...

Time, Tense and Aspect in Nonstandard English: An Overview - GUPEA

Time, Tense and Aspect in Nonstandard English: An Overview - GUPEA