Task Design in L2 Tense and Aspect Research: What matters?

Nicole Tracy-VenturaLaura Dominguez

University of Southampton

Contact email: N.Tracy-Ventura@soton.ac.uk

Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpus Project

Collaboration between the Universities of Southampton, Newcastle, and Greenwich.

Additional Team Members: Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles, and María Arche Tim Boardman, web design and IT support

Previous Projects: SPLLOC 1 (www.splloc.soton.ac.uk) FLLOC (www.flloc.soton.ac.uk)

SPLLOC 2

Main Goal: to test the validity of the Aspect and the Discourse Hypotheses with reference to the acquisition of perfective and imperfective forms in L2 Spanish.

Relevant features:

1. Cross-sectional design with native speaker controls

2. A combination of different task types

3. Data available online for use by other researchersAudio files (mp3 & .wav)

Transcripts (CHILDES)

Tagged files (MOR)

Perfective and Imperfective forms in Spanish Perfective (preterit): bounded

Llegué tarde. (I arrived late.) Preparaste el almuerzo. (You prepared lunch.) Ella pintó. (She painted).

Imperfective (imperfect): unbounded Llegaba tarde. (I would arrive late/was arriving late) Ella preparaba el almuerzo cuando … (She was

preparing lunch when…) Estaban cansados. (They were tired)

SPLLOC 2 Research Questions:

1. Emergence: What is the pattern of Tense-Aspect development of English L2 learners of Spanish?

2. AH VS DH: Can the observed pattern be accounted for by the Aspect Hypothesis, the Discourse Hypothesis, or both?

3. Acquisition of Imperfective Semantic meanings: Which reading is the imperfect associated with in the first place (habitual, continuous, progressive)?

L2 Tense and Aspect Research

Various hypotheses proposed to explain the L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. For example: Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1994,1996) Discourse Hypothesis (Bardovi-Harlig, 1998) Default Past Tense Hypothesis (Salaberry, 1999, 2008) Distributional Bias Hypothesis (Andersen, 1994) Minimalist Hypothesis (Montrul & Slabakova, 2002)

Despite a large body of research, still several issues to be resolved: Inconclusive results when comparing competing hypotheses

(AH vs. DH). Acquisition of the imperfective has not been adequately

addressed (Bardovi-Harlig, 2005).

Aspect Hypothesis(Andersen & Shirai, 1994, 1996)

Perfective and Imperfective morphology emerge in a sequence determined by the inherent semantic properties of the verbal predicate

Achievements (recognize, wake up) Accomplishments (build a house, write a

letter) Activities (swim, walk, sing) States (be, want, love)

Telic

Atelic

Aspect Hypothesis predictions for Spanish

PERFECTIVE: ACH – ACC – ACT – STA

telic atelic

IMPERFECTIVE: STA – ACT – ACC – ACH

atelic telic

Prototypical Pairings: acquired first

PERFECTIVE: ACH – ACC – ACT – STA

telic atelic

IMPERFECTIVE: STA – ACT – ACC – ACH

atelic telic

Non-Prototypical Pairings: acquired later

PERFECTIVE: ACH – ACC – ACT – STA

telic atelic

IMPERFECTIVE: STA – ACT – ACC – ACH

atelic telic

Discourse Hypothesis(Bardovi-Harlig 1998)

L2 learners’ use of temporal-aspectual forms is guided by narrative structure

FOREGROUND moves time along chronologically PERFECTIVE

BACKGROUND supporting information, description, evaluation,

prediction IMPERFECTIVE

Studies testing the DH vs. AH

For example: Bardovi-Harlig (1998) Liskin-Gasparro (2000) López-Ortega (2000) Comajoan & Pérez Saldanya (2005) Salaberry (2009)

Results complicated because the cases where the hypotheses make opposite predictions have been difficult to elicit using more free and open-ended tasks Non-Prototypical Pairings

What about the ‘elusive imperfect’?(Bardovi-Harlig, 2005)

The imperfect has multiple semantic interpretations but research has rarely taken this into consideration. (e.g., habitual, progressive, continuous)

Are there meanings of the imperfect acquired before others?

In sum

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain the acquisition of past tense morphology. How do we make sense of all the results?

Ayoun & Salaberry (2005) suggest that it’s not that one hypothesis is right and another is wrong. Each hypothesis might explain a different stage of development.

However, What if our elicitation tasks are to blame? Most studies have not designed tasks considering

prototypical and nonprototypical forms and discourse role.

Elicitation Tasks in Tense-Aspect Research

Oral: Personal narratives Impersonal narratives

(e.g., Modern Times) Role-plays Interviews and semi-

structured interviews Free conversation

Written: Personal narratives Impersonal narratives Essays/compositions Multiple choice Fill-in-the-blank Appropriateness

judgments Sentence conjunction

*Most studies use one or two task types, not a range.

Issues with Tasks

Problems eliciting past tense morphology with prompts such as “What happened in the story”: Learners and NS use historical present Learners and NS focus on main events, i.e.,

foreground and not as much on background.

Few nonprototypical pairings occur naturally Lafford (1996) no nonprototypical imperfect

pairings

Task type can affect:

1. amount of lexical diversity Film retells – much higher percentage of achievement verbs than

the three other lexical aspect classes (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000)

2. amount of foreground and background Impersonal narratives – more examples of foreground than

background (Liskin-Gasparro, 2000). personal narratives – usually less constrained and often include

more background (Bardovi-Harlig, 2005).

3. rates of appropriate use Learners most accurate with cloze tests, then written retells, then

spoken retells (Bardovi-Harlig, 1998; Camps, 2002)

Conclusions

Need tasks that accomplish the following: naturally elicit the past tense elicit a variety of verb types in both prototypical and

nonprototypical pairings. are rich in background (vs. foreground). elicit the imperfect with different meanings (habitual,

progressive, continuous).

Need to have the same learners (across proficiency levels) do a variety of text and task types: Narratives, description, biographical controlled vs. less controlled production and comprehension

SPLLOC 2 Participants

Group Number Age Hours of instruction

Year 10 20 14-15 c200 hours

Year 13 18

(target:20) 17-18 c500 hours

Undergraduates 20 21-23 Final Year

Native Speakers 15 14-28 N/A

Post Year Abroad

SPLLOC 2 Tasks

Task Type Research Questions Format

1. Impersonal Controlled Narrative

RQ 1: EmergenceRQ 2: AH vs. DH

Las Hermanas: picture-based story

2. Impersonal NarrativeRQ 1: EmergenceRQ 2: AH vs. DH

Cat Story: picture-based story

3. Semi-structured InterviewRQ 1: EmergenceRQ 2: AH vs. DH

Personal interview based on learners’ past experiences

Task Type Research Questions Format

4. Comprehension taskRQ 3: Semantic meanings of the imperfect

On-line context dependant preference task

5. Production taskRQ 1: EmergenceRQ 3: Progressive meaning of the imperfect

Simultaneous Actions: Picture-based production task

Las Hermanas: controlled impersonal narrative Main task design issues:

How to prompt learners to tell the story in the past

How to demonstrate habituality with a picture-based narrative

How to find pictures to demonstrate prototypical and nonprototypical pairings

Las Hermanas: controlled impersonal narrative Written by the research team Drawn by a hired artist – ©SPLLOC 2009 Verb phrases provided (infinitive form) Targeted nonprototypical pairings (where AH &

DH make opposite predictions)

ACH ACC ACT STA Total

FORE 2 1 6 4 13

BACK 3 7 1 1 12

Total 5 8 7 5 25

Las vacaciones de Sarah y Gwen en España

Verano del 2006

Sarah

Gwen

Prompt to push use of past

(visitar) la ciudad

(comer) tapas (beber) vino

Foreground:

En MADRID

(coger) el tren

(hablar) sobre su niñez

Después decidieron ir a Barcelona

Prompt to push use of past

1996

De pequeñas, (ser) muy diferentes

Background begins:

Prompts to push use of past

Gwen de niña…cada fin de semana

(leer) un libro

(pintar) un cuadro

(escribir) un cuento

Prompt to push use of habitual

past

Cat Story: Impersonal narrative

Story adapted from "Missing" by Jonathan Langley ©Francais Lincoln 2000

Rich in background information, both habitual actions and progressive.

Learners were given time to preview the story before starting.

Task Design Issues: same as other narrative

Prompt: Start of Background

Todas las mañanas eran iguales…

(Every morning was the same…)

Prompt to push use of past and to be habitual

Prompt: Start of Foreground

Hasta que un día …

(Until one day…)

Interview

Task Design Issues: How to elicit personal narratives (vs.

impersonal) How to elicit nonprototypical pairings of

activities and states in the preterit How to engage learners in the task (especially

youngest group)

Interview: warm-up, biographical information

John Lennon Diana, Princesa de Gales

Adolf Hitler

¿Qué sabes de estas personas? ¿Por qué eran famosos?

Interview, autobiographical information

Mi primer recuerdo

3-6 años

7-11 años

12 años - ahora

El fin de semana pasado

Cuéntame cosas de tu vida…

Simultaneous Actions

Task Design Issues: How to make sure we had opportunities for learners to

use the imperfect for past progressive actions How to demonstrate progressivity with pictures

How to prompt learners to describe the pictures in the past

How to find pictures to demonstrate prototypical and nonprototypical pairings

All pictures drawn by a hired artist, ©SPLLOC 2009

Javier and Silvia are cousins who travelled together to Mexico for holiday. They just arrived today and have

already done a couple of things:

But…all day yesterday they were very busy getting ready for their trip. What were they doing?

BILLETES

Prompt: Mientras Javier…, Silvia…

leer una carta

levantarse preparar café

escuchar música

9.00 9.00

10.0010.00

Comprehension Task

Task Design Issues: Need to include all lexical aspect classes in

both preterit and imperfect contexts. Need to include items testing the various

imperfect interpretations Need to include a context that adequately

settings the scene.

Comprehension Task

Learners were given the prompt

in English

Data Analysis – Oral Tasks

All audio recordings transcribed according to CHAT conventions (CHILDES)

Transcriptions checked and anonymised Transcriptions morpho-syntactically tagged

(MOR) Transcriptions coded with specific aspectual

and discursive features (VCX)

Participant’s Utterance

*H26: de pequeñas eran muy diferentes .%mor: prep|de=of adj|pequeño-FEM-PL=small vpas|se-3P&PAS=be adv|muy=very adj|diferente-PL=different . %vcx: verb_STA|se-3P&PAS=be IMPF CORR TARGET 6| BACK continuous

*H26: Gwen de niña leía un libro .%mor: n:prop|Gwen prep|de=of n|niño-FEM=child vpas|lee- 13S&PAS=read det:art|un&MASC=one n|libro&MASC=book .%vcx: verb_ACC|lee-13S&PAS=read IMPF CORR TARGET 7| BACK habitual

*H26: pintaba un cuadro .%mor: vpas|pinta-13S&PAS=paint det:art|un&MASC=one n|cuadro&MASC=square . %vcx: verb_ACC|pinta-13S&PAS=paint IMPF CORR TARGET 8| BACK habitual

MOR tagged line

*H26: de pequeñas eran muy diferentes .

%vcx: verb_STA|se-3P&PAS=be IMPF CORR TARGET 6| BACK continuous

*H26: Gwen de niña leía un libro .

%vcx: verb_ACC|lee-13S&PAS=read IMPF CORR TARGET 7| BACK habitual

*H26: pintaba un cuadro .

%vcx: verb_ACC|pinta-13S&PAS=paint IMPF CORR TARGET 8| BACK habitual

%mor: prep|de=of adj|pequeño-FEM-PL=small vpas|se-3P&PAS=be adv|muy=very adj|diferente-PL=different .

%mor: n:prop|Gwen prep|de=of n|niño-FEM=child vpas|lee- 13S&PAS=read det:art|un&MASC=one n|libro&MASC=book

%mor: vpas|pinta-13S&PAS=paint det:art|un&MASC=one n|cuadro&MASC=square .

VCX tagged line

*H26: de pequeñas eran muy diferentes .%mor: prep|de=of adj|pequeño-FEM-PL=small vpas|se-3P&PAS=be adv|muy=very adj|diferente-PL=different .

*H26: Gwen de niña leía un libro .%mor: n:prop|Gwen prep|de=of n|niño-FEM=child vpas|lee- 13S&PAS=read det:art|un&MASC=one n|libro&MASC=book .

*H26: pintaba un cuadro .%mor: vpas|pinta-13S&PAS=paint det:art|un&MASC=one n|cuadro&MASC=square .

%vcx: verb_STA|se-3P&PAS=be IMPF CORR TARGET 6| BACK continuous

%vcx: verb_ACC|lee-13S&PAS=read IMPF CORR TARGET 7| BACK habitual

%vcx: verb_ACC|pinta-13S&PAS=paint IMPF CORR TARGET 8| BACK habitual

Preliminary Results

Tasks were successful at eliciting past. Pictures worked well for eliciting different

lexical aspect classes and habitual/progressive events.

More equal amounts of foreground/background elicited in the narratives.

Controlled Impersonal Narrative:Las Hermanas 2220 predicates were

coded:

Y10 = 497

Y13 = 516

UG = 587

NS = 620

Foreground = 47% Background = 53%

Achievements = 20%,

Accomplishments = 26%

Activities = 25%,

States = 29%

Percentage of production within lexical aspect classes, Controlled narrative

ACH ACC ACT STA

FORE 46.40% 23.30% 72.34% 46.26%

BACK 53.60% 76.70% 27.66% 53.74%

Cat Story – Native Speakers only

818 predicates coded

35% preterit

48% imperfect

7% past progressive

5% present

40% Foreground

60% Background

Achievements = 36%

Accomplishments = 15%

Activities = 27%

States = 22%

Within Lexical Aspect Class Analysis, Cat Story – NS

ACH ACC ACT STA

FORE 64.97% 44.44% 25.79% 11.30%

BACK 35.03% 55.56% 74.21% 88.70%

Next steps in analysis

Finish coding all tasks Consider across-group and within-group

results for evidence of developmental stages Compare learners’ use of imperfect

morphology on production tasks with the results of the comprehension task

Compare learners’ performance across production tasks

TBLT Implications

Past tense morphology is a developmental feature.

When designing tasks: pay attention to the verb phrases used

Are there both prototypical and nonprototypical pairings?

consider the amount of foreground and background.

Try to include equal amounts think about how useful prompts are use various text and task types

Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpus (SPLLOC)

Thank you!

www.splloc.soton.ac.uk

Funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (award

RES-062-23-1075)

References

Andersen, R. (1994). The insider’s advantage. In A. Giacalone-Ramat & M. Vedovelli (Eds.), Italiano lingua seconda/lingua straniera (pp. 1-26). Rome: Bulzoni.

Andersen, R. & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133-156

Andersen, R. W., & Shirai, Y. (1996). Primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin/Creole connection. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 527-570). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ayoun, D. & Salaberry, R. (2005). Towards a comprehensive model of the acquisition of L2 tense-aspect in the Romance languages. In Ayoun, D. & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Tense and aspect in Romance languages (pp.253-281). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 471-508.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2005). Tracking the elusive imperfect in adult second language acquisition: Refining the hunt. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries (pp. 397-419). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Camps, J. (2002). Aspectual distinctions in Spanish as a foreign language: The early stages of oral production. IRAL, 40, 179-210.

Comajoan, L. & Pérez Saldanya, M. (2005). Grammaticalization and language acquisition: Interaction of lexical aspect and discourse. In D. Eddington (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp.44-55). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Lafford, B. (1996). The development of tense/aspect relations in L2 Spanish narratives: evidence to test competing theories. Paper read at SLRF 96, at Tucson, AZ.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2000). The use of tense-aspect morphology in Spanish oral narratives: Exploring the perceptions of advanced learners. Hispania, 83, 830-844.

Lopez-Ortega, N. R. (2000). Tense, aspect, and narrative structure in Spanish as a second language. Hispania, 83, 488-502.

Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2002). The L2 acquisition of morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the aspectual tenses preterite and imperfect. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & J. Muñoz Liceras (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax (pp. 115-151). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Salaberry, R. (1999). The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 20, 151-178.

Salaberry, R. (2008). Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical Model. London: Continuum.

Salaberry, R. (forthcoming). Assessing the effect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acquisition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.