MORPHEME STUDIES
AND SCOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
ROCÍO RIVERA
NANCY CABA
INÉS ECHEVERRÍA
MELIDA BONILLA
SANDRA REYES
Krashen’s “monitor model”
• The acquisition-learning hypothesis
• The monitor hypothesis
• The natural order hypothesis
• The input hypothesis
• The affective filter hypothesis
Krashen’s “monitor model”
• The acquisition-learning hypothesis (1)
– Acquisition: we acquire L2 knowledge as we are
exposed to samples of the L2 which we understand
with no conscious attention to language form. It is a
subconscious and intuitive process.
– Learning: we learn the L2 via a conscious process of
study and attention to form and rule learning.
IL: Development Sequences, SLA
Very productive area of inquiry in SLA
Methodological variations:
Longitudinal / diachronic (like Brown): small
number of subjects studied over a period of time; v.
cross-sectional / synchronic (like de Villiers & de
Villiers): large number of subjects at a specific time.
5
ROGER BROWN 14 GRAMMATICAL
MORPHEME
Brown’s
(1973)
five-year
longitudinal case study of
three children.
the
children’s
developed
at
rates,
speech
different
Brown found that their orders
of acquisition of fourteen
morphemes were surprisingly
consistent.
LONGITUDINAL STUDY
This investigation is where a
small group of subjects is
studied over a period of time .
CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY
Investigates a large group of
subjects at one point in
time.
Dulay and Burt
(1973,1974,1975)
The study by Dulay and Burt (1973),
revealed how six- to eight-year-old
children (151 subjects, L1 Spanish) had
acquired
eight
major
English
grammatical
morphemes.
The
acquisition order obtained in that study.
They found that plural – s was acquired
first, and the possessive -’s mastered last.
Acquiring English
ELICITATION

Means….
- A PROCESS IN WHICH A STIMULUS
PROVOQUES AN ANSWER
- IT CAN BE INNATE
- TO MAKE SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING
- TO SPECT SOMETHING HAPPENS
ELICITATION TECHNIQUES
BRAINSTORMING
 WORKSHOPS
 INTERVIEWING
 SURVEYS
 DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
 OBSERVATION

RESEARCHERS
Dulay and Burt (1974)
 Bilingual Syntax Measure
 Chinese and Spanish Children

BILINGUAL SYNTAX MEASURE

BSM is an individually administered instrument
used to identify a student’s mastery of basic oral
syntactic structures in English, Spanish, or both
languages. The BSM is suitable for diagnosis and
placement, as well as for summative and formative
evaluation.
GROUP 1
CASE
 (NOMINATIVE
 ACCUSATIVE)

WORD ORDER
(in simple declarative
sentences)
GROUP LL
SINGULAR COPULA SINGULAR AUXILIARY
 (‘s/is)
(‘s/is)
 PLURAL AUXILIARY
PROGRESSIVE
 (are)
(-ing)

GROUP LLL

PAST IRREGULAR
AUXILIARY

POSSESSIVE
 (‘s)



CONDITIONAL
would
LONG PLURAL
(-es)
THIRD PERSON SINGULAR
(-s)
GROUP IV
PERFECT AUXILIARY
PAST PARTICIPLE
 Have
-en

Kathleen M. Bailey
Professor
Professor Bailey served as a member of
the worldwide USIA English Teaching
Advisory Panel from 1992-95, and on the
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) Board of Directors
from 1992-95 and again from 1997-2001.
In 1998, she was President of the
international TESOL organization. She
was a member of the editorial board of
TESOL Quarterly and currently serves on
the editorial boards of (1) the Modern
Language Journal; (2) the Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching; (3) Language
Teaching Research; and (4) the
International
Journal
of
Language
Studies.
Bailey et al. (1974) conducted a similar study with
adults. She used the same elicitation method
(Bilingual Syntax measure) to investigate the
accuracy of production of the eight morphemes
studied by Dulay and Burt (1973).
The research was applied in 73 adult learners of
English from different first-language backgrounds.
The results were very similar to those reported in
the case of children by Dulay and Burt (1973,1974)
as shown in the following figure, (which is taken
from Dulay et al., 1982, p. 210)
:
73
17-55 years old
Greek, Persian,
Italian,Turkish, Thai
Japanese, Chinese,
Afghari, Hebrew,
Arabic, Vietnamese
English
Cross-
sectional
Structured conversation
Host
Bilingual Syntax Measure (BSM)
The authors developed an instrument for two purposes:
1) Toassess the English and Spanish oral proficiency of
school age children, and
2) Determine English-Spanish language dominance in a
brief and efficient manner. It was designed to measure
second-language oral proficiency with
respect to
syntactic structures in English and Spanish. The authors
chose syntax as the measure of proficiency because it
is more stable across
dialects than vocabulary,
pronunciation, or pragmatics.
The Bilingual Syntax
Measure (Burt, Dulay, and
Hernandez 1973) was
administered to 73 adult
learners of English as a L2
Language
to investigate accuracy of
usage for elevenEnglish
functors.
It was found that there is
a highly consistent order
of relative difficulty in the
use of the functors across
different
language
backgrounds
backgrounds, indicating
that learners are
experiencing intralanguage difficulties
Also, the adult results
agreed with those
obtained by Dulay and
Burt (1973) for 5 to 8
year old children learning
English as a second
language
indicating that children
and adults use common
strategies and process
linguistic data in
fundamentally similar
ways.
• As a conclusion of this topic is if the results seem clear as far as
child second –language learners are concerned, it does not
necessarily follow that adult would also show the same order of
acquisition.
• After all, children might approach the task of SLL more like the
learning of a first language than adults do. Also, the adult results
agreed with those obtained by Dulay and Burt (1973)
• for 5 to 8 years old children learning English as a second language,
indicating that children and adults use common strategies and
process linguistic data in fundamentally similar ways.
NUMBER OF STUDIES WERE REPORTED:


Systematic staged development could be found
a number of syntatic dominans.
SYNTATIC DOMINANS: The variaty of syntactic
forms in which a request can be paraphrased
and still be understood.
 The
acquisition
of
negative
structures in English as a second
languague, was defined by several
early studies:
 Raven, 1968
 Milon, 1974
 Adams, 1978
 Ellis, 1994
 And others…





Similar stages were noted in the acquisition of German
and English as a second language.
In other words:
THE ACQUISITION OF NEGATIVES IN ENGLISH BY SECOND
LANGUGE LEARNERS IS NOT DISSIMILAR OF THAT OF
CHILDREN ACQUIRING ENGLISH AS THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE.
The acquisition of other syntatic structures such as:
Interrogatives and relatives clauses are exhibited in the uniform
patterns of acquisition.


In the uniform patterns of acquisiton, the
process is not in a linear way, it is more like a
zigzag.
All the stages followed by second language
learners, and the comprehension in: other areas
of syntax show corresponding similarities, that
children learn in their first language.
MATCHING INTERVENTION TO SECOND
LANGUAGE (L2) ACQUISITION STAGES

GOALS:
Preproduction

VISUAL/WRITTEN RESPONSES

(First 3 months of L2 Exposure)

• Drawing/painting

STUDENT

• Graphic designs

CHARACTERISTICS

• Copying

• Silent period


• Focusing on comprehension

GOALS:

GOALS:

PHYSICAL RESPONSES

ORAL RESPONSES

• Pointing

• Yes-no responses in English

• Circling, underlining

• One-word answers

• Choosing among items

• Matching objects/pictures

Stage 1


 Stage 2
















Early Production
(3-6 months)
STUDENT
CHARACTERISTICS
• focusing on comprehension
• Using 1-3 word phrases
• May be using routines/
formulas (e.g. “give me five”)
GOALS:
ORAL RESPONSES
• 1-3 word responses
• Naming/labeling items
• Choral responses
• Answering questions:
either/or, who/what/where,
sentence completion















GOALS:
VISUAL/WRITTEN RESPONSES
• Drawing/painting, graphic
designs
• Copying
• Grouping and labeling
• Simple responses
GOALS:
PHYSICAL RESPONSES
• Pointing
• Selecting
• Matching
• Construction
• Mime/acting out responses
Stage 3
















Speech Emergence
(6 months–2 years)
STUDENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Increased comprehension
• Using simple sentences
• Expanding vocabulary
• Continued grammatical errors
GOALS:
ORAL RESPONSES
• Recalling
• Telling/retelling
• Describing/explaining
• Comparing
• Sequencing
• Carrying on dialogues
 GOALS:
 VISUAL/WRITTEN RESPONSES

Written Responses
 • Drawing, painting, graphics








GOALS:
PHYSICAL RESPONSES
Demonstrating
• Creating/constructing
• Role-playing/acting
• Cooperative group tasks
Stage 4

















Speech Emergence
(2 or 3years)
STUDENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Improved comprehension
• Adequate face-to-face
conversational proficiency
• More extensive vocabulary
• Few grammatical errors.
GOALS:
ORAL RESPONSES
Predicting
• Narrating
• Describing/explaining
• Summarizing
• Giving opinions
• Debating/defending






GOALS:
VISUAL/WRITTEN RESPONSES
Creative writing (e.g., stories)
• Essays, summaries
• Drawing, painting, graphics
• Comprehensible written tests







GOALS:
PHYSICAL RESPONSES
Demonstrating
• Creating/constructing
• Role-playing
• Cooperative group work
• Videotaped presentations
Systematic
and
independent
Morphemes
are acquired
step by step
Similar with
FLA
Conclusions
Theories of
inherent LA
Patterns
similar and
different
Acquisition Order for Grammatical Morphemes (Brown, 1973)
Order Morpheme Example
1 Present Progressive I driving
2-3 Prepositions in, on
4 Plural balls
5 Irregular Past Tense broke, fell
6 Possessive Daddy's chair
7 Uncontractible Copula This is hot
8 Articles a, the
9 Regular past tense She walked
10 3rd person present tense, regular He works
11 3rd preson present tense, irregular She does
12 Uncontractible auxilliary Ross is winning
13 Contractible copula He's a clown
14 Contractible auxiliary She's drinking
• Brown discovered that the order of morpheme acquisition did not depend on
frequency of exposure (in parental speech).
• Instead, Brown concluded that the morphemes were required in order of syntactic
and semantic complexity.