Variable Production of English Past Tense Marking by L1 Thai Learners: An Application of the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH)

Article Sidebar

Published: Jan 1, 2014

Main Article Content

Montira Khumdee
Nattama Pongpairoj

Abstract

In second language acquisition research, it is well-attested that production of functional morphology, e.g. tense and agreement, by L2 learners is variable. The present study examined whether variability exists in production of English past tense marking by L1 Thai speakers. It was hypothesized that variable use of English past tense marking would be observed and that the phenomenon can be accounted for by the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH) (e.g. Franceschina, 2001; Hawkins & Chan, 1997; Hawkins & Liszka, 2003), but not by the Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis (MSIH) (e.g., Lardiere, 1998; Prévost & White, 2000; White, 2003). Three tests, namely Grammaticality Judgment Test, Cloze Test, and Story-telling, were administered to 40 L1 Thai learners: 20 intermediate and 20 advanced learners. The results showed that L1 Thai speakers exhibited variability in their production of English past tense marking across the three tests. Additionally, an asymmetric rate of suppliance of past tense marking was observed. It was found that regular verbs were past-marked less frequently than irregular verbs by both proficiency groups. The suppliance rate of English past tense marking by the two L1 Thai proficiency groups was also higher when adverbial phrases of time indicating pastness were present. The low suppliances of past morphemes including both the representation and the production tasks, and the asymmetric phenomena confirmed the two hypotheses, hence, supporting the FFFH but confounding the MSIH.

Article Details

Issue
No. 1 (2014): Thoughts 2014
Section
Articles

Copyright by the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.

Photocopying is allowed for internal, non-commercial use only. Photocopying for other uses or for purposes other than indicated must be permitted in writing from the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.

All views or conclusion are those of the authors of the articles and not necessarily those of the publisher or the editorial staff.
Author Biographies

Montira Khumdee

Montira Khumdee received a bachelor’s degree in English from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mahasarakham University and an MA in English from the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University. Currently, she is a lecturer at the Department of English, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University. Her academic areas of interest include second language acquisition, interlanguage analysis and syntax.

Nattama Pongpairoj

Nattama Pongpairoj received her B.A. (English) (first-class honors) from Chulalongkorn University, M.A. (Linguistics) from the University of Oregon, and Ph.D. (Linguistics) from the University of York.  She is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University. Her research interests include interlanguage and L2 acquisition of functional morphology.

References

Bayley, R. (1991). Variation theory and second language learning: Linguistic and social constraints on interlanguage tense marking. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Beck, M-L. (1997). Regular verbs, past tense and frequency: Tracking down a potential source of NS/NNS competence differences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 93-115.

Bley-Vroman, R.W. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41-68.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.

Clahsen, H. (1989). Parametrized grammatical theory and language acquisition: A study of the acquisition of verb placement and inflection by children and adults. In Flynn, S. and O’Neil,W., (eds.) Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 47–75.

Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research 2, 93-119.

Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research 17, 213–47.

Hawkins, R. & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research, 13, 187-226.

Hawkins, R. & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A.,Kuiken, F. and Towell, R., (eds) The Lexicon–Syntax Interface in Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–44.

Hawkins, R. (2000). Persistent selective fossilization in second language acquisition and the optimal design of the language faculty. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 48, 243-263.

Haznedar, B. & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M. & Greenhill, A., (eds)

Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on

Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 257–68.

Ionin, T. & Wexler, K. (2002). Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’? Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research, 18, 95-136.

Iwasaki, S. & Ingkaphirom, P. (2005). A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, E.C., Stoyneshka, I., Adams, K., Rose, T., Pugach, Y., & Solt, S., (2004). Past tense affixation in L2 English: The effects of lexical aspect and perceptual salience. Poster presented at the 28th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent endstate grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–75.

Lekawatana, P., Littell, J., Palmer, J., Scovel, T., & Spenser, S. (1968). A contrastive study of English and Thai. Bangkok: English Language Center.

Noochoochai, P. (1985). Temporal aspect in Thai and English: A contrastive analysis. Ann, Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International.

Pongpairoj, Nattama. (2002). Thai university undergraduates' errors in English writing. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 20, 66–99.

Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment insecond language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16, 103–33.

Smith, N. & Tsimpli, I-M. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Supavanich, I (1973). Tenses in Thai. Unpublished master’s thesis for master’s degree, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Suwattee, D. (1974). Some problems encountered by Thai students in the learning of English verbs. PASAA, 6, (2), 51-65.

Tajika, H. (1999). Variable patterns of tense/aspect marking in interlanguage. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production: Beyond the representational deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second Language Research 23 (3), 289–327.

White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6, 129–141.

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.