|
January
2006. Volume 1
pps 17 -46 (PDF
Journal version)
for academic citation
Title
L1
Persian Attrition
Authors
Hamideh
Jamshidiha & Hamideh
Marefat
University of Tehran,
Iran
Article PDF
Version MS
Doc version
Abstract
This study aims at investigating
first language attrition
in Persian speakers
of English as L2. Three
groups are compared:
Persian monolinguals,
early bilinguals and
late bilinguals. An
acceptability judgment
test is used in which
the test sentences consist
of pairs of sentences
each of which follow
either the English structure
or the Persian structure
in three syntactic areas
of relative clause,
adverb position and
pro-dropping which constitute
three main areas of
syntactic differences
between Persian and
English. The results
revealed that the type
and degree of L1 attrition
that early bilingual
speakers undergo is
different compared to
late bilinguals and
the degree of L1 education
conditions attrition.
The implication is that
age of L2 acquisition
has a major influence
on how bilinguals represent
their L1: late bilinguals
often retain a large
amount of underlying
competence in their
first language while
early bilinguals lose
it more quickly.
Introduction
The notion of language
attrition has been a
topic of investigation
for more than three
decades. It attracted
the attention of language
researchers in the late
1970's and subsequently
the inaugural conference
on Attrition of Language
Skills at the University
of Pennsylvania (Upenn)
in 1980 was a turning
point for research in
this field. Before the
conference, 'language
loss' was used to refer
to pathological disorders
such as aphasia, or
language disorders caused
by tumors, strokes,
or traumas to the head
(Smith & Wilson,
1979, Ya?mur, 2004).
This conference was
a starting point for
further research and
conferences that probed
into the process of
language loss as a non-pathological
disorder from many other
perspectives.
From a non-pathological
perspective, the idea
of language loss first
rose with reference
to foreign language
students who had spent
an enormous amount of
time learning a second
language but subsequently
lost it as time passed.
The study of first language
attrition began in the
early 1980's with Richard
D. Lambert's interest
in language loss. As
one of the organizers
of the inaugural UPenn
conference and co-editor
of the following conference
volume by Lambert &
Freed (1982), Lambert
was a pioneer in steering
attention to the language
loss that happens so
often among bilinguals
or those who have knowledge
of more than two languages.
Lambert & Freed's
publication shed light
on many issues regarding
first and second language
loss from different
perspectives. It probed
into issues such as
language shift, language
death, pathological
language loss, social
and political influential
factors as well as methodological
issues. It served as
a guideline for further
research.
Fascinated with the
UPenn conference, many
other scholars contributed
to the field of language
loss. At the turn of
the millennium, workshops
on L1 attrition were
organized at international
conferences at the Second
Language Research Forum
2000 in Madison, Wisconsin
by Dorit Kaufman in
addition to the third
International Symposium
on Bilingualism in Bristol,
2001, by Agnes Bolonyai.
Papers and publications
on language attrition
and the divergent methods
of data collection,
sampling and instrumentation
called for a framework
that was distinct from
language learning. The
efforts paved the way
for a taxonomical framework
proposed by Van Els
(1986) within which
language attrition research
would be conducted.
The framework was established
in terms of the language
that is lost (L1 &
L2) and the environment
(L1 & L2). The taxonomy
is as follows:
L1 loss in L1 environment
(aging, dialect loss)
L1 loss in L2 environment
(loss of L1 by immigrants)
L2 loss in L1 environment
(loss of L2)
L2 loss in L2 environment
(loss of L2 by aging
immigrants)
Attrition
from different perspectives
The notion of attrition
has been defined by
scholars from a variety
of perspectives in fields
such as linguistics,
psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics
or sociolinguistics.
Depending on their perspective,
researchers study patterns
of language loss in
various populations
including aphasia, dementia,
healthy aging, bilingual
and multilingual speakers.
Attrition was primarily
studied from a pathological
perspective in people
with aphasia but later
the term was extended
to cover the non-pathological
cases of language loss.
From a non-pathological
perspective, primary
language attrition refers
to the loss of language
abilities of non-disordered
individuals in an L2
environment (Altenberg
& Vago, 2004).
Language attrition has
been used in the study
of language loss in
the context of bilingualism
(Goral, 2004). Accordingly,
certain components of
language are more vulnerable
to loss than others
(Lambert & Freed,
1982, Seliger &
Vago, 1991). In a bilingual
setting language loss
can be manifested as
L1 or L2 loss. Some
researchers view attrition
in the light of a reduction
in individual's abilities,
usually measured expressively
in his/her L1 (Kaufman
& Aronoff, 1991;
Turian & Altenberg,
1991; Anderson, 1999)
and associate it with
non-use or lack of contact
with the primary language.
Seliger (1996) argues
that L1 attrition occurs
as a natural outcome
of acquiring another
language but this does
not mean that this process
is an automatic consequence
of acquiring another
language. Furthermore,
L1 attrition is not
a process that leads
to total loss of L1
knowledge but rather
as a convergence towards
an L2 whereby attriters
take up L2 structures
in some aspects of grammar
(Pavlenko, 2002).
Regression
hypothesis
As one of the earliest
linguistic frameworks,
Regression Hypothesis
deals with the processes
of learning and forgetting.
This theory initially
proposed by Jakobson
(1941, cited in Köpke,
2004) for aphasia is
based on the assumption
that language loss in
aphasia mirrors language
development in children.
It was later adapted
to attrition by de Bot
and Weltens (1991) in
that language components
might be lost in the
reverse order in which
they were acquired.
It rapidly became evident
that this hypothesis
does not hold with respect
to aphasia, since this
disorder is generally
not progressive in nature
and affects only parts
of linguistic competence,
depending not on internal
linguistic factors,
but on external factors
related to brain injury.
There exist two versions
of the theory; one that
is based on chronology
(order) which states
that the order in which
attrition occurs is
opposite to the order
in which language was
acquired; and one that
is based on reinforcement
(Köpke & Schmid,
2004) which is also
called inverse relation
hypothesis (Yoshitomi,
1994, cited in McCormack,
2004) which states that
what has been learned
best, i.e. most often
used/reinforced, will
be most resistant to
loss.
While an important body
of research (Jordens,
de Bot, Van Os, &
Schumans, 1986; Jordens,
de Bot & Trapman,
1989; Kuhberg, 1992;
Olshtain, 1989; Schmid,
2002, cited in Köpke,
2004) has been conducted
within Regression Hypothesis
framework and several
studies demonstrated
the power of regression
hypothesis (Hansen &
Chen, 2001 as cited
in Goral, 2004), it
has been accepted that
Regression Hypothesis
can not account for
all cases of observed
language decline (Caramazza
& Zurif, 1978; Hyltenstam
& Viberg, 1993)
and does not hold with
respect to aphasia (Caramazza
& Zurif, 1978).
Universal
Grammar
There have been a number
of studies conducted
within the UG framework
such "as the use
of null vs. overt pronoun
in Italian or Greek
vs. English (Bouba et
al., 2002; Sorace, 2000)
in Turkish vs. English
(Gürel, 2004) and
Japanese vs. English
(McCormack 2004) or
the compounding parameter
in Spanish vs. English
(Cuza, 2002)" (p.
18).
The controversy as to
whether parameters can
be reset in L2 acquisition
and the role of markedness
has interested many
researchers (Clashen
& Muysken, 1989).
It has been suggested
that a marked parameter
in L1 might be reset
to an unmarked value
in L2. The principle
underlying this notion
is the Redundancy Reduction
Principle (Seliger,
1996). The simple idea
behind this theory is
that "when two
languages come into
contact within the same
psycholinguistic environment,
the speaker is forced
to solve the duplication
of rules and functions
in two languages and
simplify the cognitive
overload" (p. 616).
Based on UG framework,
attrition is not random
forgetting but is guided
by principles for arriving
at the most effective
grammar that can serve
both languages. Accordingly
the bilingual creates
a new rule for L1 in
those areas of grammar
where the L2 rule is
simple or less marked.
Those forms that are
less marked in L2 are
more likely to replace
more marked forms in
L1, thus the less marked
forms in L1 seem to
be more resistant to
attrition.
While within the UG
framework the process
of attrition is guided
by the Redundancy Reduction
Principle, it is also
motivated by learning
principles that determine
the learnability of
structures in L1 acquisition
namely Uniqueness Principle
and Subset Principle.
According to the Uniqueness
Principle, for any semantic
concept there will be
only one syntactic or
morphological realization.
In the case of bilingualism
a semantic concept may
be realized in two different
grammars. In the process
of primary language
attrition the two languages
of the bilingual have
a semantic concept or
function in common which
is expressed in two
different ways, but
only one of these realizations
that are available to
the speaker will survive
(Seliger, 1996).
Based on the subset
principle, given two
possible grammatical
versions of the same
concept, that which
is most restrictive
and present in the input
will be preferred. In
other words, in the
process of L1 attrition
when the input data
in the L2 contains a
comparable grammatical
feature that is more
universal and less marked
than the competing grammar
in the primary language,
that form in the L2
will be favored. Therefore,
the Uniqueness Principle
and the Subset Principle
guide the reduction
of redundancy between
combined L1 and L2 grammars.
Linguistic
feature hypothesis
Another linguistic theory
which accounts for the
process of attrition
is Andersen's (1982)
linguistic feature hypothesis.
This hypothesis accounts
for the fact that an
item in the attriting
language similar to
the corresponding structure
in the other language
will be more likely
to be retained than
a dissimilar one. He
explained this hypothesis
along with the Regression
Hypothesis and elaborated
that these hypotheses
focus on two major areas.
First, these hypotheses
state that the nature
of the linguistic elements
themselves, such as
whether they are of
high or low frequency,
and whether they are
marked or unmarked,
will be important in
determining if they
are lost. Second, these
hypotheses propose that
the relationship between
the corresponding structures
in the dominant and
attriting language is
a factor; moreover the
amount of contrast between
the structures in the
two languages will help
determine what will
be vulnerable to attrition.
Psycholinguistic
perspective
Psycholinguistic aspects
of attrition have received
little attention until
recently, but the evidence
available suggests that
attrition may be psycholinguistic
in nature (de Bot, 2002).
Activation
Threshold hypothesis
The Activation Threshold
Hypothesis (ATH) was
initially proposed by
Paradis (1985, 1993)
to account for differential
recovery in polyglot
aphasia and only recently
has the theory been
applied to the study
of language attrition
(Köpke, 2002).
It specifies the relation
between the frequency
of use of a linguistic
item and its activation
and availability to
the language user. Accordingly
it is assumed that linguistic
items have thresholds
that change on the basis
of frequency and recency
of use. Low activation
thresholds yield faster
and easier access than
higher thresholds.
Activation and inhibition
mechanisms appear to
account for the control
of multiple languages
in the brain (Green,
1986; Paradis, 1993)
as well as for changing
dominance patterns.
ATH assumes that items
(or languages) that
are more frequently
activated need less
stimulation to be reactivated
than items (or languages)
that are less frequently
activated (Paradis,
1985, 1993). In other
words, when a particular
linguistic item has
a high activation threshold,
more activating impulses
are needed to reactivate
it (Paradis, 1997, cited
in Gürel, 2004).
Within this framework,
attrition is predicted
in the form of reduced
accessibility as a natural
consequence of lack
of language use (Köpke
& Schmid, 2004).
Applying this notion
to the context of bilingual
memory, when one language
is selected, the other
language is simultaneously
inhibited. This means
that the activation
threshold of the unselected
language is raised (Paradis,
1989, cited in Gürel,
2004). Thus language
attrition occurs as
a result of long-term
absence of stimulation
of one of the languages
of the bilingual. It
should be noted that
this does not mean that
the linguistic system
of the bilingual is
completely lost due
to inhibition or a high
activation threshold
(Green, 1986). Depending
on the frequency of
use, different linguistic
items within the same
language might require
various degrees of stimulation
in order to become activated
(Paradis, 1997).
Critical
Period Hypothesis
One of the areas related
to psycholinguistic
aspect of attrition
is age. As Kaufman (2001)
points out "attrition
of L1 among older children
and adults differs from
the L1 attrition process
among pre-puberty children"
(p. 19). Since attrition
and acquisition are
tightly linked, it is
assumed that attrition
is influenced by the
same factors which have
led to the Critical
Period Hypothesis (CPH)
which assumes that due
to brain maturation
constraints L2 learning
becomes more difficult
after a certain age.
Since no consensus has
been reached so far
with respect to existence
and age limits of critical
period, a 'sensitive
period' was suggested
which implies that younger
children are better
L2 learners due to maturational
constraints and consequently
more readily forget
their L1 (Ventureyra
& Pallier, 2004).
Studies indicate that
the age of the onset
of bilingualism and
the age of the onset
of attrition are important
(Montrul, 2002). There
is converging evidence
that an L1 system can
indeed be eroded to
a quite dramatic degree
if the attrition process
sets in well before
puberty (Isurin, 2000;
Kaufman & Aronoff,
1991; Nicoladis &
Grabois, 2002; Schmitt,
2004; Seliger, 1989,
1991; Turian & Altenberg,
1991; Vago, 1991). Similar
findings were obtained
for L2 attrition among
children (Berman &
Olshtain, 1983; Kuhberg,
1992; Olshtain, 1986).
Preliminary results
from a recent study
even point towards the
L1 being lost to an
extent that psycho-neurolinguistic
methods can detect no
trace of it any more
(Ventureyra & Pallier,
2004). Köpke (2004)
points out that attrition
in children is much
more severe than in
adults. All studies
dealing with L1 attrition
in young children relate
substantial restructuring
of the children's linguistic
competence beyond anything
that has been observed
in adult L1 attrition.
Studies investigating
adopted children (Ventureyra
& Pallier, 2004)
suggest that in such
extreme cases L1 is
forgotten at a very
quick rate (Isurin,
2000; Nicoladis &
Grabois, 2002). Others
have found that the
younger the children
and the lower the language
proficiency, the faster
the attrition process
(Bahrick, 1984; Hansen,
1999; Kaufman &
Aronoff, 1991).
Some studies involving
subjects for whom the
onset of attrition was
after puberty found
no age effect (Jaspaert
& Kroon, 1989) regardless
of the languages involved
or the means of data
elicitation. The dramatic
attrition effect found
in children is not compatible
with findings with respect
to adults. In most cases
attrition was mild considering
the amount of time spent
in an L2 environment,
even after many decades
(Köpke, 2004).
Köpke reports that
de Bot & Clyne (1994)
and Jordens et al. (1989)
found little or no attrition
in first generation
immigrants and in many
studies communication
in L1 did not appear
to be severely disrupted
by attrition.
Competence
vs. Performance
Sharwood Smith (1983a
& 1983b) is among
the first scholars who
drew attention to the
distinction between
competence and performance.
As he says, attrition
at the level of competence
is concerned with underlying
linguistic competence
and entails a restructuring
of what is known about
the language. Attrition
at competence level
is reflected in the
inability to make grammaticality
judgments or to perform
tasks such as paradigmatic
conjugations or declensions
done by native speaker
monolinguals.
As Seliger and Vago
(1991) pointed out "the
languages spoken by
the bilingual may be
said, metaphorically,
to coexist in a state
of competition for a
finite amount of memory
and processing space
in the mind of the speaker"
(p. 5). Seliger (1996,
p. 606) states that
attrition in competence
and can express itself
as:
1) the ability to recall
a meaning shared by
both the L1 and the
L2 but only being able
to retrieve the L2 lexical
item;
2) rule reordering or
simplification in the
morphophonemics of the
L1 or the inability
to inflect in accordance
with previously acquired
morphology, or not being
aware that incorrectly
inflected morphology
is deviant where previously
the speaker inflected
in accordance with the
L1 grammar;
3) the acceptance of
syntactically deviant
sentences and the correction
of syntactically grammatical
sentences.
At the level of performance
attrition results in
difficulties in controlling
knowledge (Ammerlaan,
2001) which results
in two types of phenomena:
Lexical retrieval or
word finding problems
(Goral, 2004; Köpke,
2004; Seliger, 1996)
and processing difficulties
which are in close relation
with the cognitive demands
of the tasks used for
data collection (Dussias,
2002).
In the case of a reversal
of dominance patterns,
with L2 gradually becoming
the stronger language,
bilinguals may reach
a point where "(a)
processing of L1 is
not only slowing down
but also becoming more
and more influenced
by L2; (b) and where
lack of speed and/or
accuracy may eventually
lead to difficulties"
(Köpke, 2004, p.
6). It is at this point
that attrition starts
to be manifested.
The clearest demonstration
of this disorder can
be found in Ammerlaan
et al. (2001) whose
studies are based on
a "psycholinguistic
design allowing a differentiation
between productive and
receptive language skills
with respect to lexicon"
(p. 21). Both use a
picture naming task
to test lexical retrieval
and a picture-word-matching
task for testing lexical
access. The results
show that accessibility
of the lexicon is clearly
reduced as evidenced
by difficulties in the
picture-naming task,
whereas receptive skills
measured in the matching
task are less impaired.
Sharwood Smith (1983a)
suggests that competence/performance
distinction reveals
itself in three distinct
stages:
1) Systematic deviation
in performance while
competence remains stable.
2) Transitional period
where the bilingual
is in possession of
a new externally conditioned
variety of his/her language,
but preserves the ability
to switch back to the
standard version of
the language when required
by the circumstances.
3) Emergence of a new
competence characterized
by a decrease in structures
available to the speaker.
While such restructured
linguistic systems have
not yet been described
for late attriters,
they have repeatedly
been observed in children
(Kaufman & Aronoff,
1991; Seliger, 1989,
1991). Regarding late
bilinguals, the evidence
suggests that attrition
is in most cases restricted
to performance deviations
as in stage 1 above.
In some cases (whether
under specific external
conditions or regarding
particular linguistic
features or domains)
it might be possible
to observe the coexistence
of two varieties as
described in stage 2
above which Major (1992)
observed for phonetics.
Level
of education in L1
In the context of bilingualism,
proficiency level is
influential for bilinguals
who have completed their
L1 acquisition before
attrition. But this
may not be the case
for bilinguals who have
begun losing their L1
before its acquisition
has been completed (Köpke,
2002; Turian & Altenberg,
1991). Jaspaert and
Kroon's (1989, cited
in Köpke &
Schmid, 2004) pilot
study on attrition among
30 Italian immigrants
in the Netherlands measured
by scores on various
language tests (vocabulary,
text editing, sentence
correction, and general
comprehension measured
by a picture sentence
matching task) showed
education level to be
the most strongly significant
factor in the tests
where there was evidence
for attrition, namely
text editing and vocabulary
tests.
Length of stay
Some studies have pointed
towards a link between
the time that an immigrant
has been exposed to
another language and
the degree of attrition
in L1 (Waas, 1996; Soesman,
1997; Hutz, 2004), eventually
leading to a change
in the language dominance
(Magiste, 1979; Köpke
& Schmid, 2004),
while others have suggested
that time factor may
only have a limited
effect (de Bot &
Clyne, 1994; de Bot,
Gommans, & Rossing,
1991; Hutz, 2004). Despite
the controversy over
the time factor, an
8-year stay is believed
to be a baseline (De
Bot, Gommans, &
Rossing 1991; Jordens,
de Bot, & Trapman,
1989).
This
study
This study attempts
to make a contribution
to the field of primary
language attrition in
the second language
environment. It investigates
Persian-English language
pair and studies the
influence of English
as a second language
on Persian as the first
language of speakers.
It aims to illustrate
traces of attrition
in the syntactic domain
namely relative clause,
adverb position, and
pro-drop. It particularly
focuses on those who
have completed acquisition
of their L1 before moving
into an L2 environment.
Specifically speaking,
this study attempts
to see if there is a
difference between Persian
monolinguals and bilinguals
on their preference
for L1 and L2 relative
clause structure, adverb
position and pro-drop
parameter.
Participants
The participants in
this study included
both Persian monolinguals
and Persian bilinguals
with English as their
L2. The first group
included 30 native speakers
of Persian with little
knowledge of English
with ages ranging between
16 and 17. This group
was selected for two
reasons. First, they
had already attained
ultimate attainment
in their L1. Second,
they had not started
their higher education
in which case a good
command of L2 could
have affected their
L1. The second group
included 35 native speakers
of Persian with English
as their L2. The criterion
for inclusion was a
minimum of an 8-year
stay in an English speaking
country. This is an
accepted baseline reported
in attrition studies
(see above).
Some of the participants
were selected from the
International School
in Tehran where students
who have just come back
from an L2 environment
and have linguistic
difficulty adapting
to the L1 environment
study. Most of them
left Iran when they
were in primary school
and were exposed to
English at the age of
7-10. In other words,
they had learned their
L1 before being exposed
to the L2. They came
back to Iran quite recently
and were between 16
and 18 years of age.
Out of 50 students who
filled out the questionnaire
only 20 enjoyed the
criterion of living
in an English speaking
country for at least
8 years. These 20 participants
were given the test
booklet but only 9 of
them were selected for
further analysis. A
deeper and more precise
examination of the questionnaires
revealed that 11 of
these students were
born in an English speaking
country and it was decided
that this could intervene
with purposes of research
because we needed to
include those who had
already acquired their
L1. This group of participants
constituted the early
bilingual group, because
they started learning
their L2 at an early
age, i.e., between 7
and 10 years old. The
participants from the
International School
were all girls.
A second group of the
bilingual participants
were adults who had
left Iran after they
finished guidance school
and were exposed to
English at the age of
16 to 20 and lived in
an English speaking
country for more than
eight years. While living
there, they were using
English rather than
Persian quite often
(data about these details
were gathered through
a questionnaire). These
participants were identified
by the researchers'
colleagues in Canada
and England. This group
of participants aged
between 24 and 32 constituted
the late bilingual group
because they started
learning their L2 at
a later age. Both monolingual
and bilingual groups
were naïve to the
purposes of study. The
following table shows
the distribution of
participants whose data
were chosen for statistical
analysis.
Materials
The materials in this
study included a questionnaire
and a test. The questionnaire
had three sections.
The first section elicited
personal information
including the participants'
name, sex, telephone
and e-mail address,
date and place of birth,
occupation as well as
highest level of schooling.
The second section provided
linguistic information
about the subjects'
mother tongue, language
of education at different
levels of primary school,
guidance school, high
school, and university,
the degree of using
English and Persian
which was elicited indirectly
by asking them about
their language of communication
at home, work and social
encounters. The third
section was concerned
with data regarding
the age of first exposure
to English, age of arrival
to Iran and length of
stay in an English speaking
country.
The test sentences used
in this study, which
were in Persian, were
designed by the researchers.
They were checked and
rechecked for naturalness
by three other Persian
native speakers. Since
the early bilinguals
had limited knowledge
of Persian, attempt
was made to choose simple
sentences. Any vague
or difficult word was
avoided so that it would
not affect the subjects'
performance and consequently
the test results. The
test included 50 pairs
of sentences in Persian
(30 pairs made up the
test sentences and 20
pairs the fillers).
The sentences belonged
to three categories
including relative clause,
adverb position, and
pro drop. For each category
there were 10 sentence
pairs. In each pair,
one sentence followed
the Persian structure
and the other followed
the rules of English.
Each pair was sequenced
randomly. Below you
see examples for each
category.
It
is worth mentioning
that in each pair both
sentences are possible
in Persian, though except
for the case of adverb
position (where the
two structures are equally
acceptable) one is considered
as more acceptable (prescriptively
speaking, see Gholam-ali-zadeh,
1998/1377). But based
on the English structure,
only one is accurate.
Throughout this study,
the structure which
is ungrammatical in
English will be referred
to as the Persian structure.
Results
The design of the study
is 2 × 3. There
are two independent
variables in this study:
group with two levels
including monolinguals
and bilinguals and the
syntactic structure
with three levels including
relative clause, adverb
position and pro-drop.
The participants' score
on the test is the dependent
variable.
Persian
monolinguals' performance
The Persian monolinguals'
performance on each
of the three syntactic
structures is shown
in Table 2.
Table
2. Descriptive statistics
for the Persian monolinguals'
preferences for the
three structures (N
= 30)
Based
on the mean scores of
relative clause structure,
the monolinguals prefer
the Persian structure.
The mean score for Persian
structure is 5.86 while
the mean score for English
structure is 4.13.
Regarding the Adverb
position, the results
show that the monolinguals'
mean score for the English
structure is 5.50 and
their mean score for
the Persian structure
is 4.50. This result
could be explained by
the fact that in Persian
both positions are equally
acceptable.
Considering the Pro-drop
parameter, the mean
score suggests that
the monolinguals have
an inclination towards
the Persian setting;
they have a mean score
of 7.83 for Persian
structure and a mean
of 2.06 for the English
structure. The monolingual
group's performance
provides a baseline
against which the bilinguals'
performance will be
compared.
To see if there is any
significant difference
between the monolinguals'
preferences for the
English and the Persian
structures in each structure
type, paired sample
t-tests were conducted.
Table 3 below shows
the results:
Table
3. Results of paired
t-tests for the difference
between Persian monolinguals'
preferences for the
three structures in
English and Persian
Comparisons
conducted through t-test
revealed that in relative
clause the difference
in English and Persian
structure is significant
(t29 = -2.28, p <
.05) and this shows
that monolingual native
speakers have a high
preference for Persian
structure in relative
clauses.
Concerning adverb position,
the difference is not
significant (t29 = 1.372,
p > .05); it means
that to a native speaker
of Persian the two adverb
positions, i.e., before
the object and between
the object and the verb,
are equally acceptable.
However, the difference
is significant regarding
the Pro-drop in English
and Persian structure
(t29 = -8.598, p <
.05). The monolingual
native speakers have
a high preference for
Persian pro-drop structure.
The results for the
monolingual group is
used as a yardstick
to find out whether
the bilinguals perform
differently from the
monolinguals and whether
there is any divergence
which could indicate
attrition.
Persian
bilinguals' performance
Descriptive statistics
was calculated for the
bilinguals' performance
in the three structures.
The results are presented
in Table 4.
Table
4. Descriptive statistics
for the Persian bilinguals'
preferences for the
three structures (N
= 24)
Considering
the mean scores for
each syntactic category,
it can easily be noticed
that in relative clause,
the bilinguals have
a tendency towards the
English structure by
having a mean of 5.58
which is different from
their score on Persian
structure, i.e., a mean
of 4.66. Regarding the
adverb position, the
bilinguals preferred
English structure by
gaining a score of 5.33.
While the bilingual
subjects showed deviation
from the Persian structure
and a preference for
English structure in
relative clause and
adverb position, their
performance in Pro-drop
was quite different.
The results show that
the bilinguals have
not yet lost their preference
for the Persian structure.
The mean score for Persian
structure is 6.54 while
that for the English
one is 3.83. Paired
sample t-tests were
conducted to find out
whether these differences
are significant or not.
Table 5 shows the results.
Table
5. Results of paired
t-tests for the difference
between Persian bilinguals'
preferences for the
three structures in
English and Persian
Based on the planned
comparisons, it can
be inferred that despite
the difference in mean
scores of the relative
clause of Persian and
English structures,
this difference is not
statistically significant
(t23 = 1.126, p >
.05).
Regarding the adverb
|
