The scoring of the data in the present study largely follows the method used by Izumi (2003). For the Sentence combination and translation testes, one point was given for correct production of the form and zero point for incorrect production of the form, errors involving articles, tense, and spelling were ignored, and omission of the relative pronoun in the DO and OPREP is permissible, so it was deemed correct. In the grammaticality judgment test, any items not judged or judged correctly but
without corrections were given zero point. For the resumptive pronoun analysis, one point will be given to whoever retained the pronoun and zero point for those who did not.
Recall that avoidance strategies are behaviors that the subjects use when they deliberately and consciously choose not to use the target form, possibly due to the difficulty or the partial mastery of the structure (Kleinmann, 1977). The subjects of this study are university students who have learned the target structures after
graduation from senior high school. Therefore, the deviant form they produced should be the result of the structure complexity or lack of full knowledge, rather than entire lack of knowledge of the target structure. In the present study, other than the deviant form, the total lack of use of the target form will be included in the data for examination (see Schachter, 1974). Points will be assigned according to the type of strategy that was used by the subjects. That is, one point for each type of the strategy.
Five types of avoidance strategies are included in this analysis, in which type 1~4 are those that were generalized by Gass (1980) and type 5 is added for the present study, as in Table 3.5. As we can see in Table 3.5, type 1 mainly involves avoidance
in the OCOMP relativization, where the object of comparative, the syntactically more complex structure, is to be circumvented by a lexical change, and finally the subject function, the syntactically less difficult one is produced. Type 3 is similar to type 1 in that it results in changing the more complex construction (OCOMP relatives) to the less complex one (SU relatives), though by different means. Type 4 involves
avoidance from DO (or IO, OPREP, and GEN) relatives to SU relatives. Type 2 and 5 are alike, both related to avoidance of center embeddedness, an issue that involves processing of matrix sentence. Note that when the head NP functions as object, type 2 is related to the avoidance from the more difficult relativization positions to the less difficult ones, as the example sentence below shows. In fact, as will be shown in Chapter Four, quite a number of learners use this strategy in object matrix positioning, though it did not outnumber the case in which the learners used type 2 to avoid
center-embedding. Besides, type 5 occurred only in the case of subject matrix positioning, when there was a need for learners to avoid center embedding. In fact, there was no such case that the subjects in this study used type 5 in object matrix positioning sentences.
【Type 2】
I know the woman.
Bill passed a note to her.
The correct combination: I know the woman who Bill passed a note to.
Avoidance: Bill passed a note to the woman who I know.
Table 3.5 The categorized avoidance strategies (adapted from Gass, 1980) Type of avoidance Example sentence
1. Substitution of one lexical item for another.
(Avoid OCOMP relatives)
I know the man.
Joseph is thinner than him.
→I know the man who is fatter than Joseph.
2. Switching the order of the two sentences so as to embed the sentence which
→Bill passed a note to the woman who is a nurse.
3. Changing the identical NP.
(Avoid OCOMP relatives)
He saw the wo man.
The man is older than the woman.
→He saw the man who is older than the woman.
The man kissed the woman.
? He saw the woman who was kissed by the man.
5. Changing the head NP (Avoid center embedding)
The man called the police.
His wallet was stolen.
? The man called the police whose wallet was stolen.
Note that only the data in the sentence combination test and translation test are submitted for analysis. Specifically, two questions are expected to be answered in this test, as follows:
1. To report the avoidance strategies that were used.
2. To see the tendency of the avoidance: that is whether the learners tend to avo id relativization on positions that are low on the NAPH?
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
4.1 The accuracy order of the relative clauses
4.1.1 Sentence Combination test
Table 4.1 presents the total correct responses and the percentage (in brackets) thereof for the six types of relative clauses, which are placed in the two different matrix positions. The rightmost column shows the total correct responses for matrix subject position versus matrix object position, and the bottom row of the Table
demonstrates the total results of each type of relative clauses without distinguishing between the two types of matrix positions. As can be seen from the bottom row of Table 4.1, the highest scores were obtained for SU, followed by GEN, DO, OPREP, IO, and OCOMP. Except GEN, OPREP and IO, the order generally matches the universal markedness as predicted by NPAH. This is in conformity with the research prediction made earlier in this study. In terms of the matrix positions, the score obtained for the matrix object position is higher than the subject position: 60.2 vs. 49.2. This matches the prediction by PDH, and also the research hypothesis.
Figure 4.1 graphically shows the result. As for the difficulty order obtained for each different type of relative clauses, it is OGEN> OS> OO> SS> SGEN>
OOPREP>SO> OIO>SOPREP> SIO> OOCOMP> SOCOMP (> means gets more accurate responses than). This order is generally as predicted by SOHH, except OGEN, which gets a slightly higher score than OS. To restate, the order for
>SOCOMP. The total mean accuracy rate for this test is 65.1%.
Table 4.1
Total correct responses on sentence combination test by relative clause type and Matrix position type
Relative clause type Matrix
Percentage of correct respones on sentence combination test by relative clause type and matrix position type.
4.1.2 Chinese-English translation test
Table 4.2 shows the total correct responses and the percentage (in brackets) thereof for the Chinese-English translation test. Figure 4.2 graphically shows the results. From Table 4.2, the rank order of the six types of relative clauses is SU>
DO> GEN> OPREP> IO> OCOMP (> means has a higher accuracy rate than), which generally follows the implicational universal as predicted by NPAH, except GEN and the order between IO and PREP. Translation test and combination test are alike in the order for PREP and IO, but not in GEN. Considering the matrix
positions, the result run counter to what is predicted by PDH: the total scores obtained for the matrix subject position is higher than the object position, though subtly. The accuracy order for the 12 types of relative clauses is as follows:
OS/SS> OO> SO> SGEN> OGEN> SOPREP> OOPREP> OIO/SIO>
OOCOMP/SOCOMP (>means has a higher accuracy rate than). It seems that the order of difficulty of the relative clauses in this test is primarily determined by the function of the relative pronoun irrespective of the function of the head NP. In comparison to SOHH, there is a partial support here (SOHH:
OS/OGEN>OO/SS/SGEN> OOPREP/SO/OIO >SOPREP/SIO> OOCOMP
>SOCOMP).
Table 4.2
Total correct responses on Chinese-English translation test by relative clause type and Matrix position type
Relative clause type Matrix
Percentage of correct responses on Chinese-English translation test by relative clause type and matrix position type.
4.1.3 Grammaticality judgment test
Due to the unequal number of the question items for each type of the relative clauses in grammaticality judgment test, Table 4.3 displays only the mean accuracy scores rather than the total correct responses as the above two tests do. The
graphical demonstration of the results is given in Figure 4.3. Upon examination, the results reveal an unusual pattern that does not show either in sentence combination test or in Chinese-English translation test. The accuracy order being obtained is IO>GEN>OCOMP>DO>OPREP>SU (>means is more accurate than), which entirely violates the universal markedness as predicted by NPAH. The
NPAH-predicted the least marked one of SU is otherwise the most marked in the grammaticality judgment test. Again, considering the matrix positions, the results are not as predicted by the PDH: the relative clauses in the matrix subject position have a higher accuracy rate than in the matrix object position. In terms of the order of the 12 types of relative clauses, it is SG>OIO> SO> SIO> OOCOMP>
SOPREP> OS/SOCOMP> OG> OO> OOPREP> SS. As is clear, the order is entirely different from that as predicted by SOHH.
Table 4.3
Mean accuracy scores on Grammaticality judgment test by relative clause type and Matrix position type
Relative clause type Matrix
position SU DO IO OPREP GEN OCOMP Total
Subject 42.3% 72.8% 74.4% 69.0% 91.7% 64.3% 69.1%
Object 64.3% 57.1% 80.4% 42.9% 61.1% 72.0% 63.0%
Total 53.3% 65.0% 77.4% 56.0% 76.4% 68.2%
Total: 66.0%
Figure 4.3
Percentage of the mean accuracy scores on Chinese-English translation test by relative clause type and matrix position type.
4.1.4 Summary for the results of the accuracy order
The summary of the orders in the three tests are displayed in Table 4.4 and 4.5.
The comparison of the orders in the three tests against the three hypotheses is
presented in Table 4.6. As we can see, the data in the sentence combination test and Chinese-English translation test show a similar pattern in conforming to NPAH and SOHH, except for PDH. As to the grammaticality judgment test, the data support none of the three hypotheses. In comparison of the accuracy rate in the three tests, it reveals that the lowest rate is obtained for translation test.
Table 4.4 The order of accuracy of relative clauses in the three tests Test type Accuracy order in terms of relative clauses Sentence
combination test
SU> GEN> DO> OPREP> IO> OCOMP
Chinese-English Translation test
SU> DO> GEN> OPREP> IO> OCOMP
Grammaticality judgment test
IO>GEN>OCOMP>DO>OPREP>SU
Note: The order by NPAH is SU>DO>IO>OPREP>GEN>OCOMP
Table 4.5
The order of accuracy of relative clauses considering the matrix NP and relative pronoun in the three tests
Test type Accuracy order in terms of matrix NP and relative clauses Sentence
combination test
OGEN>OS>OO>SS>SGEN>OOPREP>SO> OIO>SOPREP>
SIO> OOCOMP> SOCOMP Chinese-English
Translation test
OS/SS> OO> SO>SGEN> OGEN>SOPREP> OOPREP>
OIO/SIO> OOCOMP/SOCOMP Grammaticality
judgment test
SG>OIO> SO> SIO> OOCOMP> SOPREP> OS/SOCOMP>
OG> OO> OOPREP> SS
Note: The order by SOHH is OS/OGEN> OO/SS/SGEN> SO/OIO/OOPREP>
SIO/SOPREP>OOCOMP>SOCOMP
Table 4.6 Comparison of the orders in three tests against the three hypotheses Hypotheses
Test type
NPAH PDH SOHH
Sentence
combination test (65.1%)
Largely match match Almost fully match Chinese-English
Translation test (63.0%)
Largely match Opposite Almost fully match
Grammaticality judgment test (66.0%)
Not match Opposite Not match
Note: the percentage in the brackets shows the total mean scores.