This chapter starts with a description of the instructional materials selected for content analysis and the participants involved in the quasi-experiment. The 2

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter starts with a description of the instructional materials selected for content analysis and the participants involved in the quasi-experiment. The 2

section introduces the instruments used in the study, followed by an account of the procedures of the quasi-experiment. Data analysis procedure will be presented in the last section.

Materials and Participants

This section consists of two sub-sections. The first sub-section gives an overview of the instructional materials under examination. The second sub-section concerns the characteristics of the senior high students participating in the quasi-experiment.

Target Textbooks and Teacher’s Manuals for Analysis

Three senior high English textbook series and their accompanying teacher’s manuals were selected for content analysis due to their widespread adoption in senior high schools in Taiwan. The three textbook series, designed on the basis of the Senior High School English Curriculum Standards promulgated in 1995, were in use by third-graders in senior high schools at the time of the present study. Our participants (i.e., second-graders), on the other hand, used the textbook series designed based on the Senior High School English Curriculum Guidelines (the Temporary Version) promulgated in 2005. However, this newer textbook edition was not of complete set of six volumes at the time of the present study. Considering the integrity of this research, the newer edition was not used as the target materials for analysis. It is hoped that an examination of complete sets of textbooks and teacher’s manuals gives us an overall picture of how periphrastic causative verb constructions

are presented and practiced in senior high textbooks and explained in their accompanying teacher’s manuals.

1 For convenience, periphrastic causative verb constructions will be referred to as causative verb constructions.

For the purpose of this study, three sections in the selected senior high textbooks were chosen for in-depth analysis: reading texts, conversation texts and grammar activities. Each textbook series has a different name for its grammar activities: (1)

“Grammar Focus” in Textbook A, (2) “Sentence Patterns” in Textbook B and (3)

“Patterns in Actions” in Textbook C. The three sets of grammar activities were scanned to identify those targeted on causative verb constructions. To examine the correlation between grammar activities and textbook texts, this study also conducted a search to extract occurrences of causative verbs in the textbook reading and conversation texts.

In addition to the textbook series, their accompanying teacher’s manuals were also examined to identify those sections that present and explain causative verb constructions in English.

Participants

The participants in this study were selected from two intact classes of second-year science majors in a municipal senior high school in Taipei City, one class as the control group and the other as the experimental group. Each group consisted of thirty-eight male students who completed all phases of the study, i.e. pretest, two instructional period and posttest.

The selection of the second-year senior high participants was based on several practical considerations. First, they were psychologically and linguistically more prepared to learn various causative constructions than their first-year counterparts.

Second, since the instructional treatment was conducted during their regular class

hours, they were more willing to participate in the study than third-year senior-high

students. Moreover, the two classes were taught by the same English teacher at the

time of the current study. It was therefore assumed that the two groups received the

same amount and type of input from their school English classes.

To further ensure their homogeneity, the two groups were compared with respect to (1) years of English learning experience, (2) academic achievement on the English course in the previous monthly-exams, (3) past learning experience of causative verb constructions and (4) pretest performance. Almost all the results suggested that the two groups were comparable in terms of their English backgrounds. They had similar years of English learning experience: 7.09 years for the control group and 6.71 years for the experimental group. There was also no significant difference between the two groups’ performance on the monthly exams, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. T-test Result for the Monthly Exams by Both Groups

1

Monthly Exam N M SD t p

Control

Experimental

38 38

73.87 72.16

14.16 13.02

.548 .585

2

Monthly Exam N M SD t p

Control Experimental

38 38

62.53 61.84

16.85 12.85

.199 .843

However, the two groups did show some mismatches between their previous learning experiences of the target causative constructions, as displayed in Table 5.

Table 5. Past Learning Experience of the Seven Causative Constructions

Structure

Ctrl. Group (n=38)

Exp. Group (n=38)

let+O+V 100.00 % (38/38) 100.00 % (38/38)

make+O+V 100.00 % (38/38) 100.00 % (38/38)

have+O+V 86.84 % (33/38) 94.74 % (36/38)

get+O+to V 68.42 % (26/38) 71.05 % (27/38)

make + O + p.p. 81.58 % (31/38) 60.53 % (23/38) have + O + p.p. 78.95 % (30/38) 57.89 % (22/38) get + O + p.p. 55.26 % (21/38) 36.84 % (14/38)

The experimental group consisted of a slightly higher proportion of the

participants who had received instruction in the have + O + V and get + O + to V

structures. On the other hand, the control group was comprised of more participants

who had prior learning experience with the make + O + p.p., have + O + p.p. and get + O + p.p. structures. These incongruities, however, did not constitute significant differences between the two groups’ performance on the pretest. Therefore, despite their slight differences in the past learning experience, the two groups were able to serve as the foundation for comparison (see Chapter 4 for more details).

During the instructional periods, the control group received causative verb instruction designed on the basis of the instructional materials under examination, while the experimental group was given modified instruction which place primary emphasis on the meaning and use contrasts among different causative constructions.

Both groups were not informed of the purpose of the study in order to avoid irrelevant interferences.

Instruments

Three types of instruments were developed for the investigation into the effectiveness of the two instructional treatments, including (1) teaching materials for the instructional treatments, (2) pre- and post-tests on causative verb constructions, and (3) questionnaires on the participants’ past learning experience of causative verb constructions and on their perception of the instructional treatments. The design and function of each instrument will be discussed in detail in the following sections.

Teaching materials

A total of two sets of teaching materials were designed for the two different instructional treatments of the present study. Each set consists of two handouts: one for the embedded-active causative verb constructions (i.e., make/ have/ let + O+ V;

get + O + to V) and the other for the e-passive ones (i.e., make/ have/ get + O+ p.p.).

The two sets of teaching materials contain identical sentences and reading texts. The only difference lies in their presentation and practice of the target constructions.

The handouts for the control group were designed on the basis of the causative

verb instruction in the textbook series under examination (see Appendix A & B). A preliminary analysis showed that typical presentation and practice of the target causative structures in the grammar activities consist of sentences patterns, isolated examples, and structural pattern drills. Following this design, the handouts for the control group contain three major sections, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. An Example of the Teaching Materials for the Control Group Sentence Patterns have/ get/ make + O+ p.p.

Isolated Examples

They had their living room decorated last week.

I must get this letter mailed right away.

Can you make yourself understood in English?

Pattern Practice 1. How often do you have your car serviced (have/ car/

service)?

2. Judy has decided to have her bedroom painted yellow (have/ bedroom/ paint) yellow.

3. You had better get your work done (get/ work/ do) as quickly as possible.

As displayed in Table 6, the pattern drills in the handouts were designed for the control group to practice completing sentences using the target sentence patterns and the given words in the parentheses. Since this technique has been commonly used in the senior high English textbooks (see Appendix C), it was adopted in the study to design the exercises for the control group.

As for the handouts for the experimental group, they were designed on the basis

of several considerations (see Appendix D & E). First, several example sentences of

each causative verb structure were provided for the experimental group participants to

notice its form, meaning and use. Second, exercises were designed for this group to

practice choosing the causative verb which is most appropriate to the context, as

illustrated in (1)

(1) Please fill in the blanks with the most appropriate causative verb.

Judy couldn’t get her car started this morning and was late for work.

I yelled to make myself heard above the deafening roar of the wind and the sea.

Although form is equally important as meaning and use in grammar instruction, no structural pattern drills were presented in the handouts for the experimental group.

This design was intended to ascertain whether the use of structural pattern drills would result in significant differences between the two groups in their learning of the formal features of the target causative constructions.

To summarize, the teaching materials for both groups were identical except for their different ways of presentation and practice. The handouts for the control group primarily consisted of mechanical drills of form, while those for the experimental group contained example sentences and meaning-based exercises. The differences between the two material sets reflected those between the two types of instruction.

Pre- and Post-tests

This section first deals with an overall design of the pre- and post-tests, which is followed by a detailed description of each test item.

An Overall Design

A pre-post-test design was adopted in this study to probe into the effectiveness of the instructional treatments in promoting the learning of causative verb constructions.

The pre- and post-tests were parallel in every aspect possible (see Appendix F & G).

Both tests consisted of two sections. The first section comprised 14 gap-filling items designed to test the participants on the form of each target structure, i.e. two test items for each structure (see Table 7). The participants were asked to fill in the blanks with the correct form of the verb in the parentheses, as exemplified in (2).

(2) The doctor made the patient stay (stay) in bed.

Table 7. Allocation of the Test Items for Form (The 1

Section) Form Category Pre-test Post-test Number

make+ O+ V 1, 7 4, 10 2

have + O+ V 5, 9 6, 13 2

let + O+ V 3, 8 2, 11 2

get + O + to V 11, 13 3, 8 2

make+ O+ p.p. 12, 14 12, 14 2

have + O+ p.p. 2, 4, 5, 9 2

get + O+ p.p. 6, 10 1, 7 2

Total 14

The second section, on the other hand, contained 34 gap-filling items embedded in different contexts: 18 in discrete sentences, 5 in the summary sentences of short conversations, 3 in a longer conversation, and 8 in longer passages, as in Table 8.

Table 8. Sample Test Items in Different Contexts

Type of Context Sample Test Items Number

Discrete Sentences

Mr. Smith had a bad cold last week. In order to take a good rest, he (7a) had his secretary (7b) X cancel all his meetings.

18

Summary Sentences

Ms. Allen: Fernando, you didn’t hand in your

homework assignment today. I’d like you to give it to me tomorrow.

Fernando: Sure, Mr. Allen. I’ll do that.

Summary: Ms. Allen (19a) had Fernando (19b) X hand in his assignment.

5

Conversation (Part of a conversation in the pre-test) Barbara: Judy, I’m scheduled to present at a

conference in Berlin. Please (24a) have the travel agent (24b) X book me a round-tip ticket to Berlin…

3

Reading (Part of a passage in the pre-test)

…Several times a year the station tries to persuade listeners to donate money to the station. Without listener support, the radio station could not exist. The station managers (27a) have us (27b) X answer the phones when listeners call to contribute….

8

As illustrated by the sample test items in Table 8, the participants were asked to fill in each blank with the causative verb most appropriate to the context (make, have, let or get). They were also required to determine the complement verb type of the causative they used (i.e., bare-stem or to-infinitive), as illustrated in (3a) and (3b).

(3a) I love sweets but Mom doesn’t (1a) let me (1b) X have them very often.

(3b) Debbie's husband hates any opera. But after days of nagging, she finally (4a) got him (4b) to go see The Phantom of the Opera.

This design was not to test the participants on form but to ensure their choice of causative verb was not influenced by the presence of the to-infinitive. Of the four causatives, only the get-causative takes to-infinitives in the active voice. If the participants had been provided with the to-infinitive, they would have chosen the get-causative without referring to contextual clues. As a result, the tests would have failed to require the participants to draw on their knowledge of the meaning and use of the get-causative. Based on the rationale of this design, no points were deducted for incorrect choices of the complement types.

Table 9 presents the allocation of the test items designed for the meaning and use of each tested construction.

Table 9. Allocation of Test Items for Each Category (The 2

Section) Part 2: Meaning and Use

Item Number Semantic

Category Pre-test Post-test

make+ O+ V 1, 4, 6, 9, 19, 21, 28 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 26, 30 7 have + O+ V 8, 10, 20, 23, 26, 30, 4, 7, 9, 18, 31, 32 6 let + O+ V 2, 18, 25, 29, 32 1, 3, 20, 24, 27, 5 get + O + to V 3, 5, 7, 22, 27, 31 2, 21, 23, 28, 29, 6

make+ O+ p.p. 12, 16 11, 14 2

have + O+ p.p. 11, 13, 15, 24 10, 13, 15, 17 4

get + O+ p.p. 14, 17 12, 17, 25 2

Total 32

As suggested in Table 9, more test items were allocated to the active causative constructions than to the passive ones (i.e., 25 vs. 9). This disproportion was due to several reasons. First, the use of the make + O. +p.p. construction is limited in American English (

fewer test items for this construction reflected its low frequency in English. Second, the passive have- and get-causative verb constructions share some semantic features with their active counterparts (i.e., professional services encoded by the have-causative; a sense of difficulty implied by the get-causative). Too many test items for these passive constructions would be superfluous. Moreover, when the have- and the get-causatives take past participles, differences between them become subtle. The pre- and post-tests were intended to include test items that highlight differences between the two constructions.

Design of the Test Items for Meaning and Use

To further explain the design of the second sections of the pre- and post-tests, below are detailed explanations of the test items designed for the meanings and uses of the target causative constructions.

The make+ O+ V construction. There were seven test items designed for the

make+ O+ V structure in each test: four were intended to test the participants on the coercive sense of the make + O + V construction (see Table 10) and the others on the non-coercive sense (see Table 11).

Table 10. Test Items for the make+ O+ V construction (Coercive Sense) PRE Johnny hates all kinds of vegetables. Last evening, his father

shouted at him and (4a) made him (4b) X eat some spinach. He was really upset.

1

Pair

POST Peggy hates doing homework very much. Yesterday evening, her

parents yelled at her and (5a) made her (5b) X do her math

homework assignments. She felt extremely upset.

PRE Ana: Ms. Allen, I don’t want to work in a group.

Ms. Allen: (in a serious tone of voice) Well, you don’t have a choice. Find your group members right now!

Summary: She (19a) made Ana (20b) X work in a group.

2

Pair

POST Tina: Ms. Alllen, I don’t want to do this listening exercise.

Ms. Allen: (with a serious look on his face) You have no choice.

Go back to your seat and do the exercise right now!

Summary: She (22a) made Tina (23b) X do the exercise.

PRE Ms. Allen: Pablo, you can rewrite this composition, but only if you want to.

Pablo: Thank you, Ms. Allen.

Summary: She didn’t (21a) make (22b) X Pablo rewrite his composition.

3

Pair

POST Sara: The answer is 5.34.

Mrs. Smith: No. You can try again to get it right, but only if you want to.

Summary: Mrs. Smith didn’t (19a) make Sara (20b) X try again.

PRE (From an article about how a public station tries to get listeners to contribute)…. Everyone can listen to public radio for free. If you are not willing to pay for radio service, no one can (28a) make you (30b) X pay for it….

4

Pair

POST (From an article about how charities try to get people to donate money) ….If you are asked to donate money at your job, keep in mind that it is voluntary; no one can (32a) make you (30b) X give….

Note. PRE stands for pre-test and POST for post-test

Table 10 presents four pairs of test items for the make-causative of coercion. In the first two pairs, expressions such as “hate”, “upset” and “I don’t want to…” suggest the causee’s unwillingness to perform the intended result. Despite the causee’s unwillingness, however, the caused event was still achieved through coercive actions such as shouting, yelling, speaking in a serious tone or putting on a serious look.

While the first two pairs of test items are embedded in affirmative sentences which

indicate the use of coercion in effecting the intended result, the other two are in

negative sentences which negate the use of force. In the third pair, the expression “but only if you want to” suggests that the teacher did not exert any force upon her students.

Several contextual clues for the forth pair of test items also indicate the negation of coercion, including “if you are not willing to pay for radio service, no one can…” and

“If you are asked to donate money at your job, keep in mind that it is voluntary; no one can…”. All the contextual clues necessitate the use of the make-causative to encode the coercive sense or the negation of the coercive sense.

Table 11. Test Items for the make+ O+ V construction (Non-Coercive Sense) PRE Cool colors such as green and blue can (1a) make a room (1b) X

look as if it is larger and more spacious.

1

Pair

POST Warm colors such as orange and yellow can (8a) make your bedroom (8b) X seem much smaller than it actually is.

PRE Studying abroad (6a) makes me (6b) X realize the importance of friends and family in my life.

2

Pair

POST The things my friend said yesterday (6a) made me (6b) X wonder if she is in some kind of trouble.

PRE Interrupting people's speech is not a good habit. It (9a) makes people (9b) X forget what they originally wanted to say.

3

Pair

POST (From an article about the writer’s math teacher)

As she always says, “Calculators (26a) make students (26b) X forget how to add two plus two!”

In addition to the sense of coercion, the make-causative is also frequently used to

encode non-coercive situations where the causer acts as a stimulus which triggers a

change of state in the causee. As can be seen in Table 11, the causer in each test item

functions as a stimulus rather than an agent, ranging from “cool colors”, “warm

colors”, “studying abroad”, “the things my friend said yesterday”, “interrupting

people’s speech” and “calculators”. The caused event consists of a spontaneous

response to the stimulus in the causer slot (i.e., “look as if…”, “seem much smaller

than…”, “realize…”, “wonder…”, and “forget…”).

The have + O+ V construction. A total of six test items were designed for the

have + O+ V construction in each test. Of the six test items, three were intended to test the participants on the use of this construction to encode the frame of service where the causee provides a professional service for the causer. As shown in Table 12, the causee in each test item (i.e., translator, architect, secretary and travel agent) serves as a cooperative performer of the causer’s will. No sense of effort or coercion is implied.

Table 12. Test Items for the have + O+ V construction

PRE The contract had to be detailed and its wording had to be absolutely correct. Therefore, I (8a) had the translator (8b) X recheck his work to make sure there would be no mistakes.

1

Pair

POST The blueprint for this new shopping mall had to be absolutely correct.

Therefore, I (4a) had the architect (4b) X double-check his work to see if there were any mistakes.

PRE In order not to be bothered by unwanted callers, Mr. Brown always (10a) has his secretary (10b) X screen incoming calls.

2

Pair

POST Mr. Smith had a bad cold last week. In order to take a good rest, he (7a) had his secretary (7b) X cancel all his meetings.

PRE (From a conversation between Barbara and her personal assistant) Barbara: Judy, I’m scheduled to present at a conference in Berlin.

Please (23a) have the travel agent (23b) X book me a round-tip ticket to Berlin…

3

Pair

POST Mr. Brown is taking a business trip to Japan, so he (9a) have his travel agent (9b) X book him a flight to Japan and reserve a hotel room there.

The other three pairs of test items were designed to test the participants on the

use of this structure to describe a routine activity in which a relation of authority is

implied, as shown in Table 13. Because of this hierarchical relation, the causer can

assign the causee to do a particular task simply by conveying his or her will to the

causee. The hierarchical relation ranges from teacher-students, station-volunteers,

adults-children and charities-volunteers.

Table 13. Test Items for the have + O+ V construction (continued)

PRE Mrs. O.: Robert, there are several mistakes in your homework. I’d like you to correct these mistakes by tomorrow.

Robert: OK. I’ll give you my revised homework tomorrow.

Summary: She (20a) had Robert (20b) X do his homework over.

4

Pair

POST Ms. Allen: Fernando, you didn’t hand in your homework assignment today. I’d like you to give it to me tomorrow.

Fernando: Sure, Mr. Allen. I’ll do that.

Summary: Ms. Allen (18a) had Fernando (18b) X hand in his assignment.

PRE (From an article about how a public station tries to get listeners to contribute)…The station managers (26a) have us (i.e. volunteers) (26b) X answer the phones when listeners call to contribute…

5

Pair

POST (From an article about how charities try to get people to donate money)…The station also (32a) has volunteers (32b) X answer phone calls from those who would like to make a donation…

PRE (From an article about different ideas of how to raise children)

…In some cultures, people usually (30a) have slightly older children (30b) X help take care of their younger brothers and sister…

6

Pair

POST (From an article about how charities try to get people to donate money)…Also, some charities usually (31a) have volunteers (31b) X stand at public places such as train stations with a can or box, asking passers-by for donations…

Overall, the test items presented in Table 12 and Table 13 encode effortless causation where the causer expends minimal energy to archive the intended result.

The get + O+ to V construction. A total of six pairs of test items were designed

to examine if the participants were aware of the core meaning of the get + O+ to V construction. As discussed in Chapter Two, this construction conveys the sense that some sort of difficulty or effort is involved in achieving the intended result. Moreover, it suggests a change in the causee from the state of unwillingness to willingness.

Table 14 presents the first four pairs of test items designed for the get + O+ to V

construction.

Table 14. Test Items for the get + O+ to V construction

PRE My students dislike English so much that it took me a long time to (3a) get them (3b) to enjoy my class.

1

Pair

POST (From an article about the writer’s math teacher)…I am sure it will take Mrs. Geller a long while to (28a) get me (28b) to enjoy math. If she could help me build confidence in math, that would really be an accomplishment…

PRE My cousin has decided to drop out of school. He is so determined that no matter how hard we tried, we were still unable to (5a) get him (5b) to change his mind.

2

Pair

POST (From a conversation between two TV executives)

Jack: …The national networks think that soccer has only a few fans.

How likely do you think it is that we can (25a) get them (25b) to change their minds?

PRE Debbie's husband hates any opera. But after days of nagging, she finally (7a) got him (7b) X go see The Phantom of the Opera.

3

Pair

POST My mom dislikes any kind of outdoor activities. But after days of nagging, we finally (2a) got her (2b) X go hiking in Mt. Yang-Ming.

PRE Ms. Allen: Jean, put the tip of your tongue between your teeth and say “th -, thorn.”

Jean: “th-thorn.”

Ms. Allen: Yes! That’s it!

Summary: Ms. Allen finally (22a) got Jean (22b) to pronounce the English th- sound.

4

Pair

POST Ms. Chen: David, place your top front teeth against your bottom lip and say “f-, fruit.”

David: “f- fruit.”

Mrs. O.: Good! That’s it!

Summary: Ms. Chen finally (21a) got David (21b) to pronounce the word “fruit.”

As can be seen from the above table, the first three pairs of test items contain

expressions that suggest the sense of difficulty and effort. Below are the key phrases

which necessitate the use of the get-causative in each test item: (1) “it took me a long

time to…” and “it will take Mrs. Geller a long while to…” in the 1

pair, (2) “we were

still unable to…” and “how likely do you think it is that…” in the 2

pair, and (3)

“after days of nagging” in the 3

pair. These expressions indicate extra time or difficulty involved in achieving the intended result.

Similarly, the 4

pair of test items in Table 14 focuses on the causer’s efforts to achieve the intended result. The teacher in each conversation (i.e., Ms. Allen or Ms.

Chen) put some effort into teaching her student how to pronounce a word.

Expressions like “that’s it” and “finally” further imply some sort of difficulty involved.

Therefore, even though this pair of test items involves a hierarchical relation between the causer and the causee (i.e., teacher-student), the get-causative is still preferred over the have-causative to summarize the teaching process.

Table 15 displays the remaining test items for the get + O + to V construction.

Table 15. Test Items for the get + O+ to V construction (continued)

PRE To (27a) get listeners (27b) to contribute willingly, the station offers some prizes.

5

Pair

POST (From a conversation between two TV executives)

Jack: People have stopped watching our Saturday afternoon sports show. How can we (23a) get more viewers (23b) to watch on

Saturdays? Perhaps we should offer different sports programs. I think everyone is tired of football and baseball.

PRE (From an article about different ideas of how to raise children)

…In the United States, most parents prefer to (31a) get a child (31b) to behave well by persuasion rather than force…

6

Pair

POST (From an article about how charities try to get people to donate money)…But it is not always easy to (29a) get people (29b) to donate money willingly...

As mentioned in Chapter Two, the get-causative often involves the use of

persuasion in achieving the intended result. That is, the causer expends some effort to

persuade the causee to take on his or her will (i.e., a change from the state of

unwillingness to perform the intended result to willingness). Sometimes verbal

persuasion is accompanied by an offer of inducements. In the last two pairs of test

items in Table 15, several expressions provide the contextual clues for the use of the

get-causative construction, including “willingly”, “offers some prizes”, “how can we…”,“we should offer different sports programs, “by persuasion” and “not always easy”.

Overall, the six pairs of test items were designed to test the participants on the use of the get + O + to V construction to encode the effortful causation where the causer expends some time and effort to accomplish the intended result.

The let + O+ V construction. A total of five pairs of test items were designed to

test the participants on the permissive sense denoted by the let-causative construction.

Table 16 presents the first two pairs of the test items for this construction.

Table 16. Test Items for the let + O+ V construction

PRE Diane thinks television is a waste of time, so she doesn’t (2a) let her children (2b) X watch TV.

1

Pair

POST I love sweets but Mom doesn’t (1a) let me (1b) X have them very often.

PRE Delia: Can we use our calculators during the math exam?

Mrs. O.: Absolutely not.

Summary: She didn’t (18a) let her students (18b) X use a calculator.

2

Pair

POST Marta: Can we use our dictionaries during the test?

Ms. Allen: Of course not. You should be able to guess the meaning from context.

Summary: She didn’t (20a) let her students (20b) X use a dictionary during the test.

Overall, the let-causative construction conveys the sense that the causer refrains

from preventing the caused event from happening. Negation of the let-causative

suggests that the causer stops the causee from performing the caused event. As can be

seen from the above table, the 1

pair of the test items is embedded in a context where

the causer does not remove her authoritative obstacle to the activity the causee would

like to do (i.e., watch TV or have sweets). Similarly, the 2

pair is embedded in a

context where the causer does not open the way for the causee to perform the intended

activity. The modal verb can in the student’s utterance (i.e., can we use…) was used to ask for permission. This request, however, was rejected by the teacher (i.e., absolutely not and of course not). Therefore, the 2

pair of the test items requires the negative let-causative statements to summarize the short conversations discussed above.

Table 17 shows the 3

and 4

pairs of test items for the let + O + V construction.

Table 17. Test Items for the let + O+ V construction (continued)

PRE (From a conversation between Barbara and her personal assistant) Barbara: Oh, I also need to cancel classes for the next week. Please ask the work-study student to inform my students of the canceled classes. I’ll (25a) let you (25a) X take care of the rest of the details.

3

Pair

POST (From a conversation between two TV executives)

Anders: I think we should (24a) let our viewers (24b) X decide which sports we televise. Why don’t we ask our viewing audience to write us letters?

PRE (From an article about different ideas of how to raise children) You rarely see parents spank their children in public, and schools do not (32a) let teachers (32b) X use physical punishment as discipline.

4

Pair

POST (From an article about the writer’s math teacher)

…She even (27a) let us (27b) X call her at home whenever we have questions…

As shown in Table 17, the 3

pair of the test items is embedded in a context

where the causer opens the way for the causee to have a freedom of choice with

regard to how to perform the caused event. Item 26 on the pre-test encodes a situation

where a female researcher gives her personal assistant permission to handle the rest of

the details in her own way. Item 25 on the posttest describes a situation where a TV

executive suggests opening the way for viewers to decide which sports they should

televise. The 4

pair is also embedded in a context where the causer has the power or

ability to prevent the caused event from happening. In the case of Item 32 on the

pretest, schools do not open the way for teachers to use physical punishment as

discipline. In the case of Item 27 on the posttest, the teacher allows her students to call

her at home whenever they have questions. All the test items require the let-causative.

Table 18 displays the last pair of test item for the let-causative construction.

Table 18. Test Items for the let + O+ V construction (continued)

PRE (From an article about different ideas of how to raise children)

…But in other cultures people insist that a mother ignore her baby when it is crying. They think if you do not (31a) let a baby (31b) X cry, it will become spoiled…

5

Pair

POST Some believe if you always pick up and try to stop a crying baby you are in danger of spoiling them, while others think if you (3a) let a baby (3b) X cry you are neglecting them.

As indicated in the above table, the 5

pair was designed to test the participants’

awareness of the use of the let-causative in situations where the causer has the ability to prevent the continuation of the caused event, i.e. to prevent or not to prevent a crying baby from continuing crying. Of the four causatives, only the let-causative can co-occur with the caused event that is already happening.

The make+ O+ p.p. construction. There were two pairs of test items designed

for the make+ O+ p.p. construction. The items were intended to test the participants on the limited uses of this construction. This construction conveys the sense that the causer successfully produces a signal perceptible to the unmentioned causee. As shown in Table 19, the two pairs of the test items contain the past participial complements that the make-causative frequently takes (i.e., heard and understood).

Table 19. Test Items for the make+ O+ p.p. construction

PRE It is very noisy here. I have to shout to (12) make myself heard by all the people in this room.

1

Pair

POST Newborn babies can quickly learn to (11) make themselves heard through coos, babbles, laughs and cries.

PRE Communication is difficult but I can still (16) make myself understood in some ways.

2

Pair

POST Sue is not a proficient English learner, but she can still (14) make

herself understood to foreigners in English.

The have + O+ p.p. construction. A total of four pairs of test items were

designed for the have + O+ p.p. construction. This construction is often used to encode the frame of service, as shown in Table 20.

Table 20. Test Items for the have+ O+ p.p. construction

PRE My father usually goes to the dental clinic to (12) have his teeth checked twice a year.

1

Pair

POST My grandma usually goes to the hospital and (10) has her blood pressure taken.

PRE Judy used to have long hair, but she (16) had her hair cut short several days ago.

2

Pair

POST There was something wrong with my car, so I went to the car repair place to (13) have it fixed this morning.

PRE Mrs. Smith has been bothered by really bad sore throats.

Therefore, she decided to (14) have her tonsils removed.

3

Pair

POST Mr. Smith has been suffering from a terrible toothache. Therefore, he decided to (17) have the tooth extracted as soon as possible.

PRE (From a conversation between Barbara and her personal assistant)

Barbara: Yes, please (25) have my red suit pressed and my black coat cleaned. And be sure my bags are ready to go by morning.

4

Pair

POST (Mr. Chandler is talking to his personal assistant)

“Mr. Brown is asking for this expense report. Please (15) have it delivered to him by next week.”

The first three pairs are used to describe situations where the causer arranges for the unmentioned causee (usually on payment) to provide a professional service for him or her, i.e. to have his teeth checked, has her blood pressure taken, had her hair cut short, have it (car) fixed, have her tonsils removed, and have the tooth extracted.

The last pair describes a face-to-face communication, where one is requesting his or her personal assistant to perform a particular task.

Like the have + O+ p.p. construction, the get + O + p.p. construction is often

used to encode service frame situations. Therefore, the get-causative can also be an

acceptable answer to the first two pairs of test items. However, the get-causative may not be the most appropriate answer to the other test items. For one thing, the embedded-passive get-causative construction is used mainly in informal spoken English (Gilguin, 2003; Murphy & Altman, 1989; Werner & Spaventa, 2002). The have-causative is therefore preferred over the get-causative to be used with the more formal words therefore, remove and extract in the 3

pair of test items. For another, the get-causative is a stronger verb than the have-causative. Use of the get-causative in the 4

pair may sound like an order rather than a request.

The get + O+ p.p. construction. This construction tends to be used when some

sort of effort or difficulty is involved in achieving the intended result.

Table 21 presents the two pairs of test items for the get + O + p.p. construction.

Table 21. Test Items for the get+ O+ p.p. construction

PRE Judy was a miserable composer. She never managed to (15) get her symphonies played.

1

Pair

POST Bryant was a frustrated writer. He was never able to (18) get his books published.

PRE Some people believe that if they don’t work eight hours a day, they won’t (18) get everything done.

2

Pair

POST Many of us live our lives as if the only purpose is to (12) get everything done. We stay up late, get up early and avoid having fun.

As shown in Table 21, the 1

pair contain several expressions which imply the sense of difficulty and therefore necessitate the use of the get-causative, including miserable, never managed to, frustrated and was never able to. Similarly, the 2

pair suggests some sort of effort in reaching the intended goals. Moreover, the two items were obtained from a spoken data, where the get-causative is often used.

2 The researcher asked some native speakers of American English about the possible answers to Item 25 on the pretest and Item 15 on the posttest. Most of them preferred to use the have-causative. One native speaker indicated that “basically ‘get’ is a stronger verb than ‘have’ and in most instances unless you're demanding something it’s best to use ‘have’ more as it sounds more respectful to your

subordinates.”

To sum up, this section has presented a detailed account of the design of each test item for meaning and use. To ensure the validity of the pre- and post-tests, a native speaker of American English was invited to proofread all the test items and to provide baseline data. Moreover, on the question sheets given to the participants, difficult words were followed by a Chinese equivalent in parentheses to avoid the possibility that the choice of causative verb was influenced by the failure to understand the language.

Questionnaires

Two questionnaires were devised, with one for the control group and the other for the experimental group (see Appendix H & I). Both questionnaires consisted of three sections. The first section was mainly concerned with the students’ participation of the study. Those who failed to complete all phases of the study (i.e., pre-test, two teaching periods and post-test) were excluded from data analysis. The second section aimed to explore the participants’ past learning experience of each causative verb construction under discussion. The participants were guided to provide information with regard to the following two aspects: (1) whether they had received instruction in the target causative verb constructions before the instructional treatment, and (2) what they knew about the causative verb constructions that they had studied before.

While the two questionnaires were identical in the first two sections, they were

different in their presentation of the last section. The last section was designed to

investigate each group’s attitudes toward the effectiveness of the instructional

treatment they received. The control group was asked to evaluate the extent to which

the instructional treatment helped them understand and memorize the target forms. On

the other hand, the experimental group was asked to provide responses to the

following three issues. First, they were asked to determine the extent to which the

revised instruction improved their understanding of the meaning contrasts among the

causative verb constructions. Then, they were guided to indicate the causative verb(s) whose meaning(s) became clearer after the two instructional periods. Finally, they were required to evaluate the extent to which the revised instruction helped them understand and remember the form of the constructions under discussion. Those questions that required the participants to rate the helpfulness of the instruction were developed into five-scale point items where 5 corresponded to “very helpful” and 1 to

“not helpful at all”.

Results derived from the two questionnaires were intended to supplement and explain those from the pre- and post-tests. They were also utilized to ensure no significant differences between the control and experimental groups in terms of their past learning experience of causative verb constructions.

Procedures of the Quasi-Experiment

In the following sections, procedures of the quasi-experiment will be discussed from three stages: before, during and after the instructional treatments.

Before the Instructional Treatments

Before the instructional treatments, the pre-test was administered to the control and the experimental group on December 4

, 2006 to ensure the homogeneity of the two groups. The researcher first provided clear and explicit instructions to familiarize each participant with the intended way of answering each type of questions. The purpose of this step was to ensure reliability of the test (Hughes, 2003, p. 47). Second, the researcher reminded the participants to raise questions whenever they encountered unknown words with no Chinese equivalent provided in parentheses

. This was to avoid the possibility that causative verb choice was influenced by their difficulty with the language. The participants were given thirty minutes for the pre-test. They were not provided with answers to the pre-test after handing in their question sheets.

3 Question sheets also provide Chinese equivalents of difficult words.

During the Instructional Treatments

Around three weeks after the pre-test, two different instructional treatments were given to the control and experimental groups over two class meetings on two different days, 35 minutes each time, as shown in Table 22.

Table 22. Schedule for the instructional treatments

Control Group Experimental Group 1

Meeting

on Dec. 21, 2006 (35 minutes)

make / have / let + O + V get + O + to V

make / have / let + O + V get + O + to V

A Review of the constructions presented in the 1

meeting

A Review of the constructions presented in the 1

meeting 2

Meeting

on Dec. 25, 2006

(35 minutes) have / get / make + O + p.p. have / get / make + O + p.p.

The purpose of arranging 70 minutes of instruction over two different days was to provide the participants with enough time to digest the presented constructions.

Although the total instructional time was limited, it was assumed to be sufficient for the purpose of the study. For one thing, the seven constructions in Table 22 were not totally new to the participants. They had received instruction in some of the constructions (i.e., make/ have/ let + O+ V) in their junior high schools. Longer period of treatment would bore the participants in the control group with tedious rules and examples. For another, the quasi-experiment aimed to examine the instructional effects on the participants’ receptive knowledge rather than productive knowledge of causative verb constructions. It was therefore supposed that 70 minutes of instruction could have some effects on the participants’ recognition knowledge.

Throughout the instructional periods, the control and the experimental group

were taught by the researcher herself with different teaching materials (see Appendix

A, B, D, & E) and methods. The control group received causative verb instruction

designed on the basis of the three English textbook series and their teacher’s manuals.

Instructional routines were as follows: (1) simultaneous presentation of syntactically similar or identical forms, (2) presentation of isolated examples, (3) special attention to the syntactic similarities or differences between the target causative constructions, (4) the use of incomplete Chinese equivalents to explain the semantics of the target constructions, and (5) students’ practice with form. These routines were incorporated into the treatment for the control group.

During the 1

class meeting, the researcher first presented the sentence patterns in (4) to the control group and drew their attention to the verbal complement each causative takes, i.e. the make-, have- and let-causatives are followed by bare-infinitive complements, while the get-causative by to-infinitive ones.

(4) make/ have / let + O. + V.

get + O. + to V.

The control group was later given Chinese equivalents of the four causative verb constructions: the Chinese causative ‘rang’ for the let-causative, ‘shi’ for the make-causative, ‘jiao’ and ‘shi’ for the have-causative, and ‘shi’ for the get-causative.

Next, the participants were guided to read the isolated examples sentences of the presented constructions and were asked to do several structural pattern drills.

Teaching procedure for the 2

class meeting was similar to the one for the 1

class meeting except for the addition of a review of the above four constructions. The review session was given at the beginning of the 2

class meeting and was intended to prepare the participants for the sentence patterns in (5).

(5) make/ have/ get + O. + p.p.

During the 2

class meeting, special attention was given to the respective conditions

under which causatives take infinitive and past participle complements, i.e. whether

the object slot is occupied by the agent or recipient of the action encoded in the complement. After the presentation stage, the control group was guided to do structural drills of all the instructed constructions.

On the other hand, the experimental group received grammar instruction which focused primarily on the differences among the target causative constructions in terms of meaning and use. During the 1

class meeting, the researcher first drew the participants’ attention to the major distinction between the permissive causative let and the other three causatives. Their awareness of the permissive sense of the let-causative was further reinforced through reading example sentences on the handout, such as the one in (6).

(6) Sam really wanted a dog, but his parents wouldn't let him keep a pet.

After the instruction in the let-causative, the participants received instruction in the make-causative. They were guided to examine two sets of example sentences of the make-causative: one for the sense of ‘coercion’ and the other for ‘non-coercion’, as in (7) and (8), respectively.

(7) Can you believe it? Sue's mother always makes her practice the piano ten hours a day. That's crazy, isn’t it?

(8) Jolin is a sentimental person. Sad movies always make her cry.

Since the make-causative sentences such as the one in (8) are often translated into

‘rang’ sentences in Chinese, special attention was given to the difference between the

let-causative in English and the ‘rang’ causative in Chinese. The participants were

reminded not to misuse the let-causative for the make-causative to describe situations

where the causer-event caused a state in the causee.

The researcher further highlighted the semantic differences between the have- and get-causative constructions in the active voice. The have-causative is used to encode the effortless causation where the intended result is frequently achieved through payment services or established hierarchical relations between the causer and the causee. On the other hand, the get-causative is used to encode the effortful causation where some difficulty or effort is involved in achieving the intended result.

At the end of the 1

teaching period, the researcher gave a summary of the form, meaning and use of each target construction and asked the participants to complete a short passage using the causative most appropriate to the context (see Appendix D).

With the knowledge of the different uses of the four embedded-active causative constructions from the 1

class meeting, the participants moved on to receive instruction in the three embedded-passive causative constructions (i.e., make/ have/

get + O. +p.p.). At the beginning of the 2

class meeting, a warm-up activity was conducted to review what was covered in the 1

class meeting. The participants were presented with eight incomplete sentences (see Appendix E) and were asked to complete each sentence with the most appropriate causative.

After the review session, the researcher guided the experimental group to read the example sentences of the embedded-passive have- and get-causative structures.

This group was further provided with functional explications of the two structures.

That is, both structures are often used to encode the service frame. However, the e-passive get-causative structure is used primarily in informal spoken English and is preferred over the e-passive have-causative when some difficulty or effort is implied.

The participants were also given an account of the restricted uses of the e-passive

make-causative construction (e.g., make myself heard, make myself understood) (see

Appendix E). Like the 1

class meeting, the 2

class meeting also ended with a

summary of the form, meaning and use of each target structure and some exercises for

the participants to practice choosing the most appropriate causatives.

In sum, the control group was given causative verb instruction which put primary emphasis on form (henceforth referred to as form-based causative instruction), while the experimental group received instruction which focused on meaning and use (henceforth referred to as meaning-based causative instruction).

After the Instructional Treatments

Immediately after the second instructional period, the post-test was administered to both groups. Like the pre-test, the post-test also took thirty minutes.

After the post-test question sheets were collected, both groups were asked to fill in a short questionnaire about their past learning experience and their attitudes toward the causative verb instruction.

Moreover, several interviews were conducted after the instructional treatments. A total of 15 participants were selected from the experimental group for interview. They were asked to provide reasons for their choices of causative verbs, especially those that were different from the intended answers. The interview responses were expected to help explain the experimental group’s posttest performance.

Data Analysis Procedures

Data of this present study were collected from two major sources: (1) the instructional materials and (2) the quasi-experiment. The following two sections will address specific procedures of analyzing the data collected from these two sources.

Instructional Materials

Each textbook series was analyzed qualitatively in terms of its presentation and

practice of causative verb constructions in the grammar activities. Moreover, each

series was examined both qualitatively and quantitatively to investigate the correlation

between grammar activities and textbook texts. This analysis was motivated by the

fact that input plays an important role in language acquisition. As pointed out by Ellis

(2002), “learners acquire new grammatical structures when they encounter them in input, take them in and incorporate them into their existing inter-language system” (p.

166). Senior High School English Curriculum Standards also states that target grammatical structures should be selected from textbook texts (MOE, 2006).

Therefore, the grammar activities designed for causative verb constructions were compared with the input that textbook texts provide for the constructions to ascertain whether there was a close linkage between the two. Quantitatively, the total number of practice sentences of a given causative construction was compared with its total number of occurrences in the reading and conversation texts in each textbook series.

Moreover, a qualitative comparison was drawn between the meanings and uses of causative constructions practiced in the grammar activities and those occurring in the textbook texts.

The other type of instructional materials under analysis was teacher’s manuals.

Data obtained from each set of teacher’s manuals were analyzed qualitatively to determine whether they provide senior high English teachers with sufficient linguistic information of both form and meaning/ use of causative verb constructions.

Quasi-Experiment

Both the pre- and post-tests consisted of two sections. The two sections were designed to test the participants on the form and meaning/use of each tested causative construction, respectively. For the first section, a point was given when the participants completed each sentence with the correct form of the verb in parentheses.

Total scores for the first section were fourteen points. As for the second section, a

native speaker of American English was invited to provide baseline answers to the test

question. The participants were given a point as long as they completed each sentence

with the causative most appropriate to the context. Common mistakes such as the use

of wrong tense were ignored in the scoring.

The scores collected from the pre- and post-tests were analyzed quantitatively using SPSS 14.0

to assess and compare the effectiveness of the form-based and the meaning-based instruction in promoting the learning of causative verb constructions.

Several t-tests were applied to the mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the pre-test and post-test to compare inter- and intra-group differences. The inter-group comparisons were made using the Independent Sample T Tests and the intra-group comparisons using the Paired Samples T Test. To further investigate the effectiveness of the two instructional treatments, calculations were made of the percentages of correct answers to the test items for each group. The accuracy rates as well as the t-test results were expected to provide a clear picture of how the two groups performed on the pre- and posttests.

As for the analysis of the questionnaires, the qualitative data from the open-ended questions about past learning experience were categorized and quantified.

The quantitative data, on the other hand, were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies and ratio. The questionnaire results were intended to provide information on the two groups’ past learning experience and on their attitudes toward the effectiveness of the instructional treatments.

The interview data were transcribed in Chinese and then translated into English by the researcher. The data were analyzed qualitatively to explore possible reasons underlying the experimental group’s choices of incorrect answers to the posttest tests.

4 SPSS 14.0 refers to Statistical Package for Social Science version 14.0 for Windows.