Title: acquisition of English by Choctaw speaking children /
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102859/00001
 Material Information
Title: acquisition of English by Choctaw speaking children /
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Kwachka, Patricia Butler, 1942-
Copyright Date: 1981
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00102859
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 07883119
ltuf - ABS1735

Full Text

















THE


ACQUISITION


OF ENGLISH


BY CHOCTAW


SPEAKING


CHILDREN


PATRICIA


BUTLER


KWACHKA


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED T
THE UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
DEGREE OF DOCTOR


0


T
0


THE GRADUATE C
OF FLORIDA
HE REQUIREMENTS
F PHILOSOPHY


COUNCIL


FOR


































Copyright 1981

by


Patricia Butler


Kwachka
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


am indebted


to a great


many


people


their


support


during


like


course


thank


this


study.


Mississippi


Particularly,


Band


of Choctaw


would


Indians


their


cooperation,


especially


Abbie


Gibson


Kennith


York,


who


were


very


patient


with


me.


Secondly,


am ex-


tremely


grateful


to Jerry


Matthews,


without


whom


lan-


guage


data


would


have


a certain


death


bowels


Univac.


would


also


like


to acknowledge


Mississippi


State


University


grant


enabling


computer


analysis


data.


Finally,


would


like


thank


my chairperson,


Hardman,


continuing


support


extremely


helpful


criticism


this


study


draft.

















TABLE


OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LIST


S.... .. .. . .. iii


OF TABLES.


LIST


OF FIGURES


S. . . 0 5 5 S


ABSTRACT


. . . . . . . Xll


CHAPTER


ONE.


INTRODUCTION


TO THE


RESEARCH.


Introdu


warning


action


Languag


Language
Case .


Indian


Edu


cation


tion,


tiv


, and


1.6.


CHAPTER


TWO.


LANGUAGE


IN THE


CHOCTAW


COMMUNITY


Intr
Lang
The
The
The
Lang
Summ
Note


duction


and
nd
f A
f S
hoc
usi


Co:
Eng
ge
ex
taw
on


mmun
lish
and
and
Con


tyles
ing.
ition
ition


*


CHAPTER


THREE.


MORPHOLOGY.


odu
an


n .
erb In
- 1_ - -i











Table


Contents,


continued.


Page


CHAPTER


FOUR.


SOME


OBSERVATIONS


ON SYNTAX.


. . . 241


Introdu


action


Sentence
Sentence


Types
Errors


Notes


Success


S . . 242


S . . . . . 249
* . 269


CHAPTER


FIVE.


BEYOND


DATA.


. . .. . . . . 270


Introdu


action.


. . 270


Evaluation


. Some


Implic


Research


nations


Methodology
,e Children'


. 270


Deve


lopment


. . 277


Notes


. . . . 2


APPENDICES


App
App
App
App


endix
endix
endix
endix


One
Two


Three
Four.


SWCEL


COMPUTER
CODING
CHOCTAW


TEST


RESPONSE


SYSTEM


FORM


. . 2


a . . . . 2


ORTHOGRAPHY


S a a a . 2


BIBLIOGRAPHY


. . . 301


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH.


* . . 314


. . . . . . . 241
















LIST


OF TABLES


Table


Page


Communities


Ranked


core


A Compari
Dominance


son


Score


Cho


ctaw


Language


Ranking


Appropriate


Ranking


of Communities


ness


sponse


". . 6 2


of Communities


Response"


Ranking


Communi t


"One


Word


Respon


Ranking

Ranking


of Communities

of Communities


Sentence


Imitative


Production

Ability .


Grade


Level


Score


Plural


Suffix


The


Plural


Suffix,


Child.


The


Plural


Suffix,


Imitative


Success.


Possessive


Suffix


Poss


essive


Suffix,


Imitative


Success.


Article


Pref


ixes.


The

The


Article

Article


Prefixes,

Prefixes,


Child


Imitative


Success


Arti


Omission


Errors,


Imitative


Responses.


. -S a a a


. . . . . . . . . .*


A










List


of Tables,


continued.


Table


Page


Third


Person Singular


Present


Tense


{-s}


Third Person Singular,


The Progressive

The Progressive
Success . .


Imitative


Inflection

Inflection


-ing

-ing,


Success


Imitative


The


Past


Tense


Past


Tense,


Imitative Success.


Pronoun Subjects,


Non-Third Person Singular.


Third Person Singular Subject Pronouns


Pronoun
Success.


Subjects,


Non-Third Person,


Imitative


Third Person Singular


Subj


Pronouns


Imitative


Success.


Subject Pronouns,


Object


Summary.


Pronouns.


Object


Pronouns,


Imitative


Success


Third Person Singular


Possessive


Non-Third Person Singular


Pronouns.


Possessive


Pronouns.


Third Person Singular


Imitative


Possessive Pronouns,


Success


Non-Third
Imitative


Person
Success


Singular


Possess


Pronouns


Possessive


Pronouns,


Summary


All Auxiliary Verbs.










List


of Tables,


continued.


Table


Page


"Does"


"Doesn't"


A' uw]


S. . a .


"DO"


"Does"


Imitative


Success.


"Doesn't"


, Imitative


Success.


Copular


Auxiliaries


Copular


Auxiliaries,


Imitative


Success.


Third Person Singular Copular


Auxiliary


Non-Third Person


Copular


Auxiliary


Contracted


Copular


Auxiliary,


Persons


Non-Contracted


Copular


Auxiliary,


All


Persons


Third Person


Singular,


Imitative


Success.


Non-Third Person,


Imitative


Success


Contracted,


All


Persons,


Imitative


Success.


Non-Contracted,


All


Persons,


Imitative


Success.


The Auxiliary


"Will"


The Auxiliary


"Will"


Imitative


Success


Percentage


Point


Production between


Change


Grades


Successful


Spontaneous


K and


Grades


Activity


3 Spontaneous
Indices . .


success


Order


English Li


and L2


Acqui


sition


Sequences


"Do"










List of Tables,


continued.


Table


Page


Sentence Types
Variables .


Ranked by Three


Response


Sentence
Success.


Sentence


Types


Success,


, Spontaneous and


Grades


Imitative


2/3.


Transitive Sentences.


Interrogatives


Copular


Sentences


Intransitive Sentences,
Negative . . . .


Affirmative


and


Subject

Pronoun


Omission

Subject


Summary


Omission.


* . . . .

. . . . .


Noun Subject


Omission


Subject


Omission,


Imitative


Rate.


Objects


in Transitive


Sentences


Objects
Success


Transitive


Sentneces,


Imitative


Copular


Verbs,


Omission


Rate.


Copular


Verbs,


Imitative Omission Rate.


Adjectives.


Adjectives,


Imitative


Success


Locative


Prepositions


Locative


Prepositions,


Imitative


Success.

















LIST


OF FIGURES


Figure


Page


Plural


Imitative


Suffix
Success


, Spontaneous


. . . a a a a a a


The


ssessive


Suffi


, Spontaneous


Imitative


cess


. I a a a a a . .


The


Article


Imitative


Pre


success


xes


, Spontaneous


and


. . a a a a a a a a a a


Third


Person


Singular,


pontaneous


Imitative


success


The Progr
Imitative


essive


Infl


success


section,


pontan


eous


. a . . . a a a a . .


Past


Tense


Spontan


eous


Imitative


success


. a . a a a a S S S a a a


Subj


Pronoun


, Spontan


eous


and


Imitative


success


. . a S a a a a S S a a S S a a a a a


Third


Person


Singular


Subj


ect


Pronouns


Spontan


eous


Imitative


Success


Pre-Verb


Pronouns,


Summary,


Spontan


eous


and


Imitative


success


Pronouns


, Spontaneous


success


Imitative


Possessive


Imitati


Pronouns
ve Succe,


, Summary


, Spontaneous


. a . a a . . a a a


Auxiliary


Suc


cess


Verbs


, Spontan


eous


Imitative


a a a a a a a S S a a a a a a S


Auxiliary


, Spontaneous


LLA &.


Imitative


"do "










List


Figures


, continued.


Figure


Page


Copular


Auxiliaries


, Spontaneous


Imitative


success


pontaneous


Spontaneous
Inflections


pontan


eous


Success


, Summary.


Imitative


Dec


lining


Imitative


success


Grade


ucces


Inflections


that


Rise


Minimall


or Plateau


in Grade


Imitative


success,


Summary


Grade


K Imitative


Ability


and


Grades


1 and


Spontan


eous


Ability


Grade


Imitative


Ability


Grades


Spontan


eous


Ability










Abstract


of a Di


sse


rotation
the Univ


Pres


ented


ersity


Graduate


Council


of Florida


Partial


Fulfillment


Degree


Doctor


he Requirements
of Philosophy


ACQUISITION


OF ENGLISH


BY CHOCTAW


SPEAKING


CHILDREN


Patricia


Butler


Kwachka


March,


1981


Chairperson


Major


Martha


Department:


Hardman-de-Bautista


Linguistics


This


study


presents


results


four-year,


cross-


sectional


examination


of the


acquisition


of English


second


language


Choctaw


speaking


children.


The


primary


purpose


research


was


to di


cover


what


features


English

school,


the

when


which


children

specific


features


acquire


features


success


are


their

appear,


fully


first

and


four

the e


produced.


years


xtent


The


secondary


purpose


was


to explore


children


s learning


strategies


in an attempt


to establish


influence


of the


first


lan-


guage


to determine


role


of non-behavioralistic


cognitive


processes.


first


cussion


chapter


learning


contains


theories


a brief


applicable


general


to language


dis-


acqui-


sition,


followed


an examination


of English


language


_







Xlll


specifically:


language


variables


sex


domains;


, age,


communicative


community


styles


residence.


third


chapter


presents


extensive


cription


ana-


lyses


development


noun


verb


inflections,


pronoun


morphology


, and


auxiliaries.


Accompanying


developmental


data


each


inflection


are


: a comparison


with


imitative


development;


a contrastive


analysis


Choctaw


English


with


regard


feature


under


dis-


cussion;


an analysis


second


language


errors.


The


chapter


concludes


with


comparisons


these


data


with


other


studies


a second


of children


language.


learning


fourth


Engli


both


chapter


as a first


examines


the


and


devel-


opment


four


sentence


types,


transitive,


intransitive,


popular,


interrogative.


The


final


chapter


includes


brief


evaluation


research


methodology


some


impli-


cations


study


English


language


acqui


sition


future.


important


finding


this


study


that


over


a four-


year


period,


there


tremendous


variability


success


rates


individual


language


features.


This


variability


so great


from


that


data.


no regular


Secondly,


sequence


study


acqui


found


sition


that


emerges


none


inflections


was


produced


criterion


level


acquis


C a*,~-


--


I r *J1 i r \f -I .- 1 l l


learninac.


Itis


1 Tan rmar~ =


+* o Q-1/4 r


4-C sy ^4


I 1







XlV


major


variables


affecting


acquisition


of English


as a second


language.
















CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


TO THE


RESEARCH


Introduction


Despite


fact


that


everyone


learns


a language


many


learn


or more


our


knowledge


of the


cesses


which


language


is acquired


more


speculative


than


concrete.

itself tc


It is not


experimental


an area


investigation


manipulation,


and,


which


because


lends


acqui-


sition


a lengthy


process


patient


observation


recording


analysis


large


bodies


either


longi-


tudinal


or cross-sectional


data


are


necessary.


This


study


based


the


latter


approach.


The


data


base


consists


of English


language


samples


from


Choctaw


children,


aged


five


through


ten,


who


speak


Choctaw,


a Muskogean


language,


their


first


language


(LI).


discover


important


general


report


English


research


objective


relative


morphological


descriptive


sequence


syntactic


emergence


structures


in the


development


children


second


language


(L2).


mhnhro


Tn s 1r ra +-


cf 00 Fl Q 7


4-^-i c


-M QQ/^


-I rrr^


IC:


T r ~-


r i


1 n










issue


of language


fundamental


their


resolution.


Section


1.3.


and


Chapter


further


discussion


ides


their


theoretical


interest,


studi


such


are


essential


teaching


material


assessment,


, and


the


development


evaluation


programs;


s the


only


extensive


study


writer


aware


speakers


a Native


American


language,


although


there


are


numerous


studi


English


acquisition


speakers


more


prominent


languages.


Finally,


rese


arch


this


nature


important


applications


development


of a coher


ent,


convincing,


theoretical


mode


second


language


acquisition.


Issues


in this


area


will


discussed


next


section,


efly,


they


may


summarized


question


underlying


acqui


sition


rese


arch:


what


minimal


conditions--


environmental,


phy


biological,


and


psychological--must


obtain


successful


language


development


take


place?


question


will


be addr


ess


ed in


next


section,


1.2.


which


sition.


The


compares c

following


current


section,


theory


1.3.,


language

scusses


acqui


English


education


of Native


Ameri


can,


and


specifically,


Choctaw


children.


Section


1.4.


cribes


data


base


method


analysis


Section


1.5.


format


. S


- -I-- - - .1-. J --; -~ -.~ -1 -I- r I- - - - I -- e


13,


I










1.2.


Theories


Learning


Language


Acquisition


The


like


development


development


of a scientific


language


discipline


itself.


much


historical


curve


is marked


vertical


rushes


discovery,


uneven


periods


lateral


ensuing


periods


revolution,


assessment


followed


quiescent


incorporation


new


material.


Occasionally


, hiatuses


are


created


when


pre-


viously


accepted


material


must


be rejected


at least,


re-evaluated


face


new


data.


It is


just


this


situation


that


lingui


sts


the


past


decade


found


them-


selves


they


argued,


evaluated,


and


extended


their


work


in the

theory.


light

The


then


impact


newl


fiel


introduced tr

d of language


ansformational

learning


which,


heretofore


had


been


more


subdiscipline


psy-


chology


than


linguistics,


was


extreme,


Chomsky


proposed


objective


linguistic


theory


precise


language


specification


e" (Chomsky


. 1964


. . a model


acquisition


:61) .


In fact,


is difficult


to separate


roles


language


and


learning


human


behavior,


but


develop-


ment


theory


cognition


even


encompassing


more


both


demanding.


language


task


structure


complicated


fact


that


we must


use


language


in our


attempts










through

is the


which


h


language
*


that


unconscious

is considered


we understand


summation


human;


ourselves


a great


one


deal

the


language


that


defining


characteristics


our


species.


Within


species,


serves


as a primary


mechanism


differentiation


intra-group


identification.


may


that


language


preeminently


responsible


through


language


our


that


survival


transmit


as a


our


species,

cumula-


tive


understanding


of ourselves.


Language


is both


complex


mysterious.


com-


plexity


attested


the


fact


that


satisfactorily


complete


grammar


exists


any


language,


yet,


the


other


talk


upright


hand,


children


they


posture,


learn


we can


inevitably


to walk.


account


effortlessly


case


their


learn


walking


development


terms


intersection


species


specific


anatomical


features


and


ineluctable


influence


genetic


matura-


tional


schema.


But


can


we account


language


develop-


ment


the


same


way?


The


various


current


models


acquisition


take


these


factors


into


account


variably.


There


fact,


embarrassment


riches


the


area


of language


acquisition


theory.


following


discussion


will


single


out


-S


.


S- S -- 9


- f l- a 4 W a f la la V-Y lf lf f lf lf lrf


-


I I__










characterized as


a behavioral model


and


second as


cognitive model.


In their


extreme


versions,


neither


theory


is adequate,


but both


contribute


to our under-


standing


acquisition


phenomena.


1.2.1.


Two


theories


of language


learning


The


first


theory of


language


learning,


the behavioral


model,


derives


from


traditional


learning


theory


and


conse-


quently views


the development


language


result


stimulus-response-reinforcement


processes.


Important


this model


role


parent


source of


primary


input


data


and


the reinforcer of


appropriate


re-


sponses.


The


learner's


ability to


imitate


the moti-


vation


provided by


rewarding


correct


imitations


are


also


important


factors.


essence,


this


theory maintains


that


language


is a set


successfully


learned habits.


(For


further


discussion,


see


Crothers


and Suppes


1967;


Palermo


1971;


Skinner


1957;


Staats


1971,


1974.


implications


learning


are


that


learner


will


transfer


L1 habits


form


of phonological,


morphological,


syntactic


structures of


patterns)


languages


are


the L2.


similar,


Where


these


habits will


facilitate


language


learning;


where they


are










examples


see


DiPietro


1971;


Ferguson


1965;


Ohannessian and


Gage


1969)


From


are


pedagogical


that a new


point of view,


of habits must be


implications


established


learners,


their


congruent


patterns


reinforced,


their


con-


flicting


habits extinguished


accepted method


the L2


accomplishing


this


context.


is reinforcement


through repetitive oral


language drills,


an approach known


the direct


or audio-lingual


language


teaching method.


(For further


discussion,


see


Dillard


1978)


The


second


theory


of language


learning


not been


systematically


developed.


It has,


moreover,


become


quite


controversial


as a result


extreme


claims made by


some


proponents.


4Despite
Despite


the multiplicity of viewpoints


held


this


theory'


adherents,


various versions


share a


common


thread:


that


the ability


to learn


a language


innate and dependent


the operation


of inherent,


uni-


versal


cognitive


processes.


The extent


of the


innate capacity


attributed


child


divides


adherents.


Chomsky's


own


position


is open


to interpretation and has


been


subject of much


specu-


lation,


e.g. ,


Braine


1971:182-186.


One


interpretation of


his position


would ascribe


human


infant


an actual


I 1


I _










(Chomsky


1965:59).


Whatever


Chomsky's own


position,


implications


First,


this


language development


theory may be


roughly


independent


delineated.


of such


external


factors


input


quality,


reinforcement,


and motivation.


presence of


language


in a normal,


communication


setting


sufficient


to activate children's


inherent


acquisition


capacities;


they will begin


actively


exploring this


language


by testing


hypotheses


until


they


eventually


arrive


of substantiated hypotheses,


other words,


a grammar


of the


language


(Katz


1966) .


extension,


implication


learning


is that


acquisition


will


proceed in much


the


same manner,


i.e.,


a process


of matching


hypotheses


input data.


It is


important


to note


that


this model


language


learning


claims


that


the role of


learner's


L1 i


s unimportant;


that

tue o


the determining factor


f


underlying relationships


itself which,


it embodies,


by vir-


dictates


the acquisition


process.


Therefore


, the


pedagogical


implications


this model


are nebulous.


This


discussion has not argued


either theory


but


merely presented


them in


simplified


outline


orientation.


For more detailed


discussion and


debate,


the reader


referred


to Beilin


1975;


Brown


1973


Carterette










1.2.2.


The evidence


of research


examination


research provides


inconclusive evi-


dence


evaluating


validity


either theory.


Len-


neberg


(1964,


1973)


finds


support


the cognitive model


in biological


language at


data.


He cites


a relatively


fixed


universal


point


appearance of


in the developmental


process,


similar


rates of


acquisition,


the attainment


proficiency


at comparable developmental


stages.


"Per-


chronological


phenomena,

argument.


culturally,

motivating


commensurability,


could not be


And,


coincidental,


considering the


input


factors,


data,

as well


as he refers

according to


variability,


reinforcement


as gross


to these

his


cross-


practices,


variation


in indi-


vidual


intelligence,


this commensurability


indeed


difficult to account


for within


learning theory model.


Observations


learning


process


itself


provide


evidence which also


tends


to support


the cognitive


theory


language


acquisition.


First,


with


regard


input


data:


a child's


traditional

ability to


learning theory


produce grammatical


account


sentences,


for

then


that


which


the child


listens


(the model)


must itself be


grammatical.


However,


there


some real


question about


whether


or not


are in


fact


consistently


grammatical


fect


- I - I I










we are grammatical


our


utterances


6 (Labov


1972:203) .


More recently,


however,


Hat'ch


(1978b:64)


finds


in her work


that


casual narratives


are


replete with errors


inconsistencies.


Jakobovits


(1970:266)


also


finds


that


fluent,


adult


speakers


are


only


"semi-grammatical"


However,


there


the


possibility that


learners


dis-


regard any


data


they


cannot


process,


that


degree of


grammaticality


the general


quality


input


data


may not be


question


fact


relevant

obviously


that


issues.

v called


comprises


Further


for,


investigation


especially


an important


view of


component


the


behavioral model.


Moreover,


is one of


aspects


language


learning which


lends


itself


to experimental


manipulation and


Other questions


is certainly


relating


readily


observable.


the role of


input


data have been


examined.


Drach


(1969)


and Snow


(1972)


have observed


that adults


regulate


their


speech


with


chil-


dren by


simplifying


syntax


shortening utterances.


There


some


evidence


that


such


telegraphic


speech


(speech


with functors omitted)


may


aid


the comprehension


month


children


Shipley


et al.


1969) .


analysis


speech


the mothers


in Brown's


longitudinal


study


of child


speech


(1970,


1973)


Pfuderer


(1969)


demonstrated


++ a4-


r'1n -. n 7 rr


nh; l ra


Sn ,-.rd n c ci


of this


f CT- r -


n -


~i n


r


zn









Another


input


factor


which


might


influence


acquisi-


tion


frequency


adult


usage


example,


specific

Bellugi


morphological

(1970:138-152)


inflections.


concluded,


Brown,


after


Cazden


examining


and

this


question


thesis


that


that


there


was


expansions


no evidence


(adult


res


to support


ponses


hypo-


telegraphic


utterances


whi


repeat


children


s productions


supply


missing


functors


acqui


sition.


fact


modeling


parent


supplying


a grammatical


response


child


s utterance


was


demonstrated


to be


more


eff


ec-


tive


both


in an experimental


situation


in the


longi-


tudinal


study.


In the


latter,


they


report


"For


three


children,

system is


order


more


emergence


strongly


within


related


the

the


child


frequency


language

with


which


inflection


mod


eled


parent


than


proportion


frequency


expansion"


1970:148).


In onl


one


child,


however,


relationship


achieve


statistical


significance.


A caveat


should


observed


here


, since


frequency


is not


only


relevant


factor.


Many


high


frequency


items,


e.g.,


"the


", do not


emerge


early


the L1


acquit


sition


sequence


that


frequency


alone


cannot


be considered


determining.


must


assumed


that


there


ncnoee 7


an interaction


rxr 7 n


n. I


between


an ~- I- -


semantic


- -


syntactic


- - - --


yh rj/ Tit^ il sl\


- ^









been


established.


a variable


which


deserves


further


investigation


and


which,


moreover,


lends


itself


experimental


manipulation.


final


point


with


regard


to input


data


must


mentioned


since


poses


particular


problems


any


theory


ascribing


preeminent


importance


roles


grammatical


modeling


imitation.


every


parent


knows


, children,


from


time


they


become


inte


lligibly


verbal,


produce


maintain


substantial


periods


of time


utterances


which


deviate


so markedly


from


dialect


of the


language


that


there


could


have


been


no existing


model,


alone


a rein-


forcing


one


(Brown


and


Bellugi


1970


:90;


McNeill


1970


:105


Menyuk


1969


:124) .


This


widespread


phenomenon


must


certainly


accounted


acquis


ition


model.


In concluding


this


discussion


role


input


data,


need


further


investigation


must


stressed.


results


are


especially


pertinent


to L2


acquisition


pedagogical


"unnatural"


language


learning


contexts.


Many

guage


current


data


teaching


materials


to provide


attempt


frequent,


sequence


reinforcing


lan-


exercises


reviews


assumption


that


this


method


presen-


station


facilitates


frequently


sons


have


concerninac


learning.


little


Yet


information


curriculum


Si ran


materials

on which


develop

to base


. nntimal


ers

deci-

a n i ncr


. P -


I


UJ










One promising


area


study whose results have been


overlooked


in acquisition research


is pidginization.


The


pidginization


in compressed


process,


time


and


periods


subsequent


thus


creolization,


offer


occur


an excellent


minilab


observing rapid


language change and development


(Ferguson


1971;


Valdman


and Phillips


1975).


A coordination


these


research


findings


with acquisition


findings


should


be fruitful.


A final


factor


to be considered,


role of


imitation,


important


There


the behavioral model


little agreement among


language


researchers


learning.


concerning the


relationship


between


spontaneous


productive


capacity


imitative


capabilities.


Many


researchers


find


that


imita-


tive


ability


exceeds


productive ability.


Brown and his


colleagues


(1970)


discovered


that


children


could


imitate


sentences which


were


longer


than


their


own


sponta-


neous


productions and


that


"production


sense of


imitation


proves


to be more advanced


three


year


olds


(1970:54).


Menyuk also


found,


in a comparison


of normal


deviant-speaking


children,


that normal-speaking


chil-


dren

the


"exceed, i

grammatical


n some


instances,


competence


displayed


their repetitions,

in their utterances"


(1969:141).










a mother patiently repeats


eight


times


the grammatically


correct

patient


version of


child


son's


imitates,


utterance while


incorrectly,


after


the equally


each modeling;


child'


final


imitation maintains


own


error


and


incorporates


his mother'


correction


as well.


Age may


be a


factor


ability


imitate.


Ervin-


Tripp


(1971:197)


suggests


that


the early


stages of


language development


children


not


imitate


sentences more


successfully than


they produce them spontaneously


(with


exception


imitations


that are


expansions


their


own


utterances),


the age,


that


the role


or developmental


stage,


of imitation


of the


changes with


learner.


Not


only


age but


also


individual


selection


com-


patible


learning


strategies may


be a factor.


Bloom and


colleagues


(1974)


report


that not all


children


imitate,


but


those who do,


imitated


structure appears


their


production


shortly


after


period


imitation


There


little


information


role


imitation


situation,


despite


fact


that many


current


language


textbooks


stress


importance of


repetitive


drills.


Jakobovits


sugg


ests


that,


while


practice and


repetition


should


assist


in gaining


sensory


and motor


integration,


it would be


interesting


to determine whether


. 1 1 .1 -A I


I


I


I It










regarding


the relationship


between age and


imitation


learners.


summary,


the role


of external


factors,


particularly


that


input


data,


not


clear.


Research neither


clearly


supports


nor


rejects either


language


learning


model.


Naturalistic L1


studies,


such as


that of Brown and


colleagues,


provide


us with


our most


complete


infor-


mation,


and


yet


very nature of


setting


often


pre-


cludes


possibility


assigning


significance


to any


single variable


either


child


s linguistic or non-


linguistic


environment.


Investigators


learning


gen-


erally


conclude


that


role of


external


factors


less


interesting


dren


less


themselves who


important


seem to


than


be guided by


role of


as yet


the chil-


unspecified,


innate capacities


to create


hypotheses


test


them,


gradually


decreasing their generalizability


in order to


account


rence.


Dr increasing

(For further


restricted


discussion,


patterns of


see


occur-


Brown and Bellugi


1970:75-79:


Cazden


1972;


Dulay


and Burt


1974b:36;


Langen-


doen


1970:1-6;


McNeil


1970:104;


Moskowitz


1978.


Turning now to a


closer


consideration


learner,


it is


reasonable


to assume


that


role of


external


and non-maturational


factors


(e.g.,


aural


dis-


--I 1


I C


1


*










Lenneberg


suggests


that


a negative


effect


language


learning


abilities


produced


completion


of brain


lateralization


during


teen


years


which


inhibits


cog-


nitive


flexibility


(Lenneberg


1973


see


also


Luria


1969;


Seliger


1978).


The


nonbiological


concomitants


to be


consi-


dered


are


both


numerous


and


nebulous.


Of preeminent


impor-


tance


fact


that


older


learners,


even


though


they


may


still


be children,


will


have


already


learned


a culture,


or a large


part


and


with


this


culture


they


will


have


acquired


a set


of attitudes


, beliefs,


values


, prac-


tices,


behaviors


whi


ch will


affect


their


attitudes


their


relationships


with,


world


outside


theri


culture.


Therefore,


learning


language


which


part


of that


outside


world


may


be affected


many


non-


linguistic


factors,


including


historical


relationship


learners'


culture


culture


language


they


are


acquiring


(Fishman


1972


:21;


Lambert


et al.


1963


learners'


attitude


to the L2


culture


which


usually


, but


not


entirely


or necessarily,


a result


cultures


historical


relationship


Oller


et al.


1977)


exposure,


opportunity


, motivation,


personality


a host


even


ess


tangible


factors,


e.g.,


learners


' cultural


beliefs


rnrr^orn ne-v


1I2 nryi /r yr


2nA


Sa r,, n Cr


T^Tt2 r.t, 1


I r,


4 1


t- n


I


3









that


children


who


begin


learning


an L2


several


years


after


they


have


begun


learning


their


L1 do


not


have


to learn


what


"language"


Even


they


are,


indeed,


born


with


metatheoretical


understanding


, they


have,


time


acquisition,


gained


experiential


knowledge


of this


con-


cept.

extent


Moreover,


may


a more


sophi


their


cognitive


separated


sticated


from


level


eve


their


than


lopment,

language


that


to whatever

development,


of L1


learners.


tageous


It is


or not.


clear


Ravem


whether


concludes


these


(1974a


facts


:132


are


from


advan-


the


study


of his


Norwegian


son


acquiring


Engli


sh that


normal


six-year-old


child


at all


levels


language


greatly


facilitated


linguistic


competence


sic


already


possessed


through


first


language.


second


environment


A fully


bilingual


factor


to be considered


manner


environment


exposure

where s


learning


language.


simultaneous


acquisi-


tion


two


languages


occurs


offers


substantially


different


circumstances


a partially


learner


bilingual


than


environment


sequential


(Leopold


acqui


1937;


sition


Vildo-


mec


1963) .


Furthermore,


the


case


sequential


acqui-


sition,


one


would


expect


there


to be


significant


differences


between


exposure


in a natural


communicative


c1t-r i nr-


~II*I Ca a


i--i ni


rYn a


^ rll !


nl^p /" t^ V/^ ^


Y


I


_ n










Burt


Kiparsky


1972; Dulay


Burt


1974a).


Increased


attention


being


given


the


nature


interlanguage,


or the


systematic


approximation


target


language,


velop


ed by


learner


Selinker


1974;


Corder


1978


analy


zing


errors


erlanguage


, researchers


working


with


comparative


data


from


different


language


groups


acquiring


same


L2 hope


to determine


trans-


habit


development,


cognitive


analysis


Another


area


investigation


comparative


acqui


sitional

Natalicio


sequences


(Dulay


Natalicio


and


1971;


Burt

Hatch


1974b;

1978a)


Ravem

. Here


1974b;

, re-


searchers


compare


morphological


order


syntactic


emergence


forms


exhibited


specific


speakers


from


diff


erent


language


families


learning


same


If the


nitive


sequences


model


are


similar,


language


is argued,


learning


then


supported,


cog-


since


such


data


would


process


suggest


, i.e.


that


defines


etermines


set


sible


learning


hypotheses


If the


sequences


are


significantly


diff


erent,


then


may


argued


that


differences


are


caused


learners


bringing


L1 habits


assumptions


to bear


learning


process


The


same


arguments


apply


comparison


L1 and


acqui


sition


sequen


ces


same


language,


another


area


-r -










generalized


in order to maximize


comparison.


Other models


have been


proposed


(Braine


1971;


Richards


1978)


but,


the discussion has


pointed


out,


our


knowledge


our data


are


nowhere nearly


sufficient


to provide


us with


infor-


mation necessary


for conclusive


deci


sions.


are


parti-


cularly


constrained by


our


ignorance


the brain'


neuro-


chemical mechanisms.


Although


such information


will


cer-


tainly not answer


our


questions


concerning


language


learning,


it will more definitely


delimit


possible


boundaries


of our theoretical models.


Secondly,


past research has


focused


acquisition


information-communication


functions


language.


Language


and all


play,


the many


art,


other


evasion,


functions


status


controlled,


regulation,


somehow


acquired by the mature


speaker


are


largely uncharted areas


investigation.


(See,


however,


Peters


1977;


Scollon


1976.)


Granted


that


we have


to understand


acqul-


sition


former


function,


we must not


lose


sight


fact


that


our models must


also


allow


for the acquisi-


tion


latter,


sociolinguistic


functions.


Finally,


with reference


there are


to research.


further points


As mentioned


to be discussed


previously,


experimental manipulation


is difficult.


Not


only


are we


-- 1 -2 1


- 11 -- -- 1 l- - - _


t. a - -


1


I I 1 +










processes


reference


hibit


that


difficult


to language,


or distort


permanently


role


any


to define


experimentation


subjects'


damaging.


input


Thus,


factors


language


example


withholding


either


which


capacities


, we cannot


from


without


might


could


examine


an experi-


mental


group


access


question


transformation


serving

however,


if they


test


develop

; and t


one


his


their


own.


brings


our


What


sec


we can


point.


Language


testing,


as it


is currently


practiced,


still


fairly


primiti


ve.


reasons


this


that


we are


neither


certain


of what


we are


looking


nor


of how


interpret


what


we obtain.


Many


measures


in use


are


either


very


subjective


their


scoring


procedures


(e.g. ,


the


Bilingual


Syntax


Measure


, Burt


et al.


1973


very


arbitrary


in both


their


selection


tested


struc-


tures


et al.


scoring


1976).


procedures


(e.g.,


is to be hoped


SWCEL,


that


definitive


Silverman


descrip-


tions


actual


language


acquisition


sequences


and


proces-


ses


will,


future,


contribute


more


reali


stic


and


efficient


language


assessment


instruments.


The


preceding


discuss


outlined


models


research


slon


language


presents


acquis


a specific


ition.


case


The


following


acqui


sition


discus-


empha-


sizina


snn i nr~nl +r irnl


rni *rrrncsl-anrc


r.ih4 r' .1 t9


tjjh i rh'


LIIC:









1.3.


The


English


Language


Indian


Education,


the


Choctaw


case


an introduction


and


orientation


Choctaw


case


, this


section


begins


with


a general


discussion


English


language


Indian


education.


The


discussion


pro-


vides


context


presentation


the


Choctaw


case


and


also


serves


underline


the


fact


that


situation


faced


Choctaws


is not


isolated


circumstance;


many


tribes


this


country


and


Canada


are


faced


with


similar


issues


and


considerations


with


regard


the


acquisition


of English


as a


second


language


ESL).


1.3.1.


English


language


Indian


education


The


language


philosophy


country


has


been


extension


domestic,


sociopolitical


philosophy;


that


foreign


elements


should


dissolve


"melting


pot"


thereby


transmogrified


into


single


homo-


generous


Engli


sh speaking


identity.


From


Indian


point


view,


blatantly


revi


sionist


definitions


"foreign"


"native"


are


characteristic


the


entire


history


Anglo-Indian


relationships.


Despite


country


s defi-


nations


and


philosophy,


many


Indian


groups


have


resisted


loss


their


native


languages


much


more


successfully


than


they


resisted


loss


their


lands.










some


these


languages


are


dying


others


are


actually


growing


fact


that


Native


Americans


are


one


fast


est


growing


minority


groups


country


(Osborn

their 1


1970


:229)


anguages


Moreover,


will


lost


many

have


groups,

begun t


concerned


teachingg


that


their


children


Although


Native


there


language


are


second


no comprehensive


language.


or reliable


statistics


to refer


the


majority


of Native


language


L1 speakers


in this


country


also


speak


English


degrees


ranging


from


"limited"


fluent


bilingualism.


ex-


planation


this


lies


the


fact


that


most


adult


dians


attended


Bureau


Indian


Affairs


BIA)


schools


where


language


instruction


been


adamantly


English.


In fact


, one


of the fundamental


goals


these


schools


was


that


students'


"barbarous


dialects


would


blotted


English


language


substituted"


quoted


Leibowitz


1971


Use


Native


language


BIA


schools


was


until


recently


severely


punish


The


intent


BIA


was


overtly


assimilationist,


and


loss


Native


language


was,


quite


correctly,


seen


lever


in achieving


this


goal.


Considering


fact


that


students


is not


not


surprising


under


that


stand


high


language


dropout


instruction,


rates


U'* I- I= r aI a 4fi A on 4-


fir^ion


Tn^ i


CrTTTAQ


c4-n/"1b OTI+


L J I I


I


I \


Il I r r









low self-concepts


history

1970; U


have all


education


.S.C.C.R.


1975:38) .


played a


the American


Failure


part


Indian


to learn


the dismal


(Williams


fluent English13


certainly


contributed


overall


failure


and rea-


sons


for the


language


failure


are not difficult


find.


First,


relatively


reservation


little


Indians


incentive to


especially,


learn English.


there has


One


been


can


conduct


the majority


of one's


daily


life


the Native


language,


language of


the home.


English,


the


langugae


schools,


viewed


as an alien


imposition and


therefore resented


(Cornejo


1974:1)


Furthermore,


mas-


tering


English


in no way


guarantees


access


improved


economic


benefits,


since


prejudice


and


isolation


combine


to keep


Indian


lowest rungs


career


ladders.


Finally,


as Plumer


(1970:275)


observes:


If they
anyway,
will be


doing


see
then


themselves


locked


their motivation


understandably


they risk


low,


espec


cutting them


of society
learn English
ially if in


elves


from


associations


they


already


have,


namely their


peers


families.


In conclusion,


it has been


the overt


policy of


U.S.


government,


through


the BIA,


assimilate Native


Americans


depriving them of


their


languages


they will


be unable


to carry


their


cultures.


Ironically,


per-


haps


same


prejudice which


inspired


this


policy


has,









see


factors mentioned


the


preceding


dis-


cussion,


1.3.2.


and more,


operating


The Mississippi


Band


their


of Choctaw


situation.


Indians


English education


Today


there are


approximately


4,000


Choctaws


state of


Mississippi


(Spencer


et al.


1975;


histories,


see


Debo


1934


and DeRosier


1970).


Choctaw


is very much a


living


language.


families with


elementary


school-


aged


children,


83.4%


speak


Choctaw more


than


time


(York


Scott


1976).


Slightly


fewer than


7% of


households


1975) .


use English more


The remainder


than


report


Choctaw


equal


(Spencer


use of Choctaw


and English.


Language dominance


testing


children


entering


dominant


kindergarten


the Choctaw


1976


rated


language


87.6%


(Lewis


students


et al.


1977) .


Unlike many


other


Native American


groups,


the Choc-


taws


have


a long tradition


literacy


their


own


lan-


guage.


Missionaries


introduced


an orthography


the


early


19th


century


operated bilingual


schools.


1837,


there were


some


576,000


pages of works,


mostly


a religious


nature,


the Choctaw


language and


some


adults


were


literate


Choctaw


(Debo


1934:62) .


New Testament


the Bible


a hymnal


were


translated










Oklahoma,


a standardized


variant of


the missionary ortho-


graphy


been adopted by the Choctaw Bilingual Program


Nicklas


1972;


Jacob et


1977)


in Mississippi


"school"


orthography


has been


adapted for teaching purposes.


Although Choctaw


very


definitely


their


dominant


language,


most adult


Choctaws do


speak English.


Again,


this


six BIA


is more a


schools


result


exposure


the reservation


language


than


any need or


sire.


The


schools,


until recently,


operated on


the


stan-


dard BIA model:


an Anglo,


monolingual


teacher whose


struction was


translated


to the


students


by Choctaw,


bilingual


aides


classroom.


This


form of


instruction


persisted


until


fourth


or fifth


grade when


the chil-


dren'


English skills


were deemed adequate


classroom


purposes.


At no


point


, it


should be noted,


were


students


provided with English


language


instruction


predictable


results of


this


approach


to education


are


indicated by the


following


facts.


More


than


adult


Choctaws


have not


completed high school,


while


proximately


have had


less


than


three


years of


schooling


(Spencer


et al.


1975).


Those


students who


remain


in school


through


12th


grade


score


grade


level


national


achievement


tests


(Lewis


et al.


1977) .


Testing


\n7llrnnr r


rh' l rlrn


nr~ r


rU'v-S r-r'trL -F


. - -


A3 QT / l Cn a r 3 4- Q (


\ / *- *


1 J I


--*


.,.4r g


_1










While


is obvious


that


a lack


of fluent


English


contributed


this


educational


shambles,


reasons


this


lack


are


entirely


obvious.


Some


are


, such


fact


that


was


never


taught


as a subject.


Students


were


expected


"pick


" Not


only


picking


up a language


inefficient


way


to learn,


also


requires


a highly


motivated


learner


who


immersed


communicative


opportunities.


These


requi


sites


simply


obtain


the


Choctaw


context.


Despite


urging


parents,


children


not


learn


English


quickly,


easily,


or well.


In fact,


many


develop


a strong


dislike


language.


basis


this


dislike


is entangled


a complex


matrix


of sociocultural


factors,


no one


factor


can


identify


as a primary


or independent


variable


affecting


English

is the


language

Choctaws'


acquit


sition.


attitude


One


toward


important


their


own


consideration


language.


them,


language


is extremely


significant


to be Choctaw


to speak


Choctaw.


eaking


language


poss


ibly,


single


most


important


aspect


one


s Choctaw


identity.


This


absolute


identification


language


social


group


membership


direct


implications


second


language


learning


can


argued


that


there


an unconscious










desirable.


One


comes


too


closely


identified


with


Anglos


Anglo


culture.


(For


discussion


other


Native


American


beliefs


regarding


language,


see


Ohannessian


1967


10-11.)


The


language

to force


Choctaw


must

the


attitude


only

childr


the


be exacerbated

en to speak En


dominant


culture


schools


glish.


Not


attempts


only


students


resist


the


language


itself,


their


culture


regards


form


overt


, direct


pressure


as highly


unacceptable.


culture


tolerates


extreme


deviance


from


expected


beha-


vior


patt


erns.


The


major


pressure


to conform


is the


viating


individual


s' expectation


collective,


community


disapproval


which,


though


rarely


expressed


directly


them,


circulated


effective


through


mechanism


considered


critical


of social


absolute


gossip

control


right


It is

Noneth


individual


a very

eless, it

s to dis-


cover


decide


themselves,


no matter


how


long


this


may


require


nor


how


flagrantly


they


may


violate


standards


interim.


grossly


improper


to directly


tell


a person


how


to behave.


Thus,


to place


individuals


the


position


of having


to do something,


schools


have


done,


creates


a great


deal


tension


and


students


respond


withdrawing


from


situation.


1~~ -


r-


- 1 *I I


* r -


__


-I 1


ql










improper

table:


their


answering


own


culture,


questions


whe


make

n the


them

v are


feel


uncomfor-


unsure


of the


response


have


not


been


given


time


to consider


themselves

allowed to


having


observe;


questions


being


single


rather


out


than


to perform


being


front


of others;


not


sharing


work


ass


ignments,


but


completing


them


individually;


being


expected


to maintain


steady


eye


contact;


high


decibel


and


movement


level


of Anglo


communicative


tribute


style;


to their


these,


unease.


Since


many

the s


other


factors,


school


con-


children


sole


exposure


to Engli


on an interactive


basis,


their


attitude


language


becomes


synonymous


with


their


school


experience;


that


, negative.


(For


comparable


findings


with


other


Native


American


students,


see


Cazden


John


1968;


Dumont


1972;


John


1972;


Ohannessian


1967


:26;


Phillips


1972


Wax


et al.


1964.


Ultimately,


incongruence


between


Anglo


teaching


styles


ctaw


learning


styles


Gibson


and


Kwachka


1978)


when


combined


with


a lack


opportunity


use


English


outside


classroom,


lack


necessity


res


ulting


from


economic


geographic


isolation;


cultural


about

Engli


language;

sh-speaking


a negative


people;


historical


produce


experience


an extremely


with


unfavor-


- 1 1


^ *


*










oral English,


it required


a Supreme Court


decision


(Lau


vs.


Nichols,


1974)


to make


possible


implementation of


1968


Bilingual


Education Act


(Title


VII)


1965


Elementary


and Secondary


Education Act


(U.S.C.C.R.


1975:180)


This


decision


declared


that


children with


limited English are


thereby


denied access


to equal


educa-


tion and


that


school


districts must


provide


for their


education.


a result


of this


decision,


monies


became


available


to minority


language groups


to institute bilin-


gual


education.


The Choctaws


began


receiving Title


funds


The Bilingual Education


for Choctaws


Mississippi


BECOME )


program was


established


reser-


vation and,


following


year,


a complementary program,


the Bilingual-Bicultural


Teacher


Education Project,


was


funded at nearby Mississippi


State University to


certify


Choctaw


students


in bilingual,


elementary


education.


programs


have


experienced mixed


success.


Chief


obstacles


implementation have been


teachers


entrenched


previous


system who are not academically prepared


teach


in bilingual


settings;


and


parents who are


afraid


that


languages


schools will


"confuse"


children


that


instructional


use of


Choctaw will hamper the


children


s acquisition


of English.


Nonetheless,


initial


-A-- .- i- - - -


-C I 1- -


-1 . .


Y I_


~____ ___~__


* '


,1 I









future


viability


larger


society,


a society


which


seems


to have


become,


lately,


a bit


more


accepting


cultural


pluralism.


Turning


now


testing,


next


section


will


describe


instrument


used


measure


the


linguistic


parameters


of elementary


school


children


s spoken


Engli


1.4.


The


data


base


Each


test


year


oral


November,


English


BECOME


proficiency


program


to all


administers


students


grades


Kindergarten


through


Three


test


tape-recorded


later


scoring.


It is


the


language


re-


corded


during


1977


admini


station


test


which


provides


data


this


study.


Language


at best,


testing,


a delicate


especially


proposition.


of oral


the


production


test


, is,


highly


structured,


i.e.,


there


are


specific


responses


or struc-


tures


to be elicited,


testers


cannot


certain


that


they


have


acc


urately


sampled


respondents'


productive


competence


Silverman


et al.


1976) .


On the


other


hand,


test


is more


flexible


and


allows


children


respond


freel


, thus


displaying


their


productive


range,


then


it is


difficult


to develop


and


apply


uniform


proce-


dures


score


ing.


The


test


elected


BECOME


a 7


Droaram


I


The


___


v


IJ









1.4.1.


SWCEL


test


The


tive


SWCEL


was


Educational


developed


Laboratory


Southwestern


accompany


an ESL


Coopera-


teaching


program


(Livero


n.d.) .


The


test


been


judged


appropriate,


both


technically


Chinese


, Navaho,


culturally,


Spanish


such


as well


diverse


as by


groups


Choctaws


(Locks


et al.


1978) .


test


in its


entirety


is presented


Appendix


SWCEL


composed


three


subtests.


The


first


deals


with


vocabulary,


second


with


pronunciation,


third


with


morphology


and


syntax.


The


total


instru-


ment


individually


administered,


requiring


about


fifteen


twenty


minutes


per


child.


vocabulary


subtest,


children


are


require


identify


three-dimensional


objects


labels


these


items


serve


stimuli


pronunciation


subtest.


third


subtest,


mor-


phology


syntax,


is compos


series


of pi


ctures


games,


control


to elic


a restricted


structural


responses.


The


vocabulary-pronunciation


sub-


tests


have


total


stimulus


items,


syntactic


subtest


total


items.


purp


oses


this


study


, the


phonological-lexical


portions


test


were


subjected


to analysis.


First,


playback


quality


was


freauentlyv


- -


Door


to discriminate


-










discrete


mechanical


lexical


aspect


items


perhaps,


language


acqui


a peripheral,


sition


even


uninter-


testing


1.4.


Administering


the


SWCEL


test


students


was


Grades


administered


through


in November,


the


1977,


Choctaw


to all


elemen-


tary


schools.


Native


English


speakers


the


BECOME


staff


gave


test.


Testing


took


place


schools


but,


because ac

recording,


:curate


scoring


areas


depends


isolated


quality


from


general


activities


schools.


test


Occasionally


lunchrooms


was


necessary


or auditoriums


to adminis-


and,


ese


cases


, tape


quality


is generally


rather


poor


but


sufficient


score


majority


of structures.


Because


children


s grammatical


proficiency


scored


basis


their


responses,


is extremely


important


to promote


a relaxed


atmosphere


and


encourage


children


talk


freely.


The


testers


made


every


effort


to do


those


who


were


shy,


the


obligatory


"warmup"


period


was


extended


those


with


little


English,


testers


allowed


children


take


long


they


wished


to respond.


Most


the


children


enjoyed


.8-.: n1r-.-


A- _1_ a*


n1, -,.,n


UA~l~~n~


J[ -


In ~









1.4.3.


Scoring


SWCEL


The


standard method for


first


section below


scoring the


, produces


SWCEL,


a single,


described


composite


score which does


linguistic or


allow


an evaluator to examine


sociolinguistic variables.


For this


specific


reason,


a different method,


was developed


described


for purposes


second


this


section below,


study.


1.4.3


standard


scoring method


The


standard


scoring method reflects


three measures:


the completeness of


response;


the grammaticality


the

mum


response;


points


spontaneity


is possible on


the response.

syntax portion


A maxi-


test


using


this method


scoring.


Each response


scored as


follows:


a complete,


spontaneous


response


receives


points;


a minimal


(not


complete


, spontaneous


response receives


points;


prompted


(imitated


, complete


response


also


receives


points;


a prompted


, minimal


response receives


1 point;


and no


response,


or a


response which


does not


include


desired


structure,


receives


no points


Southwestern


Cooperative Laboratory,


. 1971:4)


Prompting


takes


place


the children:


do not


res


pond


verbally,


1 a


. .. urn tin


_


heads


. Or ooint:


thir T


cshta










or d)


if they


give an


ungrammatical


response not containing


the element


in question.


The method


of prompting requires of


the children a


bit more


than


sheer


imitation


some questions.


For


example,


a child fails


to answer the question


"What do


you like?"


tester prompts


saying


"Tell me that


you


like


soup.


In order


to produce an appropriate,


grammati-


statement,


the child must make


the necessary reference


change


task is


pronouns:


primarily


like


imitative and


soup.


Nonetheless,


principal


problem with


standard scoring method is


that it does


not differen-


tiate between


such imitative


responses


spontaneous re-


sponses.


therefore


conceivable


that children


could


score 112


points on


syntax portion of


the test without


having produced a


single,


spontaneous


utterance.


Since


this


score


falls within


the range


expected for


competent


English speakers


(Lewis


et al.


1977) ,


assigning


children


to this


category who


have


only


imitated


interviewer


would


seem to contradict


assess


the children's


purpose of


ability


testing:


to generate


that is,


language.


Therefore,


second method


deriving


a score was de-


veloped


for this


research.


A -. a - -


mm


n










grammaticality.


this


method,


a grammatically


correct,


spontaneous


response


any


length


receives


points


response


is a complete


sentence,


a point


added;


res


ponse


is a single


word,


a point


subtracted;


if the


response


appropriate


whether


or not


grammatical,


receives


a final


point.


maximum


pos-


sible


score


spontaneous


responses,


this


method,


points.


Imitative,


or prompted,


responses


are


scored


separately


similarly.


Because


standard


scoring


method


employed


BECOME


program


scores


are


reported


schools


assessing


student


progress,


one


first


questions


this


study


addresses


is whether


or not


method


actually

neously


indicative

generate gr


ammatica


students'

1 English


ability


to sponta-


as measured


the


scoring


method


employed


this


study.


In order


to do


this,


tional


sets


relationship


scores


. It


was


were


found


examined


that


a correla-


correlation


relatively


high


.83)


although


they


measure


dif-


ferent


variables,


both


scoresT


can


be considered


to reflect


children


Data


s linguistic


recording


competence.


analysis


nrTr., A1 n e


K2


P~nr*


1 M -P/NV


*t I-


ThC~l rJ^\ -l- -


^^n r- -


-^ v <


f~\


LJ


1









analysis.


The


size of


the data base,


some


12,000


utter-


ances


ranging


length from


single words


to paragraphs


of discourse,


necessitated


the development


special


techniques


recording


and retrieving


specific


types


acquisition


information


under


investigation.


Analyzing


such massive quantities


of data


not


typical

relying


of most


on a


linguistic


few major


studies,


consultants


traditional


linguists


transformational


linguists


on individual


(frequently their


own)


competence.


However,


in recent years both sociolinguists and


psycho-


linguists


have dealt with


large


corpuses.


Because


this


required


innovative approaches


analysis


not


pre-


sented


in most


linguistics


programs,


it is


rather


sur-


uprising


that


there


are


relatively


few published accounts


concerning


special


problems,


methodologies,


pro-


cedures


involved.


(For


exceptions,


see


old 1972


:31;


Shuy


et al.


1968.


The method


of recording


and retrieving the data


this


study


is reported here


detail


for the


following


reasons.


First


fact


that


the method


of recording


and coding


determines what


is available


analysis


therefore defines


inherent


limitations


that


analysis.


Second


usefulness


lack


L. ,


such accounts


interested researcher.


their potential


Thirdly, the










1.4.4.1.


Recording the data


Each


tape was


listened


to by theinvestigator


information


every


response recorded


exactly


the


child produced


Standard English orthography was


used


except


in those


cases


where


the


phonetic realization


pro-


vided information about the


phemic development.


stages of


facilitate


syntactic or mor-


recording process,


a response


form for


each


question was designed.


The


form


the expected,


of the page,


correct


followed by


response


a list


printed across


of the more


top


frequent


errors.


What


the child


said,


or did not


say,


was


recorded


entering


a mark beneath


appropriate word,


morpheme,


or error


column.


A system of


checks


and numbers


dis-


tinguished spontaneous


correct


from incorrect


responses,


these


from prompted


correct


incorrect answers.


Additional responses


unclassified


utterances were


recorded


in a


space


provided at


the right hand margin.


These were also


A sample response


identified as


form with


spontaneous or


explanations may


imitative.


found


Appendix


Each response,


furthermore,


was


preceded by


a number


code which


identified


student,


grade,


school,


test


question number.


The


identification


code was


followed by


i nfnrnan-4 nn Fnr


Aar4 74 nn


T f 1-a


cr'nnA 4-thnA n-F


t-h o rr ir










a spontaneous


response


was


appropriate;


whether


response


was


single


word


only;


whether


or not


child


imitated


correctly


prompted;


whether


or not


a complete


sentence


was


generated,


spontaneous


and


imitative


sentences


differentiated


this


category


use


of numbers.


Ultimately,


information


each


response


was


individually


punched


on a card,


transferred


tape,


stored


in a computer


mechanical


laborious


later

method


analysis.


of recording


This

was


highly

arrived


at after


considerable


trial


error


accompanied


increasing


appreciation


limitations


computers


instruments


recording


processing


lingui


stic


information.


Coding


data


ingenuity


which


the children


applied


lan-


guage le

creative


warning


task resulted


productions


both


suC


an immense


grammatical


varle


ungrammatical


that

or,


was


impossible


consequently,


to predict


to provide


the majority


categories


them


response


forms


which


would


allow


system


checks


to record


them.


It was t

rrnr 1i 71i flr


therefore

soir'h^ tnr


necessary


n cvntor*0a


to formulate

TO r^/M C C" ( r


a method


at"ri rTl orl


I1[ I


cate-


5.a










To accomplish


this,


general


categories


(verbs,


pro-


nouns,


etc.


were


selected


the basis of


their


relative


frequency


of inclusion


or exclusion


children


utterances.


These categories were each assigned a


dif-


ferent


pair


of numbers,


one of


pair


signifying


a cor-


rect


response,


the other


incorrect


one.


Verbs,


example,


were assigned


the general


the numbers


categories were


Several


further


specified by


pending


series of


subtopics,


or qualifiers,


which were


identified by


alphabetical


labels.


the case of verbs,


subtopics


are


present


tense,


past


tense,


future


tense,


third


person


singular present


tense,


auxiliary,


copula,


omission,


contraction.


Appendix


presents


the complete


coding


system.


By using


one or


the other


the number pair,


correct


responses


could be distinguished


from


incorrect


responses.


example,


and again with reference


to verbs,


if a child


said


present


= verb


singular;


hand,


"He big"


, the omission


tense copula

, incorrect;


= copula;


child


would be


= prese


and H


produces


third


coded as

nt tense;


person


follows:


their


= omission.


big"


singular,


1AEGH;

d person

the other


, the grammatical


response would be


indicated by the code:


2AEG;


= verb,


ohr'.- r ,~ 4 lr .r


-Fnr 4


--^ y\


f4 f" /"\










description,


there was


"other"


category for


those


pro-


ductions which defied


description.


They were


retrieved and


examined


separately.


1.5.


Data Presentation,


Objectives,


and Justification


The amount of


discrete data available from


tech-


niques


just described


the numerical


is tremendous.


information,


a great many tables and


In order to


succeeding


charts.


These are,


chapters


in all


summarize


contain


cases,


accompanied by prose


explanation and discussion.


The actual


presentation


format


follows necessarily


from


the objectives,


presented below.


1.5.1.


Research objective


general


goal


this


research is


to provide base-


line,


or descriptive data


in an area


increasing


research


interest,


second


language acqui


sition.


the basis of


the


data


collected


to sati


sfy this primary


descriptive goal,


several


corollary questions of


theoretical


interest may


addressed.


These


follow the


first,


descriptive objective


below.


The objectizes


are:


To determine


morphological


the extent


syntactic


acquisition


structures


selected


achieved by Choctaw










III.


examine


relationships


between


imitative


spontaneous


success


examine


language


learning


strategies


em-


played


children.


compare


acquisition


of English


as an L2


with


acqui


sition


of English


as an Ll.


The


first


objective


discussed


Chapters


Three


and


Four.


Chapter


Three


is concerned


primarily


with


morphology


auxiliaries,


objective


Chapter


is pursued


Four


Chapter


with


Two.


syntax.


The


The


variables


second


dis-


cus


that


chapter


are


language


domains,


communicative


style,


dence.


and


The


children


final


s sex


three


, age


ectives


and


require


community


some


of resi-


intro-


ductory


comments


explaining


their


relationship


the


descriptive


data


on which


they


are


based.


With


regard


to Objective


III,


it is


important


to note


that


imitation


an important


component


behavioral


model


language


to a certain


extent,


learning.


with


Thus


Objective


, Objective


However,


overlaps


one


problems


dealing


with


imitative


data


dual


interpretations


attributed


the


ability


to successfully


imitate.


Some,


particularly


behaviorists,


see


imitation


as a


tool


creating


underlying


competence,


1.e.,


as a


1 Parn i nc


strats av


which


assi


development


habits.


... .--


V.










production.


beyond


scope


this


study


to deter-


mine


however,


imitation

we can d


being


determine


employed


there


as a learning strategy;

is a relationship be-


tween


successful


imitation


successful


spontaneous


pro-


duction.


In order


to accomplish


this,


conclusions


of Chap-


ter s


Three


Four


will


compare


developmental


success


rates


imitative


spontaneous


oral


productions.


These


comparisons


will


be interpreted


basis


fol-


lowing,


very


tentative


assumptions.


First,


we will


assume


that


ability


taneously


produce


imitate


an inflection,


excee


and


ability


if this


spon-


relationship


remains


constant


across


grade


levels


while


both


abilities


increase,


then


we can


conclude


that


imitative


ability


an indicator


of underlying


competence.


other


hand


, imitative


ability


consistently


exceeds


spontaneous


ability


latter


does


not


increase


over


time,


then


we can


conclude


either


that


two


abi-


lities


are


related,


that,


they


are,


imitation


not


successful


learning


strategy


structure


question.


Finally,


we might


also


reach


s sec


conclusion


spontaneous


ability


excee


imitative


ability,


any


1- I 1 t -z -


-^.


11*


* t *


*1 1


r










conclusive.


chief


objective


simply


examine


the


data


for


the


existence


a systematic


relationship


between


two


productive


modes


children


s L2.


In the


most


investigation


accessible


learning


means


strategies,


children


Objective


s emerging


can


be described


as a system,


though


one


under


stood


to be


only


heuristically


stasis,


consistencies


discontinuities


evaluated


evidence


the


strategies


organic


proach


fact,


zing


not


data,


principles


within


as we will


that


scope


see


produced


this


, do not


them.


research


permit


This


and,


of a uni-


fying


grammar


or grammars.


Alternatively,


the


emerging


can


regarded


approximation


target


language


, with


errors


pro-


duced


providing


evidence


the


strategies


being


employed


to close


the


stance


between


the


approx


imation


the


target.


These


errors


may


result


from


L1 interference,


established

or from ove


contrastive


generalizations


analysis


hypothes


the L1 an

es based


on learner


analysis


of L2 data.


The


two


types


error,


thus


, imply


different


learning


strategies


different


theories


cognitive


organization


operation.


Chapters


Three


and


Four


contain


sections


dealing


with


the


analysis


errors


- Ut I *. - .-


1


J


A


II ,- .- .* _


-i










with


those of


learning


ESL.


speakers


from different


We would expect


language backgrounds


the rates or


sequences


similar


the L2


inherent cognitive


capacities


which determine

variety of diss


the L1


learning


strategies.


similar patterns


that dominates


to emer


in structuring


We woul

ge if,


expect


however,


acquisition


stra-


tegies.


Therefore,


acquisition sequences and success


rates


will be compared,


where data


exist,


the conclusions of


Chapters


Three and Four.


Finally,


with reference


to Objective


a comparison


of L1 and L2


acqui


sition


same


language allows


explore


the question


of whether or not L2


learning


differs


significantly


from L1


learning.


Again,


there are


implica-


tions


learning


theory,


they are exactly the


same


those outlined in


also be discussed in


preceding paragraph.


the chapter


These will


conclusions.


1.5.2.


Data


presentation


format


Summarizing the


sociolinguistic


above discussion,


factors


Three and Four present


Chapter Two


learning process;


spontaneous and


imitative


presents


Chapters


production


success


rates,


followed by


error


analyses and


their


impli-


cations


learning


strategies


and models,


concluding with


comparative acquisition


smenunces and


summaries:


and


ChaD-











1.5.3.


Justification


research


objectives


In view


interest


in and


importance


of under-


standing


process


descriptive


ses


studi


language


have


great


acquis


value


ition,


their


both


implications


theory

absence


pedagogy.


of data,


but


Neither

we have


ese


relatively


can


develop


little


available


that


which


we have


comes


, primarily,


from


ESL


learners


from


world


s major


languages.


Data


from


well-


known


languages


are


espe


cial


value


that


they


may


pro-


vide


answers


to old


questions,


may


even


make


possible


new


interesting


ones,


expose


previous


conclu-


sons


either


to validation


or to reevaluation.


Although


this


research


breaks


no new


theoretical


ground,


it presents


anomali


inexplicable


framework


any


current,


single


theory


suggesting


that


we are


still


rather


removed


from


even


level of


theoretical


adequacy,


descriptive


capacity.


language


pedagogy


is equally


inadequate.


The


generally


accepted


explanation


the


lack


success


classroom


learning


that


a second


language


largely


irrelevant


many


learner


yet


, the


same


charge


irrelevance


can


be leveled


at much


of what


success


fully


learned


classroom


, so we must


look


ess


sim-


- a


*


*


* J


^^


I


I


*1 I










1.6.


Notes


Carol


Chomsky


the general belief


their


tactic


are


lingui


structures


years


(1969) d
that by


stic


systems


demonstrates


that,


contrary to


time children reach


are


fully


may not be mastered
age or older.


developed,


until


the


school


some


syn-


children


It i
language,
acquired


s possible
e.g., som
through ex


that


some


e English
tended li


extremely


gapping
teracy.


elaborate


rules


, may on


levels of
ly be


descriptions,


Haas


1941,


1971;


see


Nicklas


Brinton


1972,


1870;


1975;


Byington


Powell


1915;


1966.


The acquisition


a variety of


(Ravem 1974a,


of English as


other


1974b),


licio and Natalicio


Hatch


(1978a)


an L2


language groups,


Spanish


1971)


(Dulay


, Japanese


has been
e.g., No


and Burt


(Milon


examined
rwegian


1973;


1972)


Nata-


see


summaries.


Dulay


posure


Burt


to L2 data


to guarantee


or less


(1973) ,


example,


in a naturalistic


learning


irrelevant


that


propose


setting


teaching


learning


that


ex-


sufficient


therefore,


more


situation.


Bricker


debates


own


and Bricker


"pseudo-issues


theoretical position


argument which is


rather


than


defines


that


(1974:437-441)


refer to


, and one need not accept


agree with
resultant f


intent of


riction


various


their


their


obscures


issues.


6. In fact,
that ordinary


Labov


speech


lays


part


the blame


is ungrammatical


the belief


on linguists whose


conclusions may


other


converse at


have been


reached after


conferences


Braine


stening to
(1971:170)


each


further


discussion.


Hardman


(personal


communication)


pointed


out


to me


that her


extensive


text


collection


"shows,


in casual


recordings,
errors, or


virtually


mind-changes


complete grammaticality with


clearly marked by


lapsus,


intonation or


other


linguistic/paralinguistic marks.


Brown and Hanlon


adult


usage may


(1970:205)


be reflected


note


that while


the child's


frequency
production,


V -.I- - I' -4- 4-. --a ,- ~ 9 J 4 L -J-9 9 -~- . ...


1


-L-'1.. 1..1I--


L


A


^*J


rk









adults,


example


however,


Ervin


-Tripp


this


may


1971:190-


not


case.


191) ;


Sachs


See,


(1976:146).


Martin


child


several


languages


aker


which


there


are


examp 1


Native


New


York


Ameri


can


state


, the


Language
(Mithun a


Menominee


Project
d Chafe


sons


1974)
1979)


sonss
Mohawk


Bauer


(1971


summarizes


policy.


exceptions


this


13. The
stigmati
Harvey n


Engl


zed,
.d.;


ish
nons


that


was


standard


Leachman


and


earned


dial


Hall


gene


rally


features


1955)


contained


(Dubin


thus


1970


maintained,


even


contributed


ents


who


employment
imilation t


so insistent


speak


only


negative


themselves


difficulties


o be


that


inevitable


their


Engli


ster


experience


and
e a


who,


re


children


them


eotyp


es.


d failure


were


extreme


in some


earn


The eff


English


school


taught


cases
they


that


on the children


more harmful
a limited sp
deviant gram
ment in Choc
their peers


L


guistic


the
mann
who,
have


than


eaker


matical


taw
who


competence


notion
1966;
as a


helpful;
is also


the English


limited


d and


constructions.


is likewi


hamp


, as children,


of the


cognitive


Bernstein


res


difficulty


mature


deficiti


1964) ,
the just


communic


eating


children


usually


The


ere


not
spe


encies


ere


mar


children


their
control


er.


" (Ber


still


cribe


through


model
the
while
iter


remain


d language


lingui


stic


ked by
s develop-
s being


full
dismi
and E


lin-
ssing
ngel-


individuals
environment


mediums


average


Language
freshman


Profi


score


cienc


on the Mi


one


chigan


group


was


Test


ctaw


Engli
collea


16.
the
tion


eral


majority


problem,


upper


ctaw
their


ne require
obviously


evel


freshman
avoided


coll


eve


stud


ents


degree


d English


since


courses


composition


long


as pos


were


found


requirements


courses


eir
was


to have


with


Ability


Engli


courses


certainly
SEngli


complete


the
was


suffi
suffic


was


excep-


not


cient


the
for
for


simply


sible


rson


who


rac


iall


Cho


ctaw


does


not


earn


from


not










poi
sha
of
fro
wit
for
adu


wneac
h su
Ang
its.


f view
, in f
ateria
on by
spicio
los bu


, this
act an
1, int
the c
n and
t also


tomizes
cumulati
actual, o
re. One
term is
admonish


Angl
on t
r sp
who
used
chi


o cha
o exc
iritu
is n
not
idren


ter.
(wh
natu
l1o
y as
d to


the
e)
sr
ap
cha


s
garded
jorative
tise


Amern
gener
howev
when
tion
and C


e term
n commu
purpose
, disti
hiding
hattak
ctaws.


"Anglo
cities
es: I
nguish
the pe
('men


" also
simple
ndians
four:
jorati
') and


des
y di
and
wh
ve) ;
los


erves
sting
non-
ites
blac
sa ('


comment
ish two
ndians.
whom th
s (tako
lack');


Many
groups
The Ch
y call
sa, a c
other I


Nativ
for
octaw
Anglo
ontra
ndian


19. The
identify
become i
ceptable
attempt
There is
allowed
attitude
estingly
frequent
got our
thing le


obverse


ca
de

by
o
to
t

ly
la
ft


tion
ntif
give
Ang
nly,
lea
owar
by a
exp
nd;
."


s
d
t
s
e
L,
t
t
s
i


implic
that
with
he Cho
to le
local
theC
heir 1
her Mu
sed in


ation
if An
the C
ctaw
arn C
Angli
hocta
angua
skoge
vari


get


our


the


s s
taw
itu
taw
ho
ang
(an
gro
s o


language


and


peak
s.
de t


s stro
s lear
ge. T
ttitud
, the
the st


language


we won


cul
hen
iis
OS,
isco
r be
tect


ged.


, Inter-
ee), is
"They


t have


any-


20. Only in the past
ministering physical
the classrooms or on


decade have the schools
punishment for speaking
the school grounds.


stopped
Choctaw


ad-
in


26 vocabulary


ater
sma
ith
eight
uage
o th


items
number
'cified
minim
quisit
writer


items


in any
might
semant
ally us
ion has
's know


could


ultu
suf
don
ul,
een
dge.


hardly


, altho
cient t
ns. A
though
either s


encompass
h if chos
show acqu
dified Sw
s relevan
acested no


relevant


ca
nta
esh
to
exp


fully,
e
ist
an-
red,


The writer, w
BECOM program,
previous year'


rho at the time
participated
s testing.


was the ESL Speciali
in the administration


23. One child, on seeing me
l _ __ C a"*-* -^ ._ l l 1 --


in the


reservation


store not


thn


I










Inappropriate


irrelevant and


hend the q
Choctaw ra
beled so t
the degree
and 1 chil
singly low
diglossic
Situations


uesti
their
hey c
of C
dren,


clea
on,
than
would
hoct
the


The exp
situation
involving


responses


ly indica
nd those,
English.
be examine
w language
rate of C
lanation
which obt
Anglos d


included both


ted the
correct
The lat
ed separ
e domina
hoctaw r
for this
ains on


child


or
ter
ate
nce
esp
pr
the


emand Engli


did not


incorr
were f
ly. Co
among
onse wa
obably
reserve
sh or s


compre-


t, i
their
ider
ades
surp
es i
ion.


la-
ing
K
ri-
n the


ilence.


mumbl
their
the r
sound
Indiv
this


Responses that were inaudible
ed or otherwise consciously a
utterances were also scored
response was inaudible due to
s, etc.) the response was omi
idual scores were adjusted to
circumstance.


because the
nd purposeful
as inappropri
other factors
tted from the
avoid penali


children
ly obscured
ate. If
(competing
corpus.
zation in


As noted by


Shuy


et al.


linguists have formulated
than group performance."


(1968 :v) ,


theory


from


"Historically,


individual


rather


The
sissip
cost
write
the Un
that o
Coord
time


computer-


rammel
i Stat
or use


Compute


niver
the
office
Grat
to Ge
Compu
ce in


U
of
O


diversity.
office and
inator of
and patient


ese


r


1


sity
compu
for
eful
rald
ter S
tran


enc
wer
ter
Res
ack
Mat
tud
sla


who programmed


e Center facilities at
e utilized. Funds to cover
were generously granted to
earch and Graduate Studies
nowledgment is extended
thews, Associate Professor
ies, who gave freely of
ting linguistics-ese to
this entire study.


28. One child, struggling with
could not remember "under" to d
the toy pig used in testing. S
grammatical honor by producing:


locative prepositions,
describe the location of
he extricated herself with
"My hand is over the pig.


those


that were
















CHAPTER


TWO


LANGUAGE


IN THE


CHOCTAW


COMMUNITY


2.1.


Introduction


This


chapter


examines


important


sociolinguistic


fac-


tors


Choctaw


discussion


emphasized


culture.


previous


significance


of the


chapter


Choctaw


language


to Choctaw


identity,


culture


s negative


atti-


tude


toward


Anglos


and,


because


synonymity


lan-


guage


tive

This


culture


attitude

chapter


factors


Choctaw


toward

begins


that


thought,


language


discu

rigid


ssing a

division


resultant


Anglos,


corollary


of language


nega-


English.


these

domains,


or diglossia,


Cho


ctaw


life;


included


this


discussion


an examination


manner


which


communicative


styles


reinforce


domain


distinctions.


following


sections


of the


chapter


examine


three


sociolingui


stic


variables


, community


res


idence,


age,


and


sex


the children,


order


to determine


there


relationship


between


these


Engli


sh L2


acquis


ition.










individual


cultural


groups


may


not


themselves


recognize


this


link.


Choctaw,


as we have


seen


, are


an exception.


They

the


are


intensely


reservation,


they


language-conscious


maintain


people,


an absolute


and,


separation


English


Choctaw


language


domains.


The di


chotomy


very

nates


rigid

, but


and r

there


arely

are


violated

specific


The


contexts


hoctaw la

in which


nguage


domi-


use


English


three


The


deemed


major


most


not


English


visible


only


appropriate


contexts


context


are


but


obligatory.


described


tribal


council


below.


meeting


These


are


conducted


along


formal,


parliamentary


lines


entirely


in English


This


despite


fact


that


members,


majority


those


attending,


speak


Choctaw


at least


probably


more


, profi


ciently


than


they


English.


Very


occasional


an older


person


will


address


council


Choctaw,


such


occurrences


are


exceed-


ingly


rare.


English


also


used


almost


exclusively


at school


functions


and


when


interacting


with


school


personnel.


Some


Anglo


teachers


who


have


spent


many


years


Choctaw


schools


are


known


to partially


understand


language


but,


despite


this


, they


are


never


addressed,


either


childr


en or adults, in Choctaw.


r ,









even


impossible,


address


learner


casually


Choctaw,


invariably


respond


English


the


learner


addresses


them


Choctaw.


final


context


which


English


always


used


athletic


events


, a major


reservation


activity.


Announ


ce-


ments


play


descriptions,


even


Choctaw


tradi-


tional

Players


sport,


stickball,


' disputes


with


are


always


referees


are


made

also


English.


, initially,


Engli


, but


altercation


becomes


involved,


are


continued


referee


Choctaw.


s decision


Nonetheless,


again,


announcement


English.


On examining


contexts


which


English


used


clear


that


they


exhibit


common


features


they


volve


speech


a public


nature,


and/or


they


are


imported


institutions.


this


There


generalization


is,

and


however


one


that


surprising

church. C


exception


hoctaw


ministers


conduct


services


in Choctaw,


hymns


are


sung


Choctaw,


Bible


read


that


language.


Even


cases


where


minister


is non-Choctaw,


hymns


prayers


are


offered


in the


congregation


s first


language.


explanation


this


may


manner


which


Chri


stianity


was


first


introduced


Choctaw.


ssionaries


developed


a Choctaw


orthography


conducted


bilingual


schools.


Later


, many


Choctaws


themselves


became


themselves


became










some


communities


as an integral


part


of their


culture


and


an alien


institution.


event,


the


Choctaw


lan-


guage


traditionally


currently,


appropriate


religious


contexts.


Other


cult


domains


to define.


contexts


play,


just


of Choctaw


Choctaw


describe


at work.


language


spoken


The


Because


use


are


everywhere


language


most


Choctaws


diffi-


but


is spoken


live


those


at home,


work


reservation,


therefore


case


that


occasions


adults


use


Engli


are


relatively


infrequent.


Thus,


inability


to speak


fluent


Engli


sh is


not


particularly


disadvantageous,


but


the


inability


to speak


Choctaw


extremely


limiting.


inability


to speak


Choctaw


threatens


not


only


individual


identity


as previously


noted


, but


community


membership


as well,


since


each


Choctaw


community


defining,


idiosyncratic


speech


patterns.


Community


member-


ship


station


important.


which


Each


functions


community


to orient


traditional


expectations


repu-


one


introduced


unknown


person.


5 Not


only


there


alle-


giance

commun i


to community,

ty's speech w


there


whichh


is also

regard


allegiance


as superior


that

to others


whose


forms


are,


more


less


good-naturedly,


criti


cized


ridicule


__


__











Choctaw


enjoy


a well


argued


verbal


presentation


whether


or not


they


agree


with


speaker


s position.


One


ability


use


language


well,


however


, does


result


that


person


s being


regarded


as either


an authority


an arbiter,


since


"experts "


any


variety


are


routinely


despised.


The


Choctaw


function


principle


that


single


individual


embodied s


totality


or range


lan-


guage


impli


cit


community


as a whole.


Thus,


community


, not


individual,


that


dominates


cul-


ture


s social


psychological


orientation.


Just


some


speech


admired,


some


speech


is de-


plored


high


, primarily


school


teenagers.


"Pearl

6 This


River


slang"


speech


spoken


marked


a great


deal


of contraction,


slang


expressions,


and


a high


percen-


tage


English


loan


words.


Criticism


this


speech


a quite


different


tenor


than


criticism


arls


from


traditional


community


dialect


rivalry.


Indeed,


there


some


concern


among


older


people


that


current


generation


teenagers


will


not


return


to adult


norms


"degenera-


tion"


language


will


occur.


Besides


being


aware


language


domains


levels


speech,


relate


Choctaws


to speech


also


events.


recognize


The


rules


social


"rules"


Choctaw


which


conversa-


I -- J _I


..


I I __---


.. II


r"


*,


I


L


L


I










compared


pause


Cs.


with


lengths


Teasing,


Anglo,


characterized


in conversational


joking,


turns,


sophisticated,


volume,


different


often


long

kine-


risque


allusions


mark


conversation.


Humor


is much


admired


and


appropriate


to almost


every


conversational


topic.


Although


intercourse,


conversation


a major


is not,


case


feature


with


social


Anglos,


necessary


concomitant.


For


example


siting,


a regular


social


shed


activity,


that


may


a person


be silent.


After


s arrival


has been


social


rather


estab-


than


personal


reasons,


visitor


may


quietly


or join


household


activities.


Visitors


not


expect


to be


"enter-


trained"


There


converts


no demand


action


placed


a cessation


on either


of normal


sitor


routines.


or the


with


single


exception


food.


Visitors


arriving


during


meals


are


expected


to eat.


Silence


has


many


communicative


levels.


That


a visi-


s silence


social


can


detected


kinesics.


social


silence


marked


relaxed


body


posture;


eye


move-


ments


follow


whatever


activities


may


ongoing.


thought-


ful,


cons


idering


silence,


e.g.,


while


formulating


a re-


sponse,


is communicated


through


a more


rigid


body


posture


eyes


focused


on some


point


the


surrounding


environ-


Tmrnft -


I n rr vr


r noTrn'lIc


c i 1Pn


Sc ; rT-rvmrran i or


d


f= I


I I


I I \


CI










Kinesics accompanied by


silence are also


used


to com-


municate directions;


turns


a road,


or the


location


an object are


indicated by


a slight movement of


the head


or hand with no verbal


elaboration.


very


different


characteristics of Anglo


social


communicative


patterns make Choctaws


uncomfortable.


first difference


fact


that an Anglo


social


context


is obligatorily marked by


that


conversation,


to Choctaw participants,


and by


rapid


conversation


to allow re-


sponses.


volume


level


is very


loud


the Choctaw ear


swiftness and


compulsive exchange of


conversational


turns contributes


to an overall


impression of


incessant


noise.


only


silence not allowed


in Anglo conversation,


interpreted by them as withdrawal


or unfriendliness.


Moreover,


use of


contact by


Anglos makes


the Choc-


taws


feel as


they


are being


stared


i.e.,


they


are


isolated as objects of


curiosity rather than included


as social


co-participants.


Even


polite,


conventional


opening


gambits of


Anglo conversation immediately violate several


Choctaw


practices:


one does


utter


one's own name;


nor


does


one question another


about matters which are both


personal


TF :M -1/ a fl tn4- na a nar' rm4 1 Tr 4- '


i rrv hvttlI nC "iy^^


+-/\ //" n-an


=a r^,,










individual


after


a period


verbal


discussion


alterna-


tives;


whereas


a group


of Choctaws


remains


a group


only


as long


as each


individual


voluntarily,


without


discussion,


choo


ses


to continue


interaction.


group


member


may


withdraw


tion.


without


There


announcing


is no coercian,


either


intention


especially


not


or explana-


verbal,


follow


the


departing


member.


See


Witherspoon


(1977


:83)


similar


patterns


among


Navaho.


Finally


when


engaged


in conversation


with


Anglos


further


discomfort


results


from


a general


awareness


that


Engli


spoken


reservation


nonstandard


and,


because


Choctaw


people


expect


criticism


nonstandard


behavior


their


own


community


, they


project


this


anti


cipation


Anglo


communities,


and


are


therefore


re-


luctant


talk.


sum,


Choctaws


participate


minimally


English


language


varying


conversations


levels


, and,


of discomfort.


when


The


they


divergences


experience


social


practices


treme.


related


They


to language


intensify


use


trans


are,


cend


cumulatively


simple,


ex-


sheerly


linguistic


problems


appropriate


language


selection


basic,


grammatical


communication.


-n r^Tn i i nu


Fnrr 4i


ch T,.


T rn I na


0 rh


rl I I I









having


a population


around


1,200


persons


(Spencer


1975) .


They


are


scattered


over


four northeastern Mis-


sissippi


counties,


the central


largest


community


located


in Neshoba


County.


All


the communities


consi-


dered in


this


study


are within


40 miles


of Pearl


River,


the central


community


and seat


tribal


government.


Each of


the communities


not only


own


particular


speech patterns


own history


and reputation,


and relationship with


as mentioned above,


surrounding


but also


Anglo com-


ture.


Since


is conceivable


that any


or all


these


might affect L2


acquisition,


community


residence has been


selected


as a variable


examination


this


study.


Unfortunately,


there


no precise data


on either


dialect


or historical


differences.


With reference


to dia=


lect


differences,


it is


believed


that


originally there were


three major


dialect


groupings


corresponding


to political


regions:


the Ahi Apat


the Okla


Okla


Falaya


or Potato


or Longtown


Eaters


dialect


dialect


the west;


east;


the Okla Hannali


or Sixtown


dialect


in the


south


(Jacob


et al.


1977:49).


These


three may


still


exist


in both


Okla-


homa and Mississippi


(Nicklas


1972


substantiation


this


point awaits


further


research.


There


is no question but


that


communities


exhibit


dialect


differences.


but


the differpncnp may


hb nnlv


Cllnnor-










than


others,


there


less


contraction


of suffixes;


and


some


communities


contract


or drop


suffixes


more


than


others.


Contraction


may


or may


be a superficial


phenome-


non.


In casual


speech,


a widespread


practice.


How-


ever,


there


evidence


that,


at least


some


speakers,


recovery


noncontracted,


or even


intermediate


forms


is not


possible,


suggesting


that


several


syntactic-


semantic


relationships


are


unavailable


these


speakers


grammar.


Whether


or not


such


a deep


structure


difference


might


present


different


learning


configurations


depends


degree


influence


attributable


the


learning.


With


no more


than


minimal


and


somewhat


impressionistic


data


on dialect


differences,


impossible


to state


that


language


one


community


s sufficiently


different


affect


acquisition,


assuming


influence.


question


examine


must


approached


L2 data


terms


indirectly;


that


community


res


we can


idence


determine


there


a consistent


interaction


between


community


and


English


acquisition.


Such


intera


action


might


also


be produced


torical


contemporary


relationship


a community


with


surrounding


Ana lo


culture -


Aarin -


we are


1 i mi -pt


1I.


I 1 \









maintenance


traditional


customs.


The


introduction


of churches


and


schools


was


strongly


resisted


community


members.


Tucker


community,


other


hand,


is regarded


as more


"Anglo"


than


other


communities.


People


believe


this


was


to be


established


there


fact


that


in 1883


strong


Catholic


remained.


mission


was


the


only


church


which


both


Anglos


and


Choctaws


attended


(al-


though


seating


was


divided)


was


staffed


Anglos


Peterson


1970


:183


-187).


Finall

various


Pearl


some


prominent


River,


communities

families,


example


are

and


are


recognized as th

others, Standing


linked


seats

Pine


generations


of kinship


ties.


sum,


there


are


a variety


factors


related


community


While


rank


data


residence


beyond


these


factors,


to discover


presence


which


might


scope


this


is within


affect


acquisition.


research


capac


of a relation


ship


isolate


of these


between


community


SWCEL.


of residence


results


and


this


several


variables


investigation


are


tested


presented


next


section.


acquisition


communities


communities


are


compared


basis


para-


4-










confidence.


results


these


analysis


are


reported


below.


Ranking


communities


SWCEL


test


performance


communities


are


ranked


Table


below


basis


revised


score


(Score


see


Section


method


of derivation).


The


actual


number


table


a mean


score


based


on all


children


aces


each


community.


This


provides


a general


measure


comparison


among


communities.


Table


Communities


Ranked


Score


Rank Score Community


1 56.30 Bogue Chitto

2 62.53 Pearl River

3 67.30 Conehatta

4 68.17 Standing Pine

5 69.34 Red Water

6 95.32 Tucker


Although


there


are


differences


among


coImmUu-


- ._ I _


. .. .. --


m- .1 --


* -- I 4 -


r- I n v 0 n y fl^ fl rnrn n r *v I* C L1 r if I i 4 I


* _










To a certain


community


Table


Table


extent


s dominance


, below,


Score


Choctaw


compares


A Comparison
Dominance


degree


language


, ranked


of Score


Choctaw


each


correlate.


Score


Language


Community Score I % L1 Dominance


Bogue Chitto 56.30 91

Pearl River 62.53 71

Conehatta 67.30 87

Standing Pine 68.17 91

Red Water 69.34 82

Tucker 95.32 73


However,


correlation


not


consistent


that


degree


of L1 dominance


cannot


employed


as a gauge


of L2 profi-


ciency.


.1.2.


Ranking


of communities


"Appropriate


Res


ponse"


This


measure


provides


indication


children


comprehension


of English


ignores


grammaticality


their


response.


other


words


, a measure


pas-









development


that


can


extrapolated


from


testing


data.


score


in Table


represents


mean


number


times


each


child,


community,


respond


ed appropriately.


maximum


number


times


possible


Table


Ranking
ness"


of Communities


"Response


Appropriate-


Rank Score Community


1 24.56 Bogue Chitto

2 26.38 Pearl River

3 27.50 Red Water

4 28.54 Standing Pine

5 28.81 Conehatta

6 35.97 Tucker


Tucker


community,


again,


significantly


different


from


others.


we compare


communities


bases


both


(Score


appropriateness


find


grammatical


similarities


oral


lowest


production


highest


extremes


ranks


Bogue


Chitto


and


Pearl


River


chil-


dren


neither


respond


very


grammatically


nor


comprehend


well;


Tucker


children,


other


hand,


perform


well


in both










Pine


children


are


more


less


average


in both


areas;


Water


children


not


comprehend


well


respond


gram-


matically


when


they


.1.3.


Ranking


of communities


Response"


Another


prehension


measure


whether


least


or not


partially


children


indicative


attempt


com-


to respond


test


item.


This


measure


is not


so reliable


the


previous


one,


since


a variety


factors


may


enter


into


children


s deci


sion,


including


shyness,


degree


previous


exposure


to Anglos,


illness,


forth.


Table


below,


did


reports


respond


mean


at all,


number


even


after


items


to which


prompting.


each


The


child


maximum


again,


Table


Ranking


of Communities


Response"


Rank Score Community


1 5.99 Tucker

2 10.80 Red Water

3 10.84 Standing Pine

4 11.37 Conehatta

5 13.32 Pearl River


'










communities


at either


scale,


Tucker


Bogue


Chitto,


are


significantly


different


from


the


others,


Tucker


having


lowest


number


ponse"


Bogue


Chitto


having


highest


number


child


per


test.


.1.4.


Ranking


of communities


"One


Word


Response"


Children


may


res


pond


with


single


words


several


reasons.


minimal


some


(viz.


cases


single


Question


word


secondly,


adequate,


their


ability


use


English


may


sufficient


res


pond


more


fully;


they


may


be uncomfortable


using


language.


There-


fore,


it is


impossible


to determine


exactly


what


this


mea-


sure


in the


reflects.


children


It is,


s L2.


nonetheless,


score


an index


Table


"volubility"


below,


mean


number


time s


"One


Word


Response"


was


given


child,


community.


Table


Ranking


of Communities


"One


Word


Response"


Rank Score Community


1 15.07 Bogue Chitto

2 16.12 Pearl River










Here


we find


that


Bogue


Chitto


children


are


most


voluble


Standing


Pine


children


most


reticent.


Since


Bogue


Chitto


children


are


also


least


likely


respond


at all,


least


likely


to respond


either


appropriately


or grammatically


when


they


do respond,


this


is a rather


been


surprising


significantly


finding.


different


Tucker

other m


children


measures


who


are


have


more


less


average


this


one.


There


is no obvious


explanation


these


findings,


but


apparently


not


case,


one


might


assume,


that


more


proficient


speakers


talk


more.


.1.5.


Ranking


of communities


sentence


production


Responses


beyond


single


word


utterances


may


or may


be complete


sentences.


In order


to find


out


to what


extent


children


spontaneous


generate


complete,


grammatical


sentences,


a separate


index


was


prepared,


Table


, below.


tabulation


includes


ellipses,


e.g.,


and


the


score


reflects


average


number


times


each


child


produced


grammatical


sentences


during


test.


Tucker


significantly


different


from


the


first


three


communities,


Pearl


River,


Bogue


Chitto,


and


Cone-


hatta,


generation


of grammatical


sentences


The










Table


Ranking


of Communities


Sentence


Production


Rank Score Community


1 1.51 Pearl River

2 2.00 Bogue Chitto

3 2.28 Conehatta

4 2.96 Red Water

5 3.10 Standing Pine

6 7.45 Tucker


.3.1


Ranking


of communities


imitative


ability


Finally,


because


imitation


factor


which


may


con-


tribute


to L2


acquisition


the


communities


were


ranked


according


to the children


s ability


imitate


correctly.


score


Table


, below,


reflects


number


times


each


child


imitated


correctly,


either


words,


phrases,


sentences,


during


test.


last


community


, Tucker,


significantly


different


from


first


communities,


Water


Bogue


Chitto.


Comparing


imitative


ability


with


overall


performance


(Score


we find


highest
._


rank


results


n both


to be equivocal.


measures


Tucker


so we might


has

the


the

con-


. -


.I










Table


Ranking


of Communities


Imitative


Ability


Rank


Score


Community


4.28


Red


Water


5.45


Bogue


Pearl


Chitto

River


Standing


6.98


Pine


Conehatta


Tucker


though


these


are


relatively


crude


measures


comparison,


they


suggest


that


relationship


between


spontaneous


imitative


proficiency


may


be neither


straightforward


nor


simple.


This


question


will


explored


at length


following


chapters.


2.3.


. Language
Conclusions


Communities


: Summary


Two


communities,


Tucker


Bogue


Chitto,


are


distin-


guished


on the


basis


several


methods


analysis.


Tucker


s differences


are


significant


statistical


sense


indicate


that


children


this


community


acquire


Engli


sh much


more


successfully


than


children











contrast,


Bogue


Chitto


presents


opposite


SOCIo-


historical


experience:


community


remained


isolated


from


Anglo


influence


res


isted


importation


Anglo


institutions.


stance


This


is reflected


research


in a redu


suggests


rate


that


of L2


Bogue


acquis


Chitto


ition.


Therefore


, it


the conclusion


this


research


that


expo-


sure


outs


classroom,


single


most


important


sociolinguistic


variable


acquisition


reflected


variables


isolated


from


test.


Correlation


Age


English


L2 Acquisition


large,


children


this


study


are


five


years


before


they


are


exposed


to English


on a regu-


interactive


basis.


Before


this,


their


opportunities


to hear


language


are


fairly


numerous


but


sporadic


a passive


nature.


Televi


sion


is present


in almost


every


home,


shopping


trips


to nearby


towns


off-reservation


stores


are


conduct


ed in


Engli


parents)


and


athletic


school


events


are


announced


that


language.


With


their


parents


peers


children


speak


Choctaw


and


hear


Choctaw.


Thus


, with


sole


exception


school,


most


chil-


dren


s opportunities


to communicate


Engli


sh do


not


t *


nI - - L a 1-- I. --


*


X





4I


r ,,,,


L


n


L


L










As a result


these


circumstances,


any


changes


children


attributable


s English


their


proficiency


school


with


experience.


are


Until


directly


recently,


this


experience


has


been


primarily


in English,


but


currently


children


are


instructed


bilingually,


Anglo


teachers


teamed


with


Choctaw


aides.


latter


are


enrolled


Mississippi


State


University'


bilingual


teacher


education


program


and


will


eventually


graduate


certified


bilingual-


bicultural


education.


BECOME


program


Choctaw


schools


transi-


tional


one


whose


goal


move


children


from


content ins

instruction


truck


tion in

English


Choctaw

in Grade


Grade


with


100%


structured


content

English


instruction


providing


bridge


between


languages.


All


children


this


study


participated


the


BECOME


program,


thus


children


received


some


instruction


Engli


as a


subject


anc,


with


exception


of Grade


some


content


instruction


English.


Therefore,


the


scores


Table


, below,


represent


result


of Engli


sh instruction


schools,


and,


moreover,


we see


that


this


instruction


successful


extent


that


diff


erences


between


grade


levels


are


sig-


nificant


the


eve


of confidence.










Table


Grade


Level


Score


Grade Score I


K 45.85

1 68.85

2/3 105.65


children,


more


proficient


their


English.


This


crease


in proficiency


is primarily


a product


instruction


exposure


the


schools.


Correlation


of Sex


L2 Acquisition


Scores


results


two


were


sexes


negative;


were


there


isolated


compared.


significant


dif-


ference


between


male


and


female


children


this


study.


Both


sexes


are


equal


proficiency


reflected


Score


Language i
Conclusions


Choctaw


Community


: Summary


preceding


discussion


has


emphasized


limited


role


English


plays


everyday


lives


Choctaw


people.


use


appropriate


in a very


few,


highly


cir-









factors,


in conjunction


with


antipathy


to English-


speaking


people


noted


in Chapter


, result


in an extremely


unfavorable


environment


second


language


learning.


an attempt


to determine


any


the


six


commu-


niti


provides


significantly


different


learning


environ-


ment


from


others,


various


measures


were


analyzed,


with


result


that


one


community,


Tucker


was


found


favor s

unusual


second 1

nature


language

of its


development.

relationship


The

with


stinct


Engli


and

speaker


comparison


with


other


communities


was


judged


to be


stinguishing


ctor.


Finally,


was


found


that


age


correlates


positively


with


language


acquis


ition,


but


sex


does


not.


Note


The Choctaw


lands


in northcentral


S1SS


ippi


are


divided
tances


term


into


SIX


individual


17-40 miles


ese


communities


rvation"


coll


communities


of non-Indian


will


used


land


separate
s from


to ref


ed by
each


dis-
other


these


ectively.


There


ization
scious
suffici
writer


Later


is some


evid


of languages


deci
ent


ecid


Sshe


sion


switch


success


to addr


reported


ence


that


so deeply


h languages


For


ful.


ess


that she. a


extreme


rooted


is not


example


tribal


contextual


that


a mere


always


con-


either


a friend


counc


n el ahnra-t-


in Cho


ctaw


and aiftp









An Anglo attempting
only because it is
e of the attitude


by the
Kenneth


following
York who


ane
se r


g to learn Choctaw is extremely rare
discouraged by the Choctaws but be-
of the Anglo community, as illustrated


cdote,
elative


for
was


whi
th


h I am indebted
translator in


event.


During


coun
was
tran
the
whet
Coun
to k
The
judg
the
why


co
sco
ato
ans
r o
an
w w


hoctaw


was
the
ans
was
del
al
red
peak


hoct
if
udge
on't


nda
tfo
res
was


man


much
'nec
;ngli
the
felo
ansli
t di
Ssom
dent
the


appear
ut of
sary t
. Aft
dge be


local
n it


emp
se
r s


g resident
ted as "y
not spea
time, th
of the Co
defendant


Dy asK
of Nes
," dem
Englis
asked
ty. W


asked,


Choctaw?"


hen
"Then


4. Council
contact and
greatly in


meetings and
early contact


form


from


those


stickball
periods,


today


games occurred in
but they differed


(Swanton


pre-


1931)


5. Because there are sanctions against speaking one's
own name, they are not used in introductions and thus
family relationships, a possible means of orientation,
not immediately available.


are


6. The
and many
there.


only Cho
student


taw high
from the


school
more


is located in Pearl
distant communities


River
board


ire


"What


ct quest
ill-mann
only in
and rou
eyond th
esponsib
e, it is
immedia
ut, a fa
While
they st


bring


ions


concerning


or o
oung
11 i
over


personal
, request
Since th
assistance
idual is
is own ac
e but nec
s a probl
ce cannot
are less
question


matters


are


tions and
essary to
em. If th
be request
bound by t
visitors,


con-
nee
e
d
bso-
blems.

question
by the
con-
*.


Another community,
,,4-lkorn nfl r4- n-^ F 4-ha -\c


Bogue
4-4-a +


Homma, i
nA^ r-.4-4^11


s located


in the


"_ -


n









Swan ton,


in his


introduction


to Byington's dictionary,


states:


Anciently


only


one of


living


there were


these,


several


that


southern


Choctaw dialects,


the Sixtown


part


the old


but


Indians
Choctaw


country,


differed


standard,


Western
ference
certain
language


part o
seems
words,


to any


or Longtown,


f the Nation.
to have been


involving


a whole


considerablee
dialect sp


Moreover,


degree
oken in


this


from
the
dif-


confined mainly to


but


(Byington


very


slightly


1915:ix).


scores


other numerical


data have been rectified


interviewer


items


error;


interviewers


1.e.,
failed


children are not
to administer.


penalized


The reader


switching


is reminded


or pronominal


that


24 of


reference as


items


part of


require


imitative


task.
and


In almost all


cases,


pronouns


involved are


"you"


time of


this


study,


only two classroom


teachers


Grades


were Choctaw.


As can be expected with any new program,


the quality


and
from


degree of
teacher t


BECOM program implementation


O


teacher,


from school


some children received more or


less


varied


to school


greatly
; that


English instruction


than
many


others.


Anglo


There was,


teachers,


who


indeed,


felt


resistance


their


jobs


the part


threatened,


but


presence and


compensate
programs
materials


for t


everywhe


dedication of
he reluctant t
re, there were


with


teacher


the Choct


teacher.


aw aides usually
As with bilingual


problems with


training


curriculum


and retraining.


None-


theless, t
with which


program was,


the writer


in comparison


is familiar,


a model


with many


in its


others


rigorous


administration,


evaluation,


and actualization.


If Score


the difference


for Grades


significant


is analyzed
e .05 level


separately,


only;


and


when


standard


the difference


scores
is not


these


two grades


statistically


are


significant.


compared,


The Grade


score


in Table


is an average based


on a Grade


score of
in later


- -- -


92.98


a Grade


discussion,


1.-^ .... -


L2 growth


score of


appears


fl2 rr..~


118.32.


As mentioned


level
/- - -


some


\ ln 1 fl Tf n rn11 fl 1 rr1 l I f 1 - fl r n1/ lli [f rf --ll... / l f r r















CHAPTER THREE

MORPHOLOGY


3.1.


Introduction


This


chapter


begins


presentation,


analysis,


and


discussion


language


data.


There


are


three areas


focus:


noun


verb


inflections;


pronominal


case


gender;


and auxiliaries


and


copulas.


format


dis-


cussion will be as


follows.


Each


structure


is presented


individually


and independently


the quantitative data


are


the others.


described.


For


These data


each,


summarize


the number


times


structure


in question


was


obliga-


torily required


the children's


utterances and


compare


this


figure with


the number of


times


the


structure was


actually


correctly


supplied.


These


figures combine


to produce a


basis


"percentage


success"


comparing the degree


figure which


rate


acquisition


across


grade


levels.


success


rate


generally


been


accepted


"acquired"


will


criterion

therefore


classifying


be adopted


for this


item

study


(Brown


1973:258;


Cazden


1972


:33;


Dulay


and Burt


1974a).










Following


quantitative


data


a discussion


types


errors


produced


children.


This,


turn,


followed


a discus


sion


learning


strate-


gies


thought


to affe


ct second


language


acquisition


:the


transfer


of Ll patterns


active


analysis


These


will


evaluated


with


reference


their


relevance


acqui


sition


the


structure


under


discussion.


The


chapter


concludes


with


a comparative


and


cumula-


tive


summary


structures


sented,


a discussion


acquit


sition


pattern


portrayed


data,


and


a com-


prison


this


pattern


with


those


found


other


acqui-


sition


studies,


both


English


L1 and


Noun


Verb


Inflections


Although


English


language


noted


relatively


rigid


word


order


a dependence


on this


order


indi-


cate


role


relationships


within


sentence,


inflectional


morphology


nonetheless


indicates


many


important


relation-


ships.


inflections


are


examined


following


sec


tions.


noun


inflections


are


plural


suffix


{-S};


poss


essive


suffix


definite


and


indefinite


pref


ixes


{a-}


All


these


affixes


are


bound.


S.-% -


I


Y-l----










Noun


inflections


semantic


notions


expressed


three


inflec-


tions


discussed


this


section


are


plurality,


possession,


definiteness.


first


inflections,


although


semantically


cally


very


exactly


distinct,


same.


are


Because


phonetically


of this


and


homophony


phonologi-


we can


determine


basis


eir


emergence


relative


to each


other


whether


children


s mastery


a result


phonetic-phonemic


considerations


or of


syntactic-semantic


ones.


The


emergence


two


relatively


simultaneously


would

more


suggest

dependent


acquisition


to be,


superficial


this


aspe


case


language


least,

compe-


tence,


1.e.,


mast


of phonetic


and


phonemic


systems,


with


present.


implication


2 Independent


that


semantic


emergence


would


notions


suggest


are


acquis


eady


ition


to be dependent


derations,


on more


their


complex,


order


syntacti


emergence


c-semantic


interesting


consi-


as an


indication


of which


concept,


plurality


or possession,


more


obvious,


"easier"


or more


compatible


with


precedents.


Unlike


plural


and


possessive


inflections


, those


indicating


definiteness


are


prefixed


their


use


governed


complicated


co-occurrence


restrictions


both


syntactic


- --


discourse


levels


language.


Briefly,


v










from occurring with plural


count


nouns


(plural


indefinite-


ness


being marked


either


by non-insertion


an article


by the


inclusion


with mass


an indefinite quantifier,


nouns.


Moreover,


e.g.,


both indefinite


"some")


defi-


nite articles


are


usually restricted


from occurring with


proper


nouns


and nouns


referring


to body parts.


These restrictions


are


exceedingly


complex and,


effect,


require the


learner to differentiate among


several


class


ses


of English nouns


in order


to express


plurality


definiteness


appropriately


(see Brown


(1973:340-356)


more


extensive


discussion).


following


three


sections


consider


each


inflections


order


discussed


above.


3.2.1.1.


The


plural


suffix


There


are


six opportunities


included


the SWCEL


test


for producing the


plural


inflection


(Questions


73-75).


The responses


these questions


form


the basic


data


pool.


Added


to these


every


occurrence


in casual


conversation


during


this morpheme.


testing


Table


an obligatory


summarizes


the number


context


obli-


gatory


number


contexts


(opportunities),


successful


attempts,


grade


level,


expresses


the children's


a a 4- 1 a ~ -b% a n 1 a, ~ 4 a- % n A-- 1- n -


1


r*


-c ,FL j_


-L-l -.-: ^- J- -


/-^^-V ** -^/- 4


C


?n


n











Table


The


Plural


Suffix


Grade # Opportunities # Successful % Successful



K 157 59 38%

1 280 116 41%

2/3 234 129 55%





inflection although it has not yet been mastered to the

criterion point of acquisition. Table 10, below, suggests

that age is an important variable in acquiring this inflec-

tion.




Table 10. The Plural Suffix, per Child




Grade # Opportunities # Successful


From


this


breakdown,


we can


see


that


rate


ac-


quisition


increases


dramatically


with


age.


The


number


-1-' 2 a -I -- -s- I I--**.- --


/^--. 3 / -


I


^I,-^ -


- 1 "I e 1


I


r. ulr










sum,


children


produce


plural


inflection


spontaneously


successfully


slightly


more


than


half


time


rate


of successful


production,


relative


opportunities,


makes


a large


increase


between


Grades


and


2/3.


Imitative


abilities


differ


markedly


from


spontaneous


abilities.


Table


reports


children


s imitative


success


and


Figure


compares


this


with


their


spontaneous


success.


Table


Plural


Suffix,


Imitative


Success


Grade


Opportunities


Successful


Successful


As Table


indicates


, the


children


do not


attempt


imitate


this


inflection


very


frequently.


It must


re-


membered


that


they


were


requested


to imitate


every


time


they


produced


response,


an incorrect


column


an incomplete


headed


Opportunities"


(non-sentence)


represents


r~~~~~~~~ Ti 0 I ~nlrr L S. nnr 4-n 4-


4i mae


n I rn or


#--


^*l- I I~ rhn^ "^


1..


T- r i C-A


f


rT-


h














100%

90

80

70

60

50


-I.


Figure


Plural


Suffix,


Spontaneous


and


Imitative


cess


a per


child


basi


changes


little


between


Grades


K and


imitations.


Furthermore,


while


there


a marked


increase


children


s ability


imitate


between


Grades


K and


this










inflection


spontaneously


in Grade


exceeds


their


tative ability.


We must


therefore conclude


that


abilities


are not


consistently related


the acquisition


plural


inflection.


3.2.


Discussion


errors


With


exceptions


noted below,


type of


error


found


for this


inflection


simple omission


suffix


obligatory


to Question


contexts.


"What do


you


For


see


example,


the box?"


in response


(three cats


are


view),


the most


frequent response


"cat"


and even,


occasionally,


cat"


The other


errors are discussed by


grade


level.


In Grade K,


is an


there


extension


are only two,


plural


non-omission


to a mass noun:


errors.


soups"


(3K70138).


The other


the application


plural


a singular noun:


"books"


(5K62035;


only


one book


depicted).


In Grade K,


there are no


cases


spontaneous


error


other than


omission;


however,


classification


responses


to Question


is unclear.


The


children


are


guessing what


inside


a box


possible


they


are


changing their minds about


the number


items


contained:











These


responses


were


not


included


numerical


summary


are


noted


here


because


they


illustrate


a general


char-


acteristic


the


data,


that


variability.


In Grade


there


are


no errors


other


than


omission.


In Grade


, there


are


only


three


non-omission


errors.


one


case,


plural


suffixed


a mass


noun:


"That


a bowl


of soups"


(4369170)


In another


case,


a child


extends


plural


to a sin-


gular


noun.


this


test


item,


child


holds


marbles,


one


"Ask


in each


me which


hand.


one


response


want"


stimulus


child


question:


replies:


"Which


ones,


which


marble s


you


want?"


(3345183)


seems


likely


that


problem


here


partitive


"which"


with


requirement


a singular,


rather


than


a plural,


referent.


A third


response


in Grade


defies


classification:


re clappings"


(4373171)


Although


child


speculation


attempting


inconclusive,


to capture


may


repetitive


be that


nature


verb


pluralizing


this


vein


- a -


, it


1 _


_~


m -- m


.I .










In conclusion,


principal


error at


every


grade


level


the omission


of plural


suffixes.


3.2.1.1.2.


Learning


strategies


following two sections


consider,


first,


role


L1 in


the acquisition


process,


and


secondly,


role of


cognitive


analysis.


Choctaw orthography


ex-


plained


in Appendix


3.2.1.1.2.1.


role of


In order to determine


there


interference or


transfer


from the


children's


we must


first


understand


how Choctaw treats


plurality.


Consider the


following sen-


tences.


Hattakat


itime


pisatok.


'A man saw that


tree.


Hattak


pisa


tok


Man


SCM5


tree


that


see


Hattakat itimg


'Two men saw that


pisatoklotok.


tree.


Hattak


pisa


toklo +


Man


tree


that


see


p.d.


a -


s-s


I 1 --I .. -- A-- --Ll .


1.1 C. ,4-


r I I


I










These


examples


demonstrate


that


verbs,


rather


than


nouns,


are


inflected


number


Choctaw.


Nouns


may


modified


specificity


use


of adjectives6


quantifiers


but


are


not


mark


number.


Therefore


there


is no precedent


children


s LI


plural


flection


on nouns;


other


mechanisms


may


optionally


com-


municate


this


information.


Before


concluding


that


lack


of precedent


children


s L1


accounts


fact


that


they


supply


plural


inflections


only


of the


time


after


four


years


Eng-


instruction


, we must


first


compare


their


performance


with


that


of ESL


learners


from


other


language


backgrounds.


If the


children


this


study


are


similar


to others


would


reject


assigning


overwhelming


influence


Such


a comparison


will


be made


in the


final


section


of this


chapter.


3.2.1.1.


role


cognitive


analyst


specific


learning


strategy


impli


ed by


term


"cognitive


analyst


the


active


organization,


learners,


language


data


they


are


exposed


formulation


of hypotheses


which


regularize


data;


and


realization


these


hypotheses


the children


s L2


*


* *


- *


*


C ~


m


*


I










being


utilized


is the


occurrence


overgeneralizations


children


s L2,


e.g.,


heated "


"ate"


It should


noted


that


classification


errors


as overgeneralizations


not


always


straightforward


case


"eated"


clappingg"


error


in the


pre-


vious


section


illustrates


one


difficulties.


It is


clearly


possible


that


this


transfer


error.


Thus


dis-


cussion


will


be limited


those


errors


which


are


undeniably


overgeneralizations.


second


form


of evidence


that


cognitive


analysis


is actively


employed


learners


occurrence


similar


acquisition


sequences


among


English


learners


from


will


different


L1 backgrounds.


discussed


cognitive


Overgeneralization


analysis


errors


sections


this


chapter;


ESL


acquis


ition


sequences


will


be compared


chapter


s conclusion.


With


regard


error


data


plural


suffix,


there


are


only


cases


of overgeneralization,


occurring


Grades


K and


pluralization


mass


nouns.


therefore


conclude


acquisition


that


process,


these c

to not


children,

employ


this


cognitive


point


analysis


as a general


learning


strategy










being


acquired


but


not


point


that


it is


firmly


part


of the


children


s grammatical


competence.


Imitatively,


children


s productions


are


more


suc-


cessful


than


their


spontaneous


productions


Grade


but


Grades


K and


reverse


case.


relation-


ship


between


modes


production


this


inflection


therefore


not


consistent.


major


error,


every


grade


level,


is omission


inflection.


Cognitive


analy


does


not


appear


to play


an active


role


learning


process


during


these


first


four


years


data,


this


acquis


point,


ition.


we can


absence


tentatively


more


conclude


specific


that


prevalence


omission


errors


influenced


nonex-


istence

This co


noun


inclusion


plural


will


inflections

re-examined


the

the


children

final


s LI.


section


this


chapter.


.1.2.


possessive


suffix


SWCEL


test


includes


only


one


item


requiring


use


possessive


suffix


(Question


As a result,


there


are


fewer


productions


this


morpheme


than


there


are


plural.


occurrences


appear


summary

s below


the distribution


these


Table


e I S I dl---------------------- 2 -SI-- -


I


I .


11 11 *


1


' _




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - Version 2.9.9 - mvs