Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen
Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen
Second Language Acquisition and Second ... - Stephen Krashen
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1<br />
2<br />
situations; there is, as yet, no counterevidence to the hypothesis that the existence of the natural order in<br />
the adult is indeed a manifestation of the creative construction process, or language acquisition. 2<br />
Notes<br />
Kendall W (coefficient of concordance) was computed for those studies containing the same morphemes in the<br />
minimum number of obligatory occasions. For studies with nine morphemes in common (Marta, Uguisu, Dulay<br />
<strong>and</strong> Burt, 1974-combined, Dolores, Andersen, 1976, <strong>and</strong> Larsen-Freeman's two administrations of the BSM), W<br />
= 0.619, p < 0.001. For studies with the same morphemes in common (Jorge 7, 11, 18, 20, <strong>Krashen</strong> et al., 1977),<br />
W = 0.64, p < 0.01. For studies with the same seven morphemes in common (Birnbaum, Butler, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Krashen</strong>,<br />
1977-Free I, Edit. I, Free II, Edit. II, Cheo, Alberto), W = 0.618, p < 0.01. de Villiers (1974) computed a Kendall<br />
W of 0.60 (p = 0.001) for her individual agrammatic subjects.<br />
The relationships proposed in Fig. 1 are also supported in Andersen (1977), who reanalyzed his 1975 data in<br />
several interesting ways. Andersen also presents data indicating significant agreement among individual subjects.<br />
Additional evidence against excessive individual variation is Bailey et al. (1974), who found "a high level of<br />
agreement" among different classes of ESL students for grammatical morpheme difficulty order. Each subgroup<br />
contained about ten students.<br />
While all correlations with the "natural order" for Monitor-free studies are positive, a few miss statistical<br />
significance at the 0.05 level. This is occasionally due to unusual performance in one morpheme: in Juan, for<br />
example, there was very high performance in the III singular morpheme (16/16). In my judgment, this failure to<br />
reach significance in every case is not serious, as several studies that "miss" come quite close (e.g. Cheo) <strong>and</strong> the<br />
effect is reliable. See Ferguson (1971), among others. for a discussion of the prevalence of type II errors when<br />
such near misses are analyzed as non-rejection of the null hypothesis when n's are small, as they are here.<br />
Wode, Bahns, Bedey, <strong>and</strong> Frank (1978) discuss several "shortcomings of the morpheme order approach" which<br />
deserve repeating. First, they correctly point out that any approach that focuses exclusively on "the relative<br />
chronology of target-like mastery of several items... necessarily misses all developments leading toward <strong>and</strong><br />
preceding the final state of achievement" (p. 181). Wode et al.'s data from child second language acquisition,<br />
along with earlier studies in L1 acquisition, illustrate quite clearly that the study of transitional competence, the<br />
intermediate structures performers use on their way to "target-like mastery", reveals an enormous amount about<br />
language acquisition that focusing on final forms misses. <strong>Second</strong>, Wode et al. claim that "morpheme order<br />
studies" miss avoidance phenomena. A good example is provided by Wode et al.'s subject, who produced no<br />
constructions of the sort<br />
N + 's + N<br />
where the first N is not a name. That is, they would produce utterances like<br />
but not<br />
Johnny's dog<br />
the cat's ear<br />
in English. Wode et al. suggest that the reason for this avoidance is the fact that such constructions are<br />
ungrammatical in the L1, German:<br />
Heikos Angel (Heiko's fishing pole)<br />
62