in L2 Learners Written Essays 15 th AATK Conference June 26 2010 Washington University in St Louis Sorin Huh University of Hawaii at Manoa Purposes of the Study To examine the development of Korean relative clauses RCs ID: 741670
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Development of Korean Relative Clauses" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Development of Korean Relative Clauses in L2 Learners’ Written Essays
15th AATK ConferenceJune 26, 2010Washington University in St. Louis
Sorin
Huh
University of Hawaii at
ManoaSlide2
Purposes of the Study
To examine the development of Korean relative clauses (RCs) by second language (L2) learners of Korean at the descriptive level by analyzing L2 learners’ written essays using CHILDES.To investigate whether
typological differences
between the target language and learners’ first language (L1) have influence on their acquisition of the Korean RCsSlide3
Characteristics of Korean RCs
Korean RC is prenominal.
No relative pronoun
is involved.
Instead,
relativization
is signaled by a set of
adnominal verbal suffixes
such as
–
은
,
는
,
and
–
을
,
which also
express
the tense of the RC.
Movement and
pronominalization
are not involved. Slide4
Characteristics of Korean RCs
Head-external RCs
Head-internal RCs
존
-
은
[
NP
[책-을 빌린] 것]-을 돌려 주었다. John-TOP book-ACC borrow-REL.PAST thing-COMP.ACC return-AUX-PAST-DEC.“John returned the book he borrowed.” (from Jeon & Kim, 2007, p. 256)
[NP [ti 아기-를 보-는] 여자i ] baby-ACC see-REL.PRES woman“The woman who looks at a baby.”
Head Noun
Gap
것
Head NounSlide5
Development of Korean RCs
저 남자 든 것
that man [
lift-
REL.PRES COMP
]
What the man has lifted
Headless RCs
Head-Internal RCs
Head-External RCsL1 (Cho, 1999; Cho & O’Grady, 2009; Y. Kim, 1987; K. Lee, 1991) and L2 acquisition studies (Jeon & Kim, 2007) have shown that Korean RCs develop in the order of
:
No Head NounSlide6
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy
A typological generalization originally proposed by Keenan and Comrie (1977)
The
relativizability
of noun phrase is in the order of:
SU >
DO >
IO >
OBL >
GEN > OCompSlide7
NPAH and L2 Acquisition
The NPAH was extended to SLA to predict the difficulty order of acquiring RCs.
Research on European RC acquisition confirmed the NPAH. In other words,
subject (SU) RCs are acquired earlier than direct object (DO) RCs
.
(
Eckman
, Bell, & Nelson, 1988;
Gass
, 1979; Doughty, 1999; Izumi, 2003, Hawkins, 1989, Hyltenstam, 1984)The NPAH has been regarded as a universal hierarchy which predicts L2 developmental order of RCs. Slide8
NPAH and L2 Acquisition
Recent findings on the acquisition of East Asian Language (EAL) RCs have challenged the universality of the NPAH.
Japanese
RC acquisition:
Mixed
findings
(
Kanno, 2000, 2001, 2007; Sakamoto & Kubota, 2000 vs. Hasegawa, 2002; Roberts , 2000; Ozeki & Shirai , 2007) Korean RC acquisition: Favorable findings (Huh, in press; Jeon & Kim, 2007; O’Grady et al, 2000, 2003)Slide9
Influence of L1 on L2 RC acquisition
Kanno (2007)Word order: SVO vs. SOVFiller-Gap order
:
Prenominal
(gap-filler) vs.
Postnominal
(filler-gap)
Interestingly, CHN learners did not perform better than other learners with SVO
postnominal
L1. In other words, having prenominal RCs was not advantageous for the CHN learners. In this study, only learners with CHN and JPN L1 backgrounds will be included.Word OrderGap-FillerChinese (CHN)SVOPrenominalJapanese (JPN)SOVPrenominalSlide10
Research Questions
Do L2 learners of Korean show RC developmental order from headless to head-internal to head-external RCs?
Do L2 learners of Korean acquire the Korean RCs in the order consistent with the NPAH?
Does word order difference in L1 and L2 influence learners’ acquisition of the Korean RCs? Slide11
Methods: Korean Learner Corpus
L2 Korean Learner CorpusIn total, 406 essays written by 203 Korean as a second language (KSL) learners from beginning to high-advanced level were included in the analysis.
Among them, 153 were JPN learners and 50 were CHN learners.
Essays were written on various topics.
(e.g., Introducing my family, describing a picture, writing opinions about controversial issues, future plans, etc.)Slide12
Methods: Korean Learner Corpus
CHILDES (McWhinney, 2000)A database of child language transcripts
A system of Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts of child speech
(CHAT)
A collection of Child Language Analysis programs
(CLAN)
The essays were converted into the CHAT format and analyzed using CLAN.
http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/Slide13
Methods: Coding and Analysis
All sentences containing noun-modifying clauses were extracted. Distinction of an RC (Ozeki &
Shirai
, 2007a, b)
Verbs
Adjectives with Complements
Adjectives in Past Tense Form
읽는 것
내가 먹은 사과
머리가 긴 여자즐거웠던 여행
RCsSlide14
Methods: Coding and Analysis
Distinction between RCs and other similar clauses (Lee, 2001;
Sohn
, 1999)
RCs
Pseudo Relative Clauses
(
Coreferent
-Opaque Clauses)
Noun Complement Clause(Fact-S Type Clauses)내가 먹은 사과밥이 타는 냄새내가 사과를 먹은 사실
RCsNoRCsFurther tests for RCs distinction
(Lee, 2001)
1. Is there a
Gap
inside the RC?
2. Can the gap be filled with a
RP
?
3. Can a
Psuedo
-cleft sentence
be made from the RC?Slide15
Methods: Coding and Analysis
RC Developmental Stages7 RC developmental stages from headless to head-internal and head-external RCs (according to Jeon and Kim, 2007)RC Gap Type
Subject (SU)/Direct object (DO)/Oblique (OBL)
Types of Errors
Tense/inflection error (TIE)
Case marker error (CME)
Argument omission (ARG)
Resumptive
pronoun retention (RPR)Slide16
Results: Types of RCs Produced
Table 1. No. of RCs produced
In total,
812 RCs
were produced.
All of the RCs identified in this study were
head-external RCs.
Number of RCs per learner seems to increase as learner’s level becomes higher.
Dramatic increment appeared at Level 3 both in the number of RCs per learner and the maximum number of RCs produced.L1
L2L3L4L5L6
Total
Total
62
91
263
158
119
119
812
RC/Learner
1.17
2.33
6.41
5.45
4.58
7.93
4.00
(Min-Max)
(0-4)
(0-7)
(1-13)
(0-11)
(1-13)
(3-15)
(0-15)Slide17
Results: Types of RCs Produced
Table 2. Accuracy of the RCs produced
In general, learners produced RCs more accurately as their level increased.
Error types
: Tense/inflection error (69%), case marker error (17%), and argument omission (14%)
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6TotalRC6291263
158
119
119
812
Accurate RCs
47
76
225
142
113
108
711
Accuracy
(76%)
(84%)
(86%)
(90%)
(95%)
(91%)
(88%)Slide18
Results: RC Gap Types
Table 3. Gap positions of the RCs
At all levels, SU RCs were produced much more frequently than other types of RCs
(SU > DO/OBL)
.
In total, larger proportion of DO RCs were produced than OBL, however such a pattern was not clearly shown at each level.
L1
L2
L3
L4L5L6TotalSU
81%
62%
72%
57%
71%
51%
65%
DO
16%
1
4
%
14%
30%
19%
24%
19%
OBL
3%
2
4
%
14%
13%
10%
25%
15%Slide19
Results: RC Gap Types
Table 4. Accuracy of each gap type
After finishing level 3, learners seem to be able to produce all three types of RCs quite confidently.
It should be noted than there were only 2 OBL RCs produced in Level 1.
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6SU80%84%
87%
90%
95%
90%
DO
50%
69%92%
89%
96%
93%
OBL
100%
91%
73%
90%
92%
90%Slide20
Results: The Effects of L1
Table 5. No. of RCs and accuracy in each L1 group
At all levels, JPN learners produced greater number of RCs than CHN learners
(JPN > CHN)
.
In addition, JPN learners produced RCs more accurately than CHN learners.
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5L6
Total
JPN
RC/ L
1.28
2.61
7.11
5.76
4.75
9.40
4.22
Accuracy
78%
83%
88%
93%
99%
93%
90%
CHN
RC/ L
0.70
1.25
4.92
4.63
4.00
5.00
3.34
Accuracy
57%
90%
77%
78%
79%
84%
78%Slide21
Results: The Effects of L1
Table 6. RC gap positions for each L1 group
Both groups of learners produced SU RCs in much greater proportion than DO and OBL RCs.
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
JPN
SU
82%
63%
75%
56%
71%
51%
DO
15%
14%
12%
29%
22%
24%
OBL
4%
23%
13%
15%
7%
24%
CHN
SU
71%
50%
63%
59%
71%
52%
DO
29%
20%
19%
32%
8%
20%
OBL
0%
30%
19%
8%
21%
28%Slide22
Results: Learner’s L1 Effects
Table 7. Error types by each L1 group
JPN learners made much greater number of
tense/inflection errors (TIE)
than the other types of errors.
TIE was indeed the largest number of errors committed by CHN learners. However, considerable proportion of
case marker errors (CME)
were also produced.
TIEAGO
CMERPRTotalJPN48
9
7
0
64
(75%)
(14%)
(11%)
(0%)
(100%)
CHN
21
5
10
1
36
(58%)
(14%)
(28%)
(3%)
(100%)Slide23
Discussion: Development of RCs (RQ1)
Head-external RCs from the beginning level (L1)No indication of headless or head-internal RC stages unlike previous studiesConsiderably larger number of RCs as learners’ level increased
U-shape pattern of RC development
Level 3
6.41 RC/L
Level 4
5.45 RC/L
Level 5
4.58 RC/L
Level 67.93 RC/LSlide24
Discussion: RC Gap Positions (RQ2)
SU RCs were produced more frequently than DO and OBL RCs at all levels, supporting the NPAH.After completing level 3, the learners seem to be able to produce all three types of RCs quite successfully (over 90% accuracy).
However, no clear developmental pattern was manifested for DO and OBL RCs. Slide25
Discussion: L1 effects (RQ3)
Overall JPN learners produced the Korean RCs more frequently and accurately than CHN learners.
JPN: 4.22 RCs/L, 90% accuracy
CHN: 3.34 RCs/L, 78% accuracy
Types of errors
made by each group seem to reflect the characteristics of their L1.
Japanese: TIE > AGO > CME
Chinese: TIE > CME > AGO
Lack of adnominal verbal suffixes
Lack of case markers (CHN)Slide26
Limitations & Conclusions
Limitations & SuggestionsThe small size of the learner corpusLack of control over the corpusUnequivalent number of learners in each L1 group
Different topics across levels and varied length of the essays
Conclusions
The KSL learners produced Korean head-external RCs from the beginning unlike children or other KFL learners in the previous studies.
The acquisition order of the NPAH was supported in this study; SU RCs were developed earlier than DO/OBL RCs.
The effects of learners’ L1 were manifested in this study; JPN learners produced the Korean RCs more frequently and accurately than CHN learners.Slide27
ReferencesCho, S. (1999). The acquisition of relative clauses: Experimental studies on Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at
Manoa. Cho, S., & O’Grady, W. (2009). The accessibility hierarchy in Korean: head-external and head-internal relative clauses, 168-174Doughty, C. (199). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization
.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13
(4), 431–469.
Eckman
, R., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language.
Applied Linguistics, 9
(1) 1–20.
Gass, S. M. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29(2), 327–344.Hasegawa, T. (2002). The acquisition of relative clauses by children learning Japanese as a second language. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu. Hawkins, R. (1989). Do second language learners acquire restrictive relative clauses on the basis of relational or configurational information? The acquisition of French subject, direct object and genitive restrictive relative clauses by second language learners. Second Language Research, 5(2), 158–188.Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 39–60). Rowley. MA: Newbury House.Huh, S. (in press). Does Noun Phrase Accessibility matter? A study of L2 Korean relative clause production. In S. Cheon, (Eds.). Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 19, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285–323. Jeon, K. S. & Kim, H-Y. (2007). Development of relativization in Korean as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 253-276.Kanno, K. (2000). Sentence processing by JSL learners. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum 2000, Madison, WI. Kanno, K. (2001). On-line processing of Japanese by English L2 learners. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 4, 23–28.
Kanno, K. (2007). Factors affecting the processing of Japanese relative clauses by L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 197–218.Kim, Y. (1987). The acquisition of relative clauses in English and Korean: Development in spontaneous production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Lee, K. (1991). On the first language acquisition of relative clauses in Korean: The universal structure of COMP. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Lee, S. (2001). Pseudo-Relative Clauses in Korean, ICKL Proceedings, 305-321. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesO’Grady, W., Lee, M., & Choo, M. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 433-448.O’Grady, W., Yamashita, Y., Lee, M., Choo, M., & Cho, S. (2000). Computational factors in the acquisition of relative clauses. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Development of the Mind, (pp. 433-448). Tokyo: Keio UniversityOzeki, H., & Shirai, Y. (2007a). Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29
(2), 169–196.Ozeki, H., & Shirai, Y. (2007b). The consequences of variation in the acquisition of relative clauses: An analysis of longitudinal production data from five Japanese children. In Y. Matsumoto, D. Y.
Oshima, O.W. Robinson, & P. Sells (Eds.), Diversity in language: Perspectives and implications, 243-70. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Roberts, M. A. (2000). Implicational
markedness and the acquisition of relativization by adult learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at M
ānoa. Honolulu. Sohn, H. M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Slide28Slide29
Methods: Korean Learner Corpus
Essay Topics
Essay
1
Essay
2
L1
Topics after studying Korean at the institution
Introduing my family
L2
Describing a given picturePublic transportation in my home countryL3Writing a complaining letter
Writing opinions about a fixed idea (a pretty girl is not smart)
L4
My
favoraite animal
Writing opinions about the 10th-day-no-driving system
L5
Difference between my first language and Korean
Writing opinions about eating dog soup
L6
Things to improve about living in Korea or Korean people
Writing opinions about runaway teenagersSlide30
Methods: Korean Learner Corpus
No. of Participants
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
Total
JPN
43
31
28
21
20
10
153
CHN
10
8
13
8
6
5
50
Total
53
39
41
29
26
15
203Slide31
Methods: Korean Learner Corpus
No. of Participants, Writings, and Tokens
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
Total
JPN
43
31
28
21
20
10
153
CHN
10
8
13
8
6
5
50
Total
53
39
41
29
26
15
203Slide32
Methods: Korean Learner Corpus
Table 1. No. of Learners, Essays, and
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
Total
Learners
53
39
41
29
26
15
203
Essays
106
78
82
58
52
30
406Slide33
Korean Relative Clauses
[
NP
[
t
i
aki-lul
po-nun] yecai ] baby-ACC see-REL.PRES woman“The woman who is looking at a baby.”SU[NP [yeca-ka tj
po-nun] akij ] woman-NOM see-REL.PRES baby“The baby whom the woman is looking at”DO[NP [namca-ka
tk phyenci-lul
ssu-nun] yecak
] man-NOM letter-
ACC write-REL.PRES woman“The woman to whom the man is writing a letter”
IO
[
NP
[
namca
-ka
t
k
phyenci-lul
ssu
-nun]
phen
k
]
man-
NOM
letter-
ACC
write-
REL.PRES
pen
“The pen with which the man is writing a letter”
OBLSlide34
Development of Korean RCs
A small number of studies have been conducted. L1 Acquisition (Cho, 1999; Y. Kim, 1987; K. Lee, 1991)L2 Acquisition
(Huh, 2009;
Jeon
& Kim, 2007; O’Grady, et al., 2000, 2003)
Similar findings were obtained from L1 and L2 studies.
SU RCs are more easily acquired than DO.
No studies have investigated L2 acquisition of OBL RCs.
NPAHSlide35
Methods: Korean Learner Corpus
Table 1. Number of learners and essays
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
Total
Learners
JPN
43
31
28
21
20
10
153
CHN
10
8
13
8
6
5
50
Total
53
39
41
29
26
15
203
Essays
106
78
82
58
52
30
406Slide36
Results 1: Types of RCs Produced
Table 2. Accuracy of the RCs produced
In general, learners produced RCs more accurately as their level increased.
Error types: TIE (69%), CME (17%), & AGO (14%)
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
TotalRC6291263
158
119
119
812
Accurate RCs
47
76
225
142
113
108
711
Accuracy
76%
84%
86
%
90%
95%
91%
88%Slide37
Results 3: Learner’s L1 Effects
Table 6. RC accuracy by each L1 group
In general, JPN learners produced RCs more accurately than CHN learners.
Even at the high-advanced level, CHN learners did not reach the accuracy level of the JPN learners.
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
TotalJPN78%
83%
88%
93%
99%
93%
90%
CHN
57%
90%
77%
78%
79%
84%
78%Slide38
Discussion: Development of RCs (RQ1)
The KSL learners included in this study were able to produce head-external Korean RCs quite successfully from the beginning level (L1).No occurrence of headless or head-internal RCs were identified. The learners produced noticeably greater number of RCs as their level increased (1.17 -> 7.93).