University of Montana
ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers
Graduate School
1975
A comparison of the auditory comprehension of
English syntax by English-speaking monolinguals
and Spanish-English bilinguals
Constance Ann Lingel
The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Lingel, Constance Ann, "A comparison of the auditory comprehension of English syntax by English-speaking monolinguals and
Spanish-English bilinguals" (1975). Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers. Paper 8042.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
A COMPAR IS O N OF THE AU D I T O R Y C OM P R E H E N S I O N OF E N G L I S H
SYNT AX BY EN G L I S H - S P E A K I N G M O N O L I N G U A L S A N D
S PA N IS H - E N G L I S H BILING UA L S
By
Connie Ann Lingel
B.A.,
University of the Pacific,
1972
Presen ted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
M aster of Arts
U NIVERSITY OF MONTvANA
1975
, Gliairraan 1/Boa^d of Examin&rs
Date
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMl Number: EP38843
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT
Dissertation Publishing
UMl EP38843
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest
X T
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1 3 4 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lingel,
C o n n i e A n n . , M .A .,
June ,
1975
Communication Sciences
and Disorders
A C o m p a r i s o n o f the A u d i t o r y C o m p r e h e n s i o n o f E n g l i s h S y n t a x b y
E n g l i s h - S p e a k i n g Monol In g u a l s a n d Sjp^njsh-Engl Ish B i l i n g u a l s (67 pp. )
Director:
Dr.
E v an P.
Jordan
(u?
/
/
T h e p u r p o s e o f this s t u d y w a s to o e ^ r m i n e the e f f e c t s o f b i l i n ­
g u a l i s m o n c h i l d r e n ' s c o m p r e h e n s i o n or E n g l i s h s y n t a c t i c a l p a t t e r n s .
E i g h t e e n m a t c h e d pai rs o f s t u d e n t s f r o m the t h i r d t h r o u g h f i f t h
g r a d e s w e r e s e l e c t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in the e x p e r i m e n t .
Each s ubject
w a s c l a s s i f i e d as m o n o l i n g u a l o r b i l i n g u a l d e p e n d i n g o n a n s w e r s
p r o v i d e d on a b a c k g r o u n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o m p l e t e d by his p a r e n t s a n d
a b i l i n g u a l i s m s u r v e y c o n d u c t e d in his s ch o ol .
Each subject wa s
a d m i n i s t e r e d t wo tests o f s y n t a x - - o n e in E n g l i s h a n d o n e in S p a n i s h —
w h i c h c o n s i s t e d of t w e n t y - s e v e n sets o f t h r e e u t t e r a n c e s e a c h.
The
c h i l d w a s r e q u i r e d to s e l e c t the o n e g r a m m a t i c a l l y a c c u r a t e u t t e r ­
a n c e p r e s e n t e d a u d i t o r i l y a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a g i v e n p i c t u r e .
The
m e a n s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by the two g r o u p s on the test o f E n g l i s h s y n t a x
d i d n o t d i f f e r s igni f 1c a n t 1y a n d the h y p o t h e s i s that the m o n o l i n g u a l
c h i l d r e n w o u l d p e r f o r m s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on the test o f E n g l i s h
s y n t a x than the b i l i ng u al c h i l d r e n w a s n o t s u p p o r t e d .
It w a s c o n ­
c l u d e d that the p o p u l a t i o n s a m p l e d in this s t u d y d id n ot h a v e s u f ­
f i c i e n t e a r l y S p a n i s h l a n g u a g e e x p e r i e n c e to p r o d u c e i n t e r f e r e n c e
e f f e c t s d e t e c t a b l e by the test used.
I I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AC KNOW L E D G M E N T S
I w i sh
committee.
to express m y appre c ia t io n to the members of my
Dr. Richard M. Boehmler,
and, particularly.
and encouragement.
Dr. James Flightner,
Dr. Evan P, Jordan,
for their guid ance
Thanks also go to Dr. A n th o ny Beltramo
for his patience and help during the initial stages of this
study and to all of the staff,
students,
and parents
in
Billings who made this study possible.
M y special thanks go to Ken who said,
every time I said,
"Yes, you w i l l , "
"I'll never get this done."
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A B S T R A C T ....................................................
ii
...........................................
iii
A CK N OW L E D G M E N T S
LIST OF T A B L E S ...............................................
vi
C hapter
I
INTRODUCTION
...................................
1
Present Study
Statement of the Pr o blem
Defini tion of Experi mental Variables
Operational Definitions
II
P R O C E D U R E S .......................................
16
Subj ects
Questionnaire and Survey
Apparatus
Auditory Compreh e ns io n Task
Experimental Procedure
Statistical Design
III
R E S U L T S ...........................................
33
Charac teristics of the Population
P erformance on the Task
IV
D I S C U S S I O N ......................................
42
V
SU MMARY AN D CONCLUSIONS
........................
50
.................................................
S3
APPENDIX A
IV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A P P E N D I X B ..................................................
55
A P P E N D I X C ..................................................
57
A P P E N D I X D ..................................................
59
..................................................
60
A P P E N D I X F ..................................................
64
A P P E N D I X G ..................................................
65
B I B L I O G R A P H Y ...............................................
66
APPENDIX E
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TAB LES
Table
1
Page
The Distr i bu t io n of the Subjects
in the
Control and the E x perimental Groups by
Grade and S e x .........................
2
Perfo rmance of the Subjects on the E ng lish
T a s k ..............................................
3
40
Performance of the Subjects on the Spanish
T a s k ..............................................
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
CHAPTER I
I N T R O D UC T IO N
The effect of b i l i n g u a l i s m on a p e r s o n ' s mental,
tional,
emo­
and e d u c a t i on a l g r o w t h has b e e n the subject of v a r i o u s
studies and re s earch projects.
s ub j ect's
The p a r t i c u l a r effects o f the
f i r s t - l e a r n e d language on his
second language l e a r n ­
ing a bi l it y have b e en e x a m i n e d and r e s e a r c h e d at d i f f e r e n t
l e v e l s --s y n t a c t i c a l , lexical,
au th ors
as Carrow
(1957,
Haugen
(1956), W e i n r e i c h
M ar t i n
(1965).
1971,
m o rp h em i c,
1972,
(1953),
and p h o n e m i c - - b y such
1973),
Finocchiaro
and Stockwell,
Bowen,
The p r oblems c r ea t ed w h e n a p e r s o n learns more
la nguage or uses
two or more languages
b ee n termed interference.
Weinreich
(1969),
and
than one
a l t e r n a t e l y have o f t e n
(1953)
stated:
The term i n terference implies the r e a r r a n g e m e n t
of pa tterns that r e s u l t f r om the i n t r o d u c t i o n of
forei gn elem ents into the more h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d
domains of language, s uc h as the b u lk of the
p h o n e m i c system, a large pa r t of the m o r p h o l o g y
and syntax, and some areas of v o c a b u l a r y . . .
He c o n t i n u e d the d i s c u ss i on by stating:
The g reater the d i ff er e n c e b e t w e e n the systems
[languages or dialects], i.e., the m o r e n u m e r ­
ous the m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e forms and p a t t e r n s
in each, the g re a t e r is the le arning p r o b l e m
a nd the p o t e n t i a l a r ea of interference.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Haugen
(1956)
shared this theory of b i l i n g u a l i s m w i t h W e i n ­
r e i c h and others .
He al l e g e d that the p r i m a r y l i n g u i s t i c
p r o b l e m of a p e r s o n who
n e o u s l y w i t h his
’’du p li c at e s
volves
learns a s ec o nd l a n g u a g e s i m u l t a ­
first langua g e in i n f a n c y or who
in m a n y ways
the fu n ctions
later
of the forms
the alterna t iv e use of the same m e n t a l
and i n ­
and p h y s i c a l
o r g a n s ” is that of ke e pi n g the two l an g uages
separate.
this does not occur,
is the result.
l in g ui st i c i n t e r f e re n ce
This t heory is also su p po r t e d by F i n o c c h i a r o
stated,
When
(1969) w h o
"The in grained habits of the n a t i v e s p e a k e r m a y
interfere or conflict wi t h the learni n g of a se c o n d l a n ­
guage.”
P o li t ze r and S t au b ac h
(1965)
f ur t h e r e x p l a i n e d
interference :
A ne w l inguistic s y s t e m mu s t be c r e a t e d in the
b ra i n and neural s y s t e m of a l e arner [of a
second language] who is a l r e a d y c o n d i t i o n e d
to one set of language h abits and wh o reacts
to one set of pa t t e r n s and analogies,
Lado
(1957)
and P o li t z e r and St a u b a c h
interfe r en c e as n eg a t i v e
(1965)
also
labeled
tr a ns f er and d e s c r i b e d it as ta k in g
place w h e n there are pa r t i a l
simil a ri t ie s
or o v erlaps b e t w e e n
the two languages w h i c h the s tudent extends by a n a l o g y into
an area in w h i c h the o v erlap does not exist.
P o l i t z e r and S t au b ac h
(1965),
radical
la nguages will not cause n e g a t i v e
According
differ e nc e s
to
in the two
trans fe r or in t erference.
The authors m e n t i o n e d thus far s e e m to agree,
however,
that
i n t e r f e re n ce may affect any part of a language at d i f f e r e n t
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
l i n g u i s t i c levels such as the ph o nemic,
lexical
levels.
only transfers
Lado
(1957)
g r a m m a ti c al ,
s t a t e d that the l ea r ne r n o t
the form and m e a n i n g of the s t r u c t u r e s
one lan guage to another,
and
but that he t ra n sfers
tions of these struct ures as well.
Thus,
of
the d i s t r i b u ­
the e f fe c t s
of
i n t e r f er e nc e are w i d e s p r e a d w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r e o f l a n ­
guage.
The specif ic areas of l in g ui s ti c
d e t e r m i n e d by linguistic methods.
i n te r f e r e n c e m a y be
Weinreich
(1953) m a d e
the statement:
If the p ho n i c or g r a m m at i ca l systems o f two
la nguages are c om p a r e d and their d i ff e re n ce s
delineated, one o r d i n ar i ly has a list of the
p ot e n t i a l forms of interfe r en c e in the gi v en
c ontact situation.
Lado
(1961)
asserted:
. . . w h e r e the n a t i v e l an guage of the s t u ­
dent and the foreign l an guage d i f f e r s t r u c ­
tu ra lly there is a learning p r o b l e m and the
natu re and d e s c r i p t i o n of this p r o b l e m d e ­
pends on the c o m p a r i s o n of the two l a ng u ag e
structures.
P o l i t z e r and St a ub a ch
(1965)
(1965)
and Stockwell,
Bowen,
also ap p ro a c h e d the p r o b l e m of in t er f er e nc e
s ys t em a ti c analysis
and Martin
t hr o u g h a
of the simila ri t ie s and d i f f e r e n c e s b e ­
twe e n the two languages
in question.
This method,
often
l ab e l e d c on t ra s ti v e a n a l y s i s , has be e n the su bject of some
con troversy,
l an guage
but those authors who supp ort the th e o r y of
i nterference as a source of p r o b l e m s
in l a n g u a g e
lea r n i n g also s upport the use of c o n t r a st i ve an a ly s is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as
the m e a n s o f de l i n e a t i n g the sp e ci f i c areas
of p o s s i b l e
inter­
fe rence .
Weinreich
(1953)
d e c l a r e d that not all p o t e n t i a l
forms
of i n te r f e r e n c e w i ll m a t e r i a l i z e w i t h a c o n t r a s t i v e a n alysis
of the language structures.
A c c o r d i n g to this author,
there
are s e v e r a l "non-structural'* factors w h i c h ha v e an e ff e ct on
the s p e e c h of a bilingual.
These include,
among others,
the
sp eaker's a b ility to keep the two languages apart and his
f ac ility of verbal expression,
each language,
a ttitude
his m a n n e r of learning e ac h language,
toward each language,
lingualism.
his re l a t i v e p r o f i c i e n c y in
his culture,
and towards b i ­
In order to o b t a i n com plete findings on the
eff ect of b i l i n g u a l i s m on a pe r s o n ' s
(1953)
and his
speech,
then, W e i n r e i c h
c on t e n d e d that "p urely li n gu i st i c studies of la n guage
in c on t ac t m u s t be c o - o r d i n a t e d w i t h e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c studies
on b i l i n g u a l i s m and re l at e d p h e n o m e n a . "
Weinreich
(1953)
also gave rise to o th e r p o ints c o n c e r n ­
ing i n terference w h i c h should be c o n s i d e r e d w h e n r e s e a r c h is
c on d uc t ed in that area.
ference
A l t h o u g h most authors
consider in t e r ­
to be c r e a t e d by the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the p a t t e r n s
of the f ir s t - l e a r n e d language to the s e c o n d - l e a r n e d la nguage,
Weinreich
(1953)
stated that factors o th e r than the o r d e r in
w h i c h the subject le arned his
for interference.
These
languages m ay be r e s p o n s i b l e
include the subject's
f ic i e n c y in the use of his
languages,
re l at i ve p r o ­
the age at w h i c h the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
s ub j e c t l e ar n ed his
languages,
and the u s e f u l n e s s
c a t i o n of e a c h language for that subject.
reich
(1953)
b y the above
the d o m i n a n t or p r o m i n e n t
factors,
is that
A c c o r d i n g to W e i n ­
language,
la nguage w h i c h
source of inter f er e nc e on the other,
in c o m m u n i ­
as e s t a b l i s h e d
is the m a j o r
or s e c o n d a r y , language.
This a ut h or also e m p h a s i z e d that the in t e r f e r e n c e ma y o pe r at e
in b o t h d i r e c t i o n s - - f r o m the d o mi n a n t la n gu a g e
ary
to the s e c o n d ­
langu a ge or from the s e c o n da r y l a nguage to the d o mi n a n t
one.
On the basis of W e i n r e ic h *s
theories,
then,
it w o u l d
a pp e ar n e c e s s a r y for a re s ea r c h e r to c le a r l y d ef i ne the v a r i ­
ables
in c l u d e d in his
study.
The r e s e a r c h e r ’s c r i t e r i a for
d e t e r m i n i n g the s u b j e c t ’s d om i na n t
language as well as the
s pe cific areas of inte rference to be studied,
both l i n g u i s t i c
and n o n - l i n g u i s t i c , should be l isted in o r d e r to insure
that
a re l iable study is c o m p l e t e d .
While
the m a j o r i t y of the authors su p po r ti n g the i n t e r ­
ference p h e n o m e n o n state that bo th the r e c e pt i ve and e x p r e s ­
sive skills of the subject
in his s ec on d ar y
language w i l l be
a ff e c t e d by the langua ge pa t terns of his d o minant
language,
m o s t c o n c e n t r a t e on the influe nce of the subject's
la nguage on his expres si v e skills
For example,
Haugen
(1956)
e x t e n s i v e di s cu s si o ns
dominant
in his se c on d a r y language.
and W e i n r e i c h
(1953),
in their
of their theories of b i l i n g u a l i s m ,
c o n c e n t r a t e d h eavily on the subj ect's e x p r e s s i v e ab i li t ie s
in his
s e c o nd a ry language.
B e ca u se the m a j o r co n c e r n of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finocchiaro
(1969), a n d P o l i t z e r and S t a u b a c h
(1965) wa s
t ea c hi n g of oral la n guage for c o m m u n i c a t i o n p u rp o se s ,
too,
c o n c e n t r a t e d on the s p e a k e r ’s e x p r e s s i v e skills
s e c o n d a r y language,
the
they,
in his
a l t h o u g h th ey b o t h e m p h a s i z e d the n e e d
for a p p r op r ia t e c o m p r e h e n s i o n skills
to be p r e s e n t as a
p r e r e q u i s i t e for the e f fe c ti v e l ea rning of s p e a k i n g skills.
P ol i tz e r and Ramirez
(1973)
st udied the causes of error
in the p r o d u c t i o n of E n g l i s h by M e x i c a n - A m e r ican c h i l d r e n
b il i n g u a l
and m on o l i n g u a l
schools.
An oral
in
lan guage s a mp l e
was taken from each su bject in each group of students,
those
edu c a t e d in m on o l i n g u a l schools and those from b i l i n g u a l
e du c at i on a l backgrounds.
scr i be d and analyzed.
m or p hological,
The subjects'
responses w e r e t r a n ­
The errors w er e c a t e g o r i z e d as b e in g
syntactical,
or lexical
fre q ue n cy of the types of errors was
in nature,
studied.
and the
The au th ors
s pe c ul a te d that the p o s s i b l e causes of errors were of three
types :
1-
Interlingual errors:
from Spanish,
due to interf er e nc e co m in g
2.
Intralingual errors: due to co n fu s i o n r es u lt i ng
from the m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of E ng l i s h g ra m m a t i c a l
rules or due to de v el o pm e nt a l errors w h i c h m ig h t
be simi lar to those d e v e l o p m e n t a l errors of
c hi l d r e n learning En g l i s h as a first language,
3. Errors due to the instru s io n of n o n s t a n d a r d E n g ­
lish dialect.
As the authors poi nt out,
errors
in the b i l i n g u a l ' s
l ea r ne d language are likely due to m u lt i p l e
second-
causes and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
- . the intrus i on of Spanish,
though c e r t a i n l y not the
onl y c a u s e of error, plays a c o n s i d e r a b l e role
c er t a i n structures.
one's d om i na n t
T h es e authors
s u p p o r t e d the t h e o r y that
language wi ll be a source of i n t e r f e r e n c e
the l e ar n i n g o f a seco nd la n guage but,
Weinreich
(1953),
in
in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
d e cl a r e d that it was not the on ly ar ea
r e s p o n s i b l e for errors
sp eakers
. . ."in
in the e x p r e s s i v e
language of b i l i n g u a l
in their secondary language.
O n the other hand,
some works
seem to include a st u dy of
the i n fl u en c e of one's d o mi n an t language on his r e c e p t i v e
skills
in his se c on d ar y language.
Ca r ro w
(1957)
e x a m i n e d the
r e l a t i o n s h i p b et w ee n b i l i n g u a l i s m and the m a s t e r y of l a n ­
guage.
She c la s si f ie d third grade c h i l d r e n as e ither m o n o ­
li ngual or bilingual on the basis of an i n te rview w i t h their
p ar e nt s
and their experience w i t h one or m or e languages,
th en m a t c h e d the c h i l d r e n a c co r d i n g to age,
status,
and intelligence,
socioeconomic
and m e a s u r e d their a c h i e v e m e n t of
lang uage skills as well as their ex p re s s i v e
through the use of re a di n g tests,
language
achievement
of a r t i c u l a t i o n and an oral la n guage sample.
tests,
skills
tests
A l t h o u g h there
was no s i g n i fi c an t d if f er e nc e b e t w e e n the language gr oups
se veral
areas,
there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d ifference
of the m o n o l i n g u a l in oral r e ading accuracy,
c o m p r e he n si o n,
in
in favor
oral r e a d i n g
receptive v o c a b u l a r y , a r i t h m e t i c reason ing,
and s p e a k i n g vocabulary.
Ca rrow's
(1957)
results
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
also
indi-
8
cat e d that the b il i ng u a l s h a d mo r e and d i f f e r e n t types
a r t i c u l a t i o n and g r am m at i ca l errors,
Carrow's
c ov e r e d a wide range of language skills,
(1957)
of
study
b o t h e x p r e s s i v e and
receptive.
In addition,
s t r u c t ur a l"
factors w h i c h could have a f f e c t e d the s tudy as
sug g e s t e d by W e i n r e i c h
she c o n t r o l l e d sev eral
(1953).
Her study,
"non-
however,
ca n no t
be v i e w e d as a direct e x a m i n a ti o n of the p o s s i b l e n e g a t i v e
tra n sf e r cr e at e d by struct u ra l di f fe r en ce s
guages b e ca u se the ex a m i n a t i o n
in the two
lan­
items w h i c h w e r e used w e r e
not b a s e d on a study of the struct ur al differences.
It di d
contri b ut e to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the effect of b i l i n g u a l i s m
on a ch ild's achieve m en t of language skills
ferent areas
and his e x p r e s s i v e abilities
in several d i f ­
in his
s e co n d a r y
language.
Carrow
(1971)
c o nd u c t e d an o th e r study of w h i c h one of
the purposes was to compare
the c o m p r e h e n s i o n of E n g l i s h
wi th that of Span ish b y p r e s c h o o l M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n children.
As
in her previous
intelligence,
study,
she c o n t r o l l e d s o c i o e c o n o m i c status,
and the degree of b i l i n g u a l i s m of her subjects,
A control group of E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g m o n o l i ng ua l s was u s e d
and each child w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d Carrow 's A ud i t o r y T e s t for
L an guage C o m p r e h e n s i o n to de t er m in e the subject's c o m p r e h e n ­
sion of m or p h o l o g i c a l
and s y nt a ct i ca l
structures.
Ea c h b i ­
lingual subject was a d m i n i s t e r e d the S p an i sh ve r s i o n of the
test as well
as the E n glish version.
C a r r o w ’s (1971)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
fi n di n gs
r e v e a l e d that among p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n of low s o c i o e c o n o m i c
status
in H o uston the " gr e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n u n d e r s t o o d E n g l i s h
be t t e r than Spanish" an d that the b i l i n g u a l s w e r e d e l a y e d in
c e r t a i n areas
in b ot h languages.
Again,
i nt e rf e re n ce was not u se d as a basis
the p h e n o m e n o n o f
for d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h
langua ge p a tt e r n s s h ou l d be e v a l u a t e d an d it was not p o s s i b l e
to assess
to what degree n e ga t i v e t r an s fe r w a s i n v o l v e d in
the test results.
Preschool c h il d re n of low s o c i o e co n om i c status
H ou s t o n were also the subjects
for a s u bs e qu e nt
study of the
a ud itory c o m p r eh e ns i on o f E n gl i sh by m o n o l i n g u a l s
linguals by Ca rrow
(1972).
from
and b i ­
A g a i n she e m p h a s i z e d that:
The p o s t u l a t e d "language ha n di c ap " of M e x i c a n Am ericans has often b e e n re p o r t e d as r e s p o n ­
sible for social and e du c at i on a l pr o b l e m s of
these children.
H o w e v e r , d e s c r i pt i on s of this
languag e ha n di c ap are m e a g e r w i t h r e gard to
the specific lang uage areas i nv olved and the
comp lex in teractions of intelligence, social
status, and the b i l i n g ua l en v i r o n m e n t with
both the a ca demic and social a c h i e v e m e n t of
the M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n child.
C ar r ow
(1972)
c o nt ended that it was
imperative that there be
a d if f er e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n la nguage pro blems
s te mming f r om b i ­
l in g ua l is m p er se and those r e su l t i n g from a b i l i n g u a l e n v i r o n ­
ment w h i c h u s ually means
econom ically.
that they are d i s a d v a n t a g e d s o c i o ­
In this study,
Carrow a d m i n i s t e r e d h e r A u d i t o r y
Test for Language C o m p r e h e n s i o n
a s s e s s m e n t of oral
( A T L C , 1968)
wh ich p e r m i t t e d
language c o m p r e h e n s i o n of b o t h E n g l i s h and
S pa n i s h w i t h o u t r e qu i ri n g language e x p r e s s i o n as the c h i l d r e n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
r e s p o n d e d by p o i n t i n g to the p i c t u r e w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d e d to
the e x a m i n e r ' s utterance.
E n g l i s h and Spanish.
The bi l in g u a l s w e r e t e s t e d in b o t h
Results
r e ve a l e d that " ap p a r e n t c o m p r e ­
h e n s i o n of E n g l i s h does not s ee m to indicate c o m p l e t e c o m p r e ­
h e n s i o n in all l i ng u is t ic ar eas."
s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher m e a n scores
The m o n o l i n g u a l s
than did the b i l i n g u a l s
the A T L C and those l i ng u is t ic areas
that differences
guages,
of the b i l i n g u a l s
p l u r a l i t y of nouns,
w it h two adjective modifiers.
on
in w h i c h scores of the
m o n o l i ng u al s were h i g h e r than the scores
w er e nouns, pronouns,
obtained
C a rr o w
and nou n p h r a s e s
(1972)
hypothesized
in s y nt a ct i c structure b e t w e e n the two l a n ­
such as in the p la c em e nt of adjec tives,
cause for some of the differences
could be the
in the scores.
test items were not s p e c i f i c a l l y c hosen to reveal
How ever,
the
interference
effects.
Pr es ent Study
A l t h o u g h it is appa rent that e x p e r i m e n t a l and e m p i r i c a l
interest has
focused on the learning of a s econd l an guage as
it is influenced by the n ative
individual,
language habits
of a p a r t i c u l a r
r es earch w h i c h has c o n c e n t r a t e d solely on the i n ­
terfere nce c r eated by the learning of two la nguages
p er s on ' s a ud i to r y c o m p r e h e n s i o n of syntax
l anguage seems to be rare.
tempt to d et e rmine
subject's
on the
in his s e c o n d a r y
The pr e se n t research was an a t ­
the effects
of b i l i n g u a l i s m on a b i l i n g u a l
c o m p r e h en s io n of En gl i sh
syntax.
The au t ho r
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
a t t e m p t e d to control such factors
as age,
degree of b i l i n ­
gualism,
in this
study.
and s o c i o e c o n o m i c status
As the
m e t h o d for cl a s s i f y i n g the subject s as b i l i n g u a l or m o n o ­
lingual,
and for d e t e r m i n i n g their d eg r ee of b il i n g u a l i s m ,
the au t ho r used results of a b a c k g r o u n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o m ­
p l e t e d by the s u b j e c t s ’ p ar e n t s
and a b i l i n g u a l i s m s u r v e y
c on d u c t e d by the school s ys t em from w h i c h the subjects w er e
obtained.
Bilingual subjects were
re q u i r e d to have some
exposure to Sp an ish in their homes, w h i l e m o n o l i n g u a l s u b ­
jects were required to have no e x po s u r e to S pa n is h or any
other language
in the home.
The r e se a r c h e r chose items
for
her test of En glish synt ax on the basis of c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y ­
ses compl et e d by Stockwell,
P ol i t z e r and S t au b ac h
Bowen and M a r t i n
(1965).
(1965)
and
Of p a r t i c u l a r c on c er n to this
r es e ar c he r was the eff ect of interf e re n ce fr o m the S p a n i s h
syntax patterns on the c o m p r e h e n s i o n of E n g l i s h syntax by
bilingual persons w i t h c o m p r e h e n s i o n or sp e a k i n g a b i l i t ie s
in E n glish and Spanish.
Mo re s p ecifically,
the a u th o r w a s
i nteres t ed in d e te r mi n i ng the r el a ti o ns h ip b e t w e e n the c o m ­
p r e h e n s i o n of syntax r e p r e s e n t i n g En g l i s h patterns by SpanishEngl ish b il i n g u a l subjects
c o mp a re d to the c o m p r e h e n s i o n of
these same patterns by native m o n o l i n g u a l E n g l i s h subjects.
No compa ri s on w a s m a de of the su b ject's
these pat terns
a bility to c o m p r e h e n d
as o pp o s e d to his ab i l i t y to p r o d u c e
The need for such a study can be readily
ex amines
the size and ch a ra c t e r i s t i c s
them.
seen w h e n one
of the S p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
p o p u l a t i o n in the U n i t e d States.
sus Report,
o ri g in
According
to the 1970 C e n ­
there are c u r r e n t l y 9, 0 72,602 p er s o n s
of S p a n i s h
(persons who said they c o n s i d e r e d themse lv e s
Mexican,
Pu e rt o Rican,
other S p a n i s h origin)
Cuban,
to be of
Ce ntral or S o u t h A m e r i c a n or
living in the U n i t e d States.
l ec t ed b y the Un i t ed States B u r e a u of the Census
D at a c o l ­
in March,
1971 a n d 1972 on pe r so n s of S pa n i s h or i gi n in the U n i t e d States
i n d i c a t e d that six m i l l i o n o f the over nine m i l l i o n SpanishAmericans,
or 65 percent,
re p o r t e d that S p a n i s h was
guage c ur r ently s p o k e n in the home.
These
studies
c lu d ed that the p o p u l a t i o n of s c ho o l- a ge children,
to n i n e t e e n years,
m i l l i o n m embers
of Sp a n i s h o rigin
the l a n ­
also c o n ­
ages
five
in c lu d ed m o re th an three
and that 2.2 m i l l i o n of these lived in homes
w he r e S p a n i s h was spoken.
These studies
reveal
that a large
S p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g p o p u l a t i o n exists in the U n i t e d States
and
that m a n y of the me m bers of this p o p u l a t i o n are of school
age and
live in homes where S p a n i s h is the langu ag e spoken.
W h e n one studies
the n u m b e r of tests w h i c h m e a s u r e
the
speech and language skills of the S p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g c h i l d or
w hi c h have norms on th em for this child, he finds a l i m i t e d
n u m b e r of e v a l u a t i o n
instruments.
The S e venth M e n t a l M e a s u r e ­
ments Y e a r b o o k lists only one s peech and h e a r i n g test,
p r e h e n s i o n of Oral Language:
w h i c h pr o vi d e s
s p e a k i n g child.
I n t e r - A m e r i c a n Series
Com-
(19 5 8),
a S p anish e d i t i o n for testing the S p a n i s h ­
This auth or
is aware of three o t he r tests
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
w h i c h ha v e norms
for the S p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g c h i l d - - C a r r o w ' s
Test for A u d i t o r y C o m p r e h e n s i o n of L a n g u a g e
(1973),
C a rr o w' s
S c r e e n i n g Test for A u di t o r y C o m p r e h e n s i o n of La ng u a g e s
(1973),
and the A mmons and A m m o n s , F u l l - R a n g e Pi c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y Te st
(1948).
The Seventh Mental M e a s u r e m e n t s
Y e a r b o o k also lists
ot her tests not st r ic t ly c o n s i d e r e d to be speech and l a n g u a g e
tests,
but wh i ch test vo cabulary,
grammar,
syntax,
ing compreh e ns i on in E ng l is h in o rd er to assess
speaking skills of adult foreign students.
and l i s t e n ­
the English-
M o st of these are
not de s ig n ed to m easure speech an d language skills or d ef i c i t s
of the subjects
in their first language, but simply me a s u r e
their a b ility to use their s ec o nd language.
large Spanish-speaking,
States
schoo l -a g e p o p u l a t i o n
Thus,
there is a
in the U n i t e d
for w h i c h there are few d i a g n o s t i c tests for a c c u r a t e l y
asses si n g their speech and language skills.
studies of the ways
More detailed
in w h i c h lan guage i n t e r fe r en c e op e ra t es
could help determin e the n e e d for d e v e l o p i n g d i a g n o s t i c and
t herape u ti c ma terial
for the b i l i n g u a l sc h oo l - a g e c h i l d or
for r ev ising the p re sent m at erial so that it w o u l d m e a s u r e m o r e
a cc u ra t el y the skills of this
s ec o nd a ry
ch ild in either his d o m i n a n t or
language.
S t a t e m e n t of the Pr o b l e m
It is a q u e s t i o na b le p r o c e d u r e
to use norms
the lan guage behavi or of m i d d l e class,
English when
re f l e c t i n g
nat ive spe akers
of
testing the language of b i li n gu a l children.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It
14
w ou l d appear that language interference
dominan t language on his secondary
from the child's
language could influence
the test results and the i nstrument in q u e s t i o n w o u l d not be
likely to evaluate the specific linguistic areas for wh i ch
it was intended.
In an effort to u n de r s t a n d one aspect of interference,
the influence of one language on the ability to co m pr e h e n d
d ifferent syntactical pat terns in the second language,
the
author hyp othesized that the S pa n is h-English bil ingual
sub­
jects would obtain lower scores on a text of auditory c o m p r e ­
hension of English syntax than w o u l d mo n o l i n g u a l Englishspeaking subjects on the same task.
hypothesis
A rejec tion of the null
(the English m onolinguals and S p an i sh - E n g l i s h
bilingu als would receive the same scores on an English a u d i ­
tory comprehension task) w o u l d support this author's h y p o t h ­
esis .
D efinition of Experimental Variables
The experimental variables involved in this re search
were :
Independent V ar i ab l e- - ex p os u re to spoken S pa n is h
in at least one situation in the home or school
resulting in at least a comprehension of some
spoken Spanish.
Dependent V a r i a b l e - - the scores ac hieved by the
bilingual and mo nolingual subjects on the a u d i ­
tory comprehension task.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
Operational
Definitions
W h e t h e r a p e r s o n was c o n s i d e r e d to be a S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h
b i l i n g u a l or an E n g l i s h m o n o l i n g u a l was p a r t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d
by an s w e r s
g i v e n by a subje c t' s pa r en t s on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
(see A p p e n d i x A),
survey.
a nd i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by a b i l i n g u a l i s m
For the p u r p o s e of this research,
the f o ll owing
o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s we r e used:
B i l i n g u a l - - a p e r s o n wa s c o n s i d e r e d a b i l i n g u a l
if so i n d i c a t e d b y the school survey.
An answer
of "yes" was re q u i r e d for the first part of
q u e s t i o n twelve on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and an
a n s w e r of " S pa nish" or " M ex i ca n " w a s r e q u i r e d
as the a ns w er to pa r t two of q u e s t i o n twelve.
No o ther language c o u l d be list ed in part two
of q u e s t i o n twelve if a c h i l d was c o n s i d e r e d a
bilingual.
M o n o l i n g u a l - - a p e r s o n was c o n s i d e r e d to be a
m o n o l i n g u a l E n g l i s h su bj ect if an a ns w e r of
"no" was p r o v i d e d to q u es t io n s eleven, tweIve
a nd t h i r t e e n on the qu e st i on n ai r e.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER
II
PROCEDURES
Subj e c ts
Eighteen monolingual
f r o m t he
third through
Garfield
elementary
as
subjects
location
pears
answers
to d e t e r m i n e
students
was
used
participant
subjects
in t hi s
as
the
extent
the
established
used
because
settled
immigrant
of
It a p ­
in B i l l i n g s
farm w o r k ­
o f the
the
of b i l i n g u a l i s m a m o n g
for a c c e p t i n g
the
compl e t e d by
conducted by
subjects.
the
monolingual,
p a r t l y o n the b a s i s
a survey
to c l a s s i f y
also
a re a s
and
s e l e c t e d as
on th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
In a d d i t i o n ,
district
criteria were
was
c l a s s i f i e d as b i l i n g u a l ,
for the e x p e r i m e n t
their parents.
of T aft
of M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n s .
in o u t l y i n g
to the q u e s t i o n s
children
Montana were
of these M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n s
subjects were
or r e j e c t e d
Billings
the b i l i n g u a l
of a p o p u l a t i o n
that m a n y
All
in B i l l i n g s ,
research.
for obtaining
after having worked
ers.
fifth-grade populations
schools
for th i s
availability
and ei ghteen bilingual
The
as
experiment:
1. E a c h m o n o l i n g u a l c h i l d s p o k e g e n e r a l A m e r i ­
c a n E n g l i s h as j u d g e d b y the e x a m i n e r in o r d e r
to p r e v e n t o t h e r d i a l e c t s f r o m a f f e c t i n g the
r e s u l t s o f th e e x p e r i m e n t .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
its
following
a child
16
school
a
17
2. Each ch i ld had acceptable speech and l a n ­
guage as judged by the researcher an d the
spee ch c l i n i c ia n in the c h i l d ’s school.
No
bil i ngual child had deviant speech or language
other than those problems r el a te d to second
language learning.
3. Each monoli n gu a l child was ex po sed to no l a n ­
guage other than E nglish in his home as d e t e r ­
m i n e d by the answers p r o v i d e d on the q u e s t i o n ­
naire.
Each bi lingual child was e xp o se d to no
language other than English or Spanish in the
home.
4. Each ch ild p a s s e d a h earing s cr e ening test
as d el i ne a te d in s ubsequent paragraphs.
5. The subjects were of similar socioeconomic
status as d e sc ribed in the following sections.
6. Each su bject in the control group was w it h in
one year of age of a subject in the same grade
and of the same sex in the experimental group.
7. Each subject had a note, si gn ed by his parents,
allowing h i m to p a rt i ci p at e in this research.
Q ue s t i o n n a i r e and Survey
The compilation of questions for the qu e st i on n ai r e was
b as e d on wo r k completed by Cohen
(1970)
and Ho ffman
(1934)
c on c er n i n g b il i ng u al i sm and the d et ermination of the degree
of b i l i n g u a l i s m of a p a r t i c u l a r individual.
The m a jo r it y of
the answers given on the q ue st i on n ai r e were used to aid this
r e s e a r c h e r in the d e te r mi n at i on of the monolingual or bi lingual
status of each subject.
Other answers were used to deter mine
the s o c i o e c on o m ic status of the s u b j e c t s ’ families and the
r e m a i n d e r of the answers were used to help the res earcher
fu rt her analyze
the data obtained from the testing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
The
survey previously mentioned was
Billings
schools
t he n e e d
for e s t a b l i s h i n g
in t h e
schools.
lish was
with
in O c t o b e r »
1974,
a second
language
a Spanish surname
in o r d e r
a bilingual
Three native
conducted
and Spanish.
questions presented
the
did not
case,
speak
he w a s
tioned
it.
s am e q u e s t i o n s
t he b a s i s
o f the
child's
spoke
Spanish
three examiners
the
indicated
examiner
in S p a n i s h
Each child
answer
examiner
that
in E n g l i s h
then asked
switched
t h at w a s
he w a s
English dominant--having neither a speaking
but
the
even w h e n q u e s ­
the c h i l d
t h at he h a d p r e v i o u s l y
responses,
in
the
if h e u n d e r s t o o d S p a n i s h ,
i n s t r u c t e d to a n s w e r
Th e
the
in S p a n i s h ,
If the c h i l d
in S p a n i s h .
s ur v ey .
had a mother who
the c h i l d
determine
for w h o m E n g ­
If the c h i l d d i d n o t
to h i m
to E n g l i s h a n d a s k e d
to h e l p
speakers
w a s q u e s t i o n e d i n d i v i d u a l l y b y o ne o f
both English
i n the
Spanish-English program
Spanish
or w h o
conducted
the
as ked.
classified
ability
On
as
or u n d e r ­
st a n d i n g of Spanish;
Spanish dominant--neither
understanding
or
Spanish
at
s p e a k i n g E n gl i s h ;
comprehension
least
of S p a n i s h ;
a comprehension
Each m e m b e r of
of Taft
and
Of
or E n g l i s h
the
third
were
s e c o n d a r y - -h a v i n g
through
a
at
228 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
fifth-grade population
schools was
and permis si on
c o m p l e t e d b y hi s p a r e n t s
th e
least
of E n g l i s h .
Garfield elementary
ground questionnaire
and
secondary--having
sl i p
in a d v a n c e
distributed,
g i v e n the b a c k ­
to be
o f the
147,
or
taken home
experiment.
64.47 percent,
returned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
The principal
t he
survey
list o f
grades
just
those
school,
described,
students
of Taft
ondary,
of Taft
provided
f r o m the
school who were
indicating
that
S p a n i s h as d e t e r m i n e d b y
l is t
for w h o m
order
t ha t
a permission
for a child
the p a r e n t
least
one
to be
had
for
because
a ll o f
the children
lingual
lesson
s l i p wa s
Any
a week
since
in his p r o p e r g r o u p - - t h i r d , f o ur t h,
All
children who
whose parents
had
than English,
spoke
a language
in his
children
other
g ro u p.
proper
and
a total
were
that
th a t n o
of t h e s e
the
speech
fifth
from Taft
of
no
the
considered
a bi­
school
grade.
of
th is
and
language
family
for
the
then p l a c e d
or f i f t h grade.
clinician
that
from G a r f i e l d
c h i l d r e n wa s
g r o u p - - t h i r d , f o ur t h ,
j u d g e d by
Spanish.
of the
child spoke
was
at
researcher
or
other member
than English,
Each
required
the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
the
as
o f t w e n t y - f i v e , was
obtained
returned
indicated
other
monolingual
candidate,
of
In
that
obtained
the b e g i n n i n g
placed
school.
it w a s
had been receiving
Each bilingual
subjects
g ro u p.
spoke
the
y e ar .
All monolingual
considered
list,
group were
school
sec­
c h i l d on th is
the q u e s t i o n n a i r e
in his
fifth
Spanish
signed was
r e p o r t e d to
a
a comprehension
the c h i l d ’s f a m i l y
the p r i n c i p a l
and
or e x p e r i m e n t a l ,
Indicated on
once
least
th e survey.
the m o n o l i n g u a l
school
at
r e t a i n e d o n this
other m e m b e r of
No c h i l d r e n
fourth,
c a t e g o r i z e d as
f o r the b i l i n g u a l ,
in
the r e s e a r c h e r w i t h
t hird,
they had
some
a candidate
o n e o f t he e x a m i n e r s
All
school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to
20
h av e
a s p e e c h or l a n g u a g e p r o b l e m w e r e then e l i m i n a t e d f ro m
the study.
T w e n t y - e i g h t c h i l d r e n r e m a i n e d a f t e r th e s e p r o ­
cedures were a c c o m p l i s h e d If tlie n u m b e r of su b je c ts
of a p a r t i c u l a r sex a n d g r ad e
in one g ro u p o u t n u m b e r e d the n u m b e r o f s u bj e c t s
sex a nd age
in the o p p o s i n g group,
c h o s e n in the group for w h i c h
of the same
the s u bj e c t s w e r e
there was an excess n u m b e r
o r d e r to m a t c h the sex and grade of the s ub j ec t s
site group.
boys
For example,
in the th i rd grade,
t h i r d grade,
dre n w e r e
s ub j e c t s
in the o p p o ­
but o nl y two b i l i n g u a l boys
used as a lt e r n a t e
s u bjects
in the
r a n d o m l y c h o s e n to
for the bi li n gu a ls .
The e x t r a c h i l ­
in the event
o r i g i n a l l y c h o s e n f ai l e d to pass
criteria.
in
if there w e r e four m o n o l i n g u a l
two of the m o n o l i n g u a l s w e r e
be the m a t c h e d su b jects
randomly
that
the
all the n e c e s s a r y
If it w a s n e c e s s a r y to use an altern ate,
r a n d o m l y s e l e c t e d from the a v a i l a b l e a lt e rn a te s
one was
for a p a r t i c ­
u la r s ex and grade.
Answers
to q u e s t i o n s
four t h r o u g h se v en on the q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e w e r e us ed as da t a for d e t e r m i n i n g s o c i o e c o n o m i c s tatus
using
the
Index of Status
M ee k e r ,
and Eells
winner,
s ou r ce of income,
u s e d to m a k e
ents w e r e
(1949).
Characteristics
d e v e l o p e d by Warner,
Three f a c t o r s - -o c cu p at i on o f b r e a d ­
and e d u c a t i o n of b r e a d w i n n e r - - w e r e
a rating of s o c i o e c o n o m i c status.
employed,
If b o t h p a r ­
the r e s e a r c h e r u s e d the e m p l o y m e n t
e d u c a t i o n of the fa t he r to c om p le t e
the c a l c u l a t i o n s .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and
The
21
s o c i o e c o n o m i c status
dates w a s
for e a c h b i l i n g u a l
c o n s i d e r e d as c a n d i ­
c a l c u l a t e d and a m e a n score was d e t e r m i n e d .
o rd e r to be a c c e p t e d for the study,
In
the s o c i o e c o n o m i c ra t i n g
of e a c h c h i l d s e l e c t e d for the co nt rol group was w i t h i n
fifteen points
bilingual
either way
group.
of the m e a n score o b t a i n e d b y the
Any monolingual child whose
socioeconomic
score d i d n o t
fall w i t h i n this ran ge was e l i m i n a t e d f r o m
e x p e r i m e n t at
this point.
T h e r e w e r e two sets of b i l i n g u a l s ,
a nd f i f t h - g r a d e boys,
for w h i c h
f o u r t h - g r a d e boys
there was
n u m b e r o f m a t c h i n g c on t ro l gr o u p subjects;
l ingual
s ub j ec t s w e r e
Two sets of
n u m b e r of m o n o l i n g u a l subjects;
e l i m i n a t e d fr o m the experiment.
be e l i m i n a t e d w e re
the ex t ra
S u bjects
identified by a random procedure
s c r i b e d previ ously.
Four subj ects,
g ro u p a n d two from the b i l i n g u a l
the e x p e r i m e n t b e c a u s e of fai lure
F o u r a d di t io n al
jected,
the e xt r a b i ­
t h i r d - g r a d e girls and f i f t h - g r a d e girls,
p r o v i d e d an excess
ing.
an i n s u f f i c i e n t
s u bjects w e r e a c c o r d i n g l y eliminated-
monolinguals,
the
children
as d e ­
two f ro m the m o n o l i n g u a l
group, w e r e r e j e c t e d from
to pass
the h e a r i n g s c r e e n ­
in the c ontrol group w e re
two b e c a u s e of a fa ilure
s o c i o e c o n o m i c status
re­
to meet the c r i t e r i a for
and two b e c a u s e of a failure
to m e e t
the c r i t e r i a for age d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m a t c h e d pairs.
all r e j e c t i o n s ,
to
After
a total of e i g h t e e n m a t c h e d pairs of s u bj e c t s
p a r t i c i p a t e d in the experiment.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
Apparatus
A U h e r a u d i o - t a p e recorder,
Deluxe Student Headsets,
model
4000
LFE 69, V H S-815,
L, and V a l i a n t
w e r e u s e d to p r e ­
sent
the a u d i t o r y c o m p r e h e n s i o n task to the subjects.
same
tape r e c o r d e r was u s e d to r e c o r d the task.
A B e l t o n e a ud i om e te r ,
ISO s t an d ar d s,
model
The
10 D, c a l i b r a t e d to 1964
w a s u s e d to c o m p l e t e h e a r i n g s c r e e n i n g on
e ac h subject.
Auditory Comprehension Task
Two s ep a r a t e tasks
for t es t i n g the a ud i to r y c o m p r e h e n ­
s i o n of sy n t a x w e re c o n s t r u ct ed .
lish u t t e r a n c e s
comparable
task c o n s i s t e d of E n g ­
and was a d m i n i s t e r e d to b o t h the m o n o l i n g u a l
and the b i l i n g u a l subjects.
to b o t h groups,
One
The o t h e r task,
also p r e s e n t e d
c o n s i s t e d of S p a n i s h u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h w e r e
to the u t t e r a n c e s on the E n g l i s h v e r s i o n and was
u s e d as a c o u n t e r c h e c k of the re sults o b t a i n e d on the task
presented
in English.
There was
a time lapse of at least
one day b e t w e e n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the two tests
one s u b j e c t to a tt e nu a te
test
any e f f e c t of fa m i l i a r i t y w i t h the
and t es t in g p r o c e d u r e .
Fa i l u r e of the b i l i n g u a l s
p e r f o r m b e t t e r on the t as k in their n a t i v e
t e n d to
second
i nd icate
la n g u a g e
that factors
ot h er
co u ld be r e s p o n s i b l e
hension of syntactical patterns
operating
to any
in b o t h d ir e ct i o n s
to
language w o u l d
than the
learning of a
for their p o o r c o m p r e ­
or that i n t e r f e r e n c e was
to a degree w h i c h c a u s e d p o o r
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
language comprehension abilities
in one,
or both,
of t h ei r
languages.
The
two tasks
(Appendix E) p r e s e n t e d to the s u b j e c t s
e ac h c o n s i s t e d o f t w e n t y - s e v e n sets of three u t t e r a n c e s each.
O ne of the three u t t e r a n c e s
c o r r e c t ut t er a n c e ;
rect.
in e a ch set was
a grammatically
the o t h e r two w e r e s y n t a c t i c a l l y
O n e of the i n c o r r e c t u t t e r a n c e s
incor­
in e ac h set was c o n ­
s t r u c t e d to y i e l d that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by the b i l i n g u a l due
to s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s
f e r i n g product.
in the two l a n g u a g e s - - the i n t e r ­
The t hi r d u t t e r a n c e was
syntactically
i n c o r r e c t but was no t c o n s i d e r e d to sample
f er e nc e effects.
each task w e r e
was
The t w e n t y - s e v e n sets of u t t e r a n c e s
o r g a n i z e d in n i ne groups of three.
s t r u c t u r e d to s ample a p a r t i c u l a r
ference.
likely i n t e r ­
in
Each group
likely source of i n t e r ­
Each u t t e r a n c e d e s c r i b e d an a c tion or event
illus­
t r a t e d by a picture.
The u t t e r a n c e s w e r e
tape by a male,
n a t i v e s p e a k e r of st a n d a r d A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h
w ho was m o n o l i n g u a l
speaker
tape r e c o r d e d on h i g h q u a l i t y audio
and by a b i l i n g u a l S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h
for w h o m S p a n i s h was his
first-learned
the E n g l i s h and S p a n i s h u t t e r a n c e s
to a v o i d any bias
ances,
re spect ively.
did not k n o w the n at u re of the experi me n t.
tape had a d u r a t i o n of ten mi nutes;
n i n e m in u t e s .
In o rd e r
in ea c h s p e a k e r ’s p r o d u c t i o n of the u t t e r ­
the speakers
The E n g l i s h
language for
There was
a time
the Spanish,
lapse of seven seconds b e t w e e n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
e a c h item.
A l l o f the st i mu l us
a s o u n d - t r e a t e d room.
The r e s e a r c h e r c o n t r o l l e d the level
of r e c o r d i n g o f the s t i m u l u s
c o n t r o l on the
s e n t e n c e s w e r e r e c o r d e d in
items b y a d j u s t i n g the p r o p e r
tape r e c o r d e r as they w e r e b e i n g r e c o r d e d so
that the f l u c t u a t i o n of the s pe a ke r *s
three dB a c c o r d i n g
mately
to the r e c o r d i n g
voice was no m o r e th an
level m e t e r for a p p r o x i ­
90 p e r c e n t of the r e c o r d i n g time.
ing 10 p e r c e n t of the time o c c a s i o n a l
D u r i n g the r e m a i n ­
syllable peaks may have
d e v i a t e d f r o m the m e a n v a l u e b y no m o r e t h a n six dB.
B e f o r e the tests w e re u s e d w i t h e i t h e r the c o n t r o l or
e x p e r i m e n t a l group,
t h r o u g h f i f t h grades
the ta s k in E n g l i s h
workable
six m o n o l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n f r o m the third
in Mi s so u l a ,
Montana were presented with
in order to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r it was
instrument.
a
Two of these c h i l d r e n w e r e also p r e ­
s e n t e d the task in S p a n i s h in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e its e ff e ct
on a c h i l d wh o was a m o n o l i n g u a l .
No p r o b l e m s we r e r e v e a l e d
b y this p i l o t study.
T h e items
c o n s t i t u t i n g the c o m p r e h e n s i o n tasks w e r e c o n ­
s t r u c t e d after a r e v i e w of s tudies
a nd s i m i l a r i t i e s
Spanish.
e xp e r t s
in the s y n t a c t i c a l
On the b a s i s
s tr u ct u r e s
of E n g l i s h an d
of o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e by such l i n g u i s t i c
as S t o c k w e l l , Bowen,
and S t a u b a c h
d e s c r i b i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s
an d M a r t i n
[1965)
and P o l i t z e r
(1965), w h o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c o m p a r e d and c o n t r a s t e d
the g r a m m a t i c a l
systems
of the two languages,
of c o n f u s i o n or i n t e r f e r e n c e w e r e
possible
sources
s e l e c t e d to be i n c o r p o r a t e d
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
int o the
tasks.
u s e d as ba s e s
Not all p o s s i b l e
interference products were
for test items as that w o u l d have
w ieldy and impractical
tasks.
In addi tion,
some of the i n t e r f e r e n c e p r o d u c t s w as
led to u n ­
the n a t u r e
of
s u c h that the p r e s e n t a ­
tion w o u l d not ha v e b e e n f ea s ib l e w i t h this p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r i
m e n t b e c a u s e th e ir r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h p i c t u r e s w o u l d ha ve
b e e n d i f f i c u l t or impossible.
Nine different
contrasting syntactical
c h o s e n to be u s e d as the bases
test u tt e r a n c e s .
for the t w e n t y - s e v e n sets of
Each s t r u c t u r e was
i n c o r p o r a t e d into the
test a t ot a l of three d i f f e r e n t times,
ferent
le xical units.
b oy r e a d i n g ?
c a l l y a c cu r at e
word order
ordered;
For example.
and Is the girl
s t ru c t u r e s w e r e
each time w i t h d i f ­
Is the car r e d ? . Is the
s l e e p i n g ? w e r e three g r a m m a t i ­
items w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h the c a t e g o r y of
in y e s / n o
interrogatives.
The
items we re r a n d o m l y
the same o r d e r i n g w as u s e d for the S p an i sh test as
for the E n g l i s h test.
Following
used,
is a list of the n i n e
w i t h b o t h the E n g l i s h and S p a n i s h p a t t e r n s
and t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s
of e a c h struct ur e ,
pothesized,
tions
syntactic structures
expla ined.
Also
inclu d ed is an e xa m pl e
in b o t h E n g l i s h and Spanish,
m o s t p ro b able,
specified,
i n t e r f e r i n g pattern.
and the h y ­
The d e s c r i p ­
of these c a t e g o r i e s w e r e a d a p t e d from d e s c r i p t i o n s
m ad e by S to c kw e ll ,
Staubach
Bowen,and Martin
(1965)
and P o l i t z e r and
(1965).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
1. S p e c i f i c a t i o n of subject
In English, the subject in an u tt e rance or s e n ­
tence w i t h a full verb p hrase must be e xp r e s s e d
unless the utterance is an imperative.
In
Spanish, however, the subject may not be s p e c i ­
fied if it is implicit in the context.
The s u b ­
ject is not en t irely o mitted in Spanish as it is
e xp l ic i t in the in f lected verb.
It w o u l d seem
likely that the n a ti v e S p anish sp eaker would
indicate as correct that E nglish utterance w h i c h
is a literal translation of the S pa n is h and does
not express a subject.
Example.
E nglish
It is raining.
Interference
Spanish
Product
Estsf lloviendo
Is raining.
2. Po sition of object p ro n o u n
The pl a ce m en t of an object in an utterance,
w h e t h e r it is a noun or a pronoun, is no rmally
fo llowing the verb in English.
In Spanish,
however, the p la c ement of the object pr onoun
is befo re finite verb forms except in a f f i r m a ­
tive commands.
The native Spanish speaker
w o u l d tend, on the basis of this observation,
to c omprehend as correct the object pronoun
p la c em e nt p re c e d i n g the verb in English.
Example:
E ng lish
I have it.
S p anish
Lo tengo.
Interference
Product
I it have.
3. Personal nouns as direct objects
In English, no p r e p o s i t i o n is us ed following a
verb and pr e ce d i n g a direct object even when the
direct object is a personal noun.
In Spanish,
w h e n the direct object following a verb is a
specific, p er sonal noun, it is p re c e d e d by the
preposition, a.
The Sp anish speaker, therefore,
m a y interpret an E n gl i sh utterance with the
p r e p o s i ti o n
p r e c e d in g the direct object to
be the correct uttera nce because that could a p ­
p ea r to be the likely t r anslation of the a to
him.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Example:
English
I see m y friend.
S panish
Veo a mi
Interference
Product
amigo. I see to my
friend.
4. W o r d order and formation of n e ga t iv e declaratives
In an En glish declarative sentence, not or n* t
follows the verb to be or the a u xi liary of any
w o r d in o r d e r to negate.
In the similar s i t u a ­
tion in Spanish, the ne gative is formed by the
insertion of a ne g ative element before the verb
p hr a se and a change in the form of the subject
or p r ev e r b a l adverb w h e n e v e r possible.
English,
u nl i ke Spanish, does not allow the spread of the
n eg a t i v e element into other parts of the phrase.
Examples.
English
Mary is not
here.
Jo hn doesn't
ever wa nt to go.
Spanish
M a r i a n o esta
aquf.
Ju an no quiere
ir nunca.
Interference
Product
Mary no is
here.
John no wants
to go never.
5. W o r d order in the yes/no interrogatives
A l t h o u g h at times b o th English and S p anish t r a n s ­
form declarative sentences into ye s/ no questions
by simply inverting the intonation, this is only
done in E ng l is h to generate an echo question wh i ch
is different in m ea n i n g from the declarative.
For
example. He's h e r e t might be transformed to H e 's
h e r e t with a resulting change in meaning.
In those
interrogati ves in w h i c h an inversion of word order
takes place as well as an inversion of intonation,
S pa n is h inverts the subject and the entire verb
phrase.
English, on the other hand, inverts the
subject and only the first part of the verb phr ase the tense, the tense+modal, the tense+have, or the
tense+be.
The difference in the amount of the s e n ­
tence inverted could confuse the Spanish speaker
learning E n glish and be a source of interference.
Examples.
E ng l is h
Is the boy here?
.Spanish ^
<fEsta' aqui el
muc hacho?
Interference
Product
Is here the boy?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Can Mary go?
dSe puede ir
Maria?
Can go Mary?
Has the girl
arrived?
ilia llegado la
m uc h acha?
Has arri ved the
girl?
6. S u b j e c t - o b j e c t p ro noun p o s i t i on i ng
In English, object pr onouns follow the verb.
In
Spanish, however, the object p ro n o u n precedes the
verb unless there is a gerund, infinitive, or
affirmative command
tow h i c h it
is attachedThe
subj ect of the sentence, then, ma y
v e ry well f o l ­
low the verb in Spanish and a co n tr a st i ng p at t e r n
to E nglish syntax is created.
Example:
^
E nglish
The boy hit her.
Spanish
La golpeo el
muchacho.
, ^
^
Interference
Product
Hit her the boy
7. The use of definite and indefinite articles
The m a jo r contrast b et w e e n English and Spanish
articles is that the Spanish forms have number
and gender, w hi l e only the English indefinite
articles show a distinction for number.
(En g­
lish singular--a, an, English p l u r a l - - s o m e ) .
In addition, the po s i t i o n i n g and n ec e s s i t y for
u sing the articles do not constitute equivalent
situations in the two languages.
For example,
no indefinite article is present be f or e a p r e d i ­
cate noun in S p anish w h e n there are no adjectives
and the sentence is for identification.
There
w o u l d be an indefinite article pr e se n t in this
s it u ation in English.
S pa n is h also requires the
use of a definite article p r ec e di n g certain
titles such as seîior, senora, and sehorita while
E ng l is h does not use an article be f or e Mr., Mrs.,
or Miss.
Stockwell, Bowen, and M a r t i n (1965) e x ­
p l a i n a third example of contrast:
There are pr e p o s i t i o n a l phrases indicating
place in E ng l i sh w h i c h
do
not
have
an
article
before
their
objects
when the nouns refer to specific places
which are n or m al l y unique in the cultural
context: to town, to church . . . .
All
these have Spanish equivalents w i t h definite
articles.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Examp le s :
Interference
Product
He is doctor.
English
He is a doctor.
Spanish^
El es medico.
Mrs. Smith is
teaching the
lessons.
La senora
Santos ensena
la leccidn.
The Mrs. Smith
is teaching
the lesson.
She is going
to church.
Va a la
iglesia.
She is going
to the church.
8. C o n n e c t i o n b et w ee n verbs and adjecti ves and d e p e n ­
dent infinitives
A l t h o u g h bo t h Engl ish and S panish have dependent
in finitive constructions w h i c h do not require the
use of function words or relators, in those s i t u a ­
tions in Spa nish where function words are re q uired
there are several p o s s i b i li t ie s such as q u e , a,
p a r a , or
A con flict is created b e tw e en E nglish
and Spanish b ec ause Eng lish has ba s ically on ly one
f u n c t i o n w o r d in this case--to.
Example :
E ng lish
She is trying
to sleep.
Spanish
Trata de
dormir.
Interference
Product
She tries of
to sleep.
9. Reflexive constructions
The reflexive forms in English, -self and -selves
are added to the pr o nouns (myself, for example)
a n d are us u al l y restri c te d to literal me a ni n g of
the reflexive construction.
This type of c o n ­
s tr u ction is also existent in Spanish, but the
reflexive is also e x tended to other figurative
uses in Sp a ni s h that are not possible in E n glish
and which w o u l d u s u a l l y be expressed by a passive
c o n s t r u c t i o n in E n g l i s h .
E xa m pl e ;
English
The plate was
broken.
Span ish
Se queb ro el
plato.
Interference
Product
The plate broke
itself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Experimental Procedure
Each
s u b j e c t was
t e s t e d indiv id u al l y.
ta ken into a sm all r o o m in his
tone s c r e e n i n g c h e c k at Ik,
20 dB to rule out h e a r i n g
the o u t c o m e
He was
school and wa s
2k,
and 4k Hz.
first
g i ve n a pur e-
at a level of
loss w h i c h m i g h t i n t e r f e r e w i t h
of the e xperiment.
F a i l u r e of the s u bject
r e s p o n d at 20 dB to any one of the f r e q u e n c i e s
s ulted in a r e j e c t i o n of that su b je c t
to
tested r e ­
for the r e m a i n i n g
procedures.
Before
a d m i n i s t e r i n g the ta s k in English,
c o n v e r s e d w i t h each m o n o l i n g u a l
c h il d in order
the e x a m i n e r
to d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r he u s e d ge neral A m e r i c a n En g l i s h a c c o r d i n g to her
judgment.
fa il ure
No c h i l d w a s r e j e c t e d fr om the e x p e r i m e n t
for
to m e e t this r equirement.
E a c h c h i l d wh o s u c c e s s f u l l y p a s s e d the p r e v i o u s
ings w a s
s e a t e d at a d e s k and w a s
f itted w i t h the h e adphones.
In fr o nt o f the c h i l d w e r e a p e ncil,
the u p r i g h t b o o k of pi ctures.
with headphones
was
an an s w e r sheet,
The e x a m i n e r was also
so that she c o u l d turn the p i c t u r e s
cliild at the a p p r o p r i a t e
time.
screen­
and
f itted
for the
A f t e r seeing that the c h i l d
c o m f o r t a b l y s ea t ed and that the h e a d p h o n e s we re w e l l
pl ac ed,
the e x a m i n e r t u r n e d on the tape re c or d e r and a d m i n ­
i s t e r e d the E n g l i s h task.
tape recorded.
These
In s tr u ct i on s
instructions
p r e s e n t e d to the c h i l d d u r i n g
m a y be
for the task w e r e
and all o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s
the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the task
se en in A p p e n d i x C.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
After
at least one d a y and n o m or e
child was brought
into the same
t as k in Spanish.
Instructions
t h an three d a y s , e ac h
r oo m a n d p r e s e n t e d w i t h
the
for this t a sk are a l so p r e ­
s e n t e d in A p p e n d i x C,
Statistical Design
The n u m b e r of items c o r r e c t l y c o m p l e t e d by each s u b ­
ject on e a ch test wa s computed;
on e i t h e r test wa s
the h i gh e s t p o s s i b l e
twenty-seven.
B e c a u s e the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the scores
the c o m p r e h e n s i o n ta s k w e r e not m e a s u r e a b l e
scale,
a nonparametric statistical
statistical
pa irs
test wa s
d at a o b t a i n e d b e c a u s e
pairs.
o b t a i n e d from
in an interval
test was u s e d to d e t e r m i n e
s i g n i f i c a n c e of the results.
signed-ranks
score
The W i l c o x o n matched-
the tes t c h o s e n to a n a l y z e the
the study
i n v o l v e d two groups of m a t c h e d
F ou r sep arate a n a l y s e s w e r e u n d e r t a k e n ;
1)
to co m pa r e
the scores of the m o n o l i n g u a l s o n the E n g l i s h test to those on
the S p a n i s h test;
2)
to c o m p a r e the scores
of the b i l i n g u a l s
on the E n g l i s h test to those on the S pa n i s h test;
par e
scores
of m o n o l i n g u a l s
the b i l i n g u a l s ; and 4)
guals
cases,
to c o m p a r e the scores
to those of the b i l i n g u a l s
in the
of the m o n o l i n ­
on the S p a n i s h test.
c o m p a r i n g the scores o f the two groups
the d i f f e r e n c e
to c o m ­
on the E n g l i s h test to those of
tas k an d c o m p a r i n g the scores
task,
3)
In two
on the E n g l i s h
of the two groups on the S p a n i s h
test scores b e t w e e n
the two
m a t c h e d su b je c ts was d e t e r m i n e d an d the d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
r an k ed w i t h o u t
regard to sign.
Then a sign was p l a c e d on
the r a n k c o r r e sp o nd i ng to the sign of the differences.
A
T was d e t e r m i n e d to be the smaller of the sums of the likes igned ranks.
A table was
was or was not significant.
set at
then us e d to d et e rmine w h e t h e r T
The level of signif i ca n ce was
.025 for a on e -t a il e d test as the direction of the
di fference was predicted.
Previous
to the a d mi n i s t r a t i o n o f the tasks,
the e x a m i ­
ner h a d p r e d i c t e d w h i c h of the answers w o u l d be c h osen by
the b i li n gu a l subjects on the E nglish task w h e n they chose
a w r o n g answer.
An item analysis was conducted to determine
to w h at extent the e x a m i n e r ’s p r edictions we re correct.
addition,
jects'
the answers
In
given on the qu estionnaire by the s u b ­
pa r ents were compared w i t h the test results
in order
to deter m in e w h e t h e r other factors ma y have affected the
ou tcome of the experiment.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C HA P T E R III
RE SULTS
It w as h y p o t h e si z ed that m o n o l i n gu a l English speakers
w o u l d ob t ai n higher scores on a test of E ng l i s h syntax p r e ­
sented audito ri l y than w o u l d a ma t c h e d group of SpanishEn glish bilinguals.
Data obtai ne d from the performance of the experimental
and con trol groups on the tests of En glish and Spanish syntax
and the c ha r acteristics of these populations as defined by
the q u e s t i on n ai r e and survey c on d uc t ed in the school system
are de s cr i b e d in the following paragraphs.
C haracteristics of the Population
TABLE 1
The Distribution of the Subjects in the Control and
the Experimental Groups by Grade and Sex
Boys
Contro]
Exper.
Girls
Control
Exper.
T hird Grade
3
3
3
3
Fourth Grade
3
3
2
2
Fifth Grade
3
3
4
4
TOTAL
9
9
9
9
N = 18 m a tc h ed pairs
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
The m ea n so c ioeconomic rating of the b i l i n gu a l subjects
w ho p a r t i c i p a t e d in the study was 62.11.
The mean s o c i o ­
econo mi c rating of the m a t c h e d m o no li n gu a l
59.06 points,
a difference of 3,05 p oints
o b t a i n e d by the subjects
subjects was
from that mean
in the ex perimental group.
This
d if f er e nc e is m i nimal w h e n one considers the fact that the
c ri t e r i a for s o ci o ec o no m ic status stipulated that the r a t ­
ings of the control group subjects were to fall w i t h i n f i f ­
teen p oi n ts
in either direction of the m e a n socioeconomic
rating o bt a in e d by the subjects
in the ex perimental
group.
The range of ages of the ch ildren in the control group
was f r om eight years,
six months
to eleven years,
two months;
the range of ages of the c h ildren in the experimental group
was eight years to twelve years,
previously,
one month.
As m en t io n ed
no child was m a t c h e d with an other child of the
same sex and grade who was more than one year older or
y o u n g e r than he was.
The m e an age of the children in the
control group was ten years and the m ea n age of the subjects
in the experimental group was ten years,
one month.
For a more d et a i l e d listing of the ages,
an d s oc ioeconomic rating of the ma t ch e d pairs,
sex,
grade,
see A p p e n ­
dix D.
A total of seven parents of those chil dren in the e x ­
p e r i m e n t a l group answered "yes" to the first part of q ue s t i o n
e le v en on the questio nnaire,
"Does your child speak more than
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
one l an g ua g e now?"
These p arents an s w e r e d the second part
of q u e s t i o n eleven,
"If yes, w h i c h languages
w i t h the an sw ers "Mexican" or "Spanish."
does he speak?"
Some of the parents
i n d i c a te d that the chi ld spoke "a little" or "some" Spanish.
All of the parents
of the c hi ldren in the experi me n ta l group
ans w er e d "yes" to q u e s t i o n twelve,
"Does any other me m be r o f
this c h ild's family speak any language other than English?"
In addition,
each of these parents r ep orted that that l a n ­
guage was "Spanish" or "Mexican."
No other language was
listed as an answer to this quest io n for those q u al i f y i n g as
p ar t ic i pa n ts
in the experimental group.
Of those answering "yes" to q u estion eleven,
four parents
ind i cated that En glish was the language the child had learned
first.
(Question fourteen),
one parent indicated that Sp anish
was the language the child had learned first,
not answer the question,
one parent did
and one parent reported that the child
had always been spoken to in both Spanish and En glish by his
parents,
but that he had not be en requir ed to answer in Spanish.
The age at wh i ch these c h ildren had learned their second l a n ­
guage,
ei th er Engl ish or Spanish,
varied from two and one-
h a l f to eight years.
Of the seven parents who a ns wered "yes" to question
eleven,
six completed the remainder of the questionnaire.
The answers given by these parents
to question twenty,
"Which
language w ou l d you say the child prefers to u s e ? " , qu e stion
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
twenty-one,
"W h ic h language w o u l d you say the child uses most?"
and q u e s t i o n twenty-two,
"Which language is us ed most in the
home?" are s u m m a r i z e d below:
Q u e s t i o n T w e n t y - - Language child pr efers
to use
English - 3
Spanish - 1
Both
- 2
Q u e s t i o n T w e n t y - o n e - - Language child uses most
Eng l is h - 4
S pa n i s h - 0
Bot h
- 2
Que s t i o n T w e n t y - t w o - - L a n g u a g e us ed mos t in the home
E ng l i s h - 4
S pa n i s h - 0
Both
- 2
In addition,
four parents
indicated that the situation in
w hi c h their child u s e d Spanish was w i th relatives other than
the imme diate
family.
In only one case did the parent i n d i ­
cate that he spoke and u nd e rs t o o d only "a little" Eng lish
(Questions ei ghteen and nineteen).
All other parents r e ­
p o r t e d that they b o th spoke and u nd e rs t oo d English.
Com­
p arable data was not available for the remaining eleven s u b ­
jects
in the ex p er i me n ta l group as the ques tionnaires we re
not c om p l e t e d be yond question thirteen because these parents
had in d icated that their children did not speak a second
language.
However,
all c h ildren in the experimental group
were c o n s i d er e d to have at least a co m prehension of Spanish
as d e t e r m i n e d by the b il i ng u al
survey conducted by the
school district.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
T hese o bservations
in dicated that the experim e nt a l group
of s ub jects e xh i b i t e d a wide degree of va r ia b il i ty in their
ability to u nd e rs t a n d and speak Spanish.
The degree of f l u ­
ency in S p a n i s h of each subject as well as the amount of
expo sure to Spanish of ea ch subject were variables w h i c h were
not w e l l - c o n t r o l l e d in this study.
All parents of the children in the monol ingual group
ans wered "no" to q ue s t i o n eleven,
than one language now?"
all of these par ents
"Does your child speak more
A n answer of "no" was also given by
to the question,. "Does any member of this
c h i l d ’s family speak any language other than English?"
(Ques­
tion twelve.)
Performance on the tasks
The m e a n score of the control group subjects on the E n g ­
lish task was
25.94, while the m e an score of the experi m en t al
group subjects on this same task was 25.84.
of the Wi l c o x o n m at c he d pairs,
sign ed ranks test p r o d u c e d a
T w h i c h w as not significant at the
for a one-tailed test.
The a p p l i c a ti o n
.025 level of si g nificance
An analysis of the scores of each
m at c h e d pa i r revealed that the un s ig n ed difference
scores was not gr ea ter than two points
two children,
in the
for any one pair.
Only
both in the third grade in the bilingual group,
ans wered more than two questions
the differences
incorrectly on this task.
in the scores were minimal,
u n d e r t a k e n to determine in w h i c h c ategories
no analysis was
the errors had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As
38
b e e n made.
The m e an score of the m o no l in g ua l subjects on the task
in S pa n i s h was
9.61.
The m e a n score on this same tas k of
the exper i me n ta l group subjects was
12.78.
There were
three
cases in w h i c h a m o no l in g ua l subject obtai n ed a higher score
than his m a t c h e d subject in the bilingual group.
tion of the Wilcoxon,
duced a T of 23,
signed ranks test p r o ­
the sum of the positive ranks, wh i ch was
s ignificant at the
test.
m a t c h e d pairs,
The a p p l i c a ­
.025 level of significance for a one-ta i le d
This w o u l d suggest that the subjects of the expe rimental
group p e r f o r m e d s i gnificantly b e t t e r on this task than did the
subjects
in the control group.
Of the six children wh o se parents
reported they spoke at
least some S panish on the q u estionnaire and the one child whose
parents
indicated was spok en to in Spanish,
five obta ined
scores hi g he r than the mean score for the entire group on the
Spanish test.
Three other children, whose parents
that they did not speak Spanish,
also obtained scores h i gh e r
than the m e a n score for the bilingual group.
subject reported by her parents
indicated
In fact,
to speak no Spanish,
o bt ained
the third highest score in the bi lingual group on this
The one bilingual child who
one
task.
learned to speak Spanish
before he learned to speak En g li s h received the second highest
score on the test of S p anish syntax.
this same child m i s s e d only one even
On the English task,
though he told the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
examiner he th ought he had a bett er comprehension of Spanish
than English.
No statistical analysis was undertaken to compare the
perform a nc e of each subject ma t ch ed w i t h himself on the two
tasks b e ca u se there was no case in which any subject, b i l i n ­
gual or monolingual,
achieved a hig her score on the Spanish
task than on the English task.
The performances of the s u b ­
jects and the appropriate statistical analysis are summarized
in tables two and three.
In summary,
the null hypothesis,
that both groups w o u l d
pe rf orm equally well on the English task, could not be r e ­
jected b a s e d on the results of this study.
However,
the two
popula tions could be considered to evolve from different
environments b a s e d on the answers to the qu estionnaire and
the comparative performance of the two groups on the Spanish
task.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
TABLE
2
Per f o r m a n c e of the Subjects on the English Task
Control
Group
Third
Grade
Fourth
Grade
Fifth
Grade
Score
Exper.
Group
Score
d
Signed
rank of d
1
26
1
27
1
-6
2
26
2
26
0
none
3
26
3
24
2
+ 14
4
25
4
23
2
+ 14
5
25
5
26
1
-6
6
25
6
26
1
-6
7
25
7
27
2
-14
8
26
8
27
1
-6
9
27
9
26
1
+6
10
26
10
25
1
+6
11
27
11
26
1
+6
12
25
12
26
1
-6
13
27
13
26
1
+6
14
25
14
27
2
-14
15
26
15
27
1
-6
16
27
16
27
0
none
17
26
17
25
1
+6
18
27
18
25
2
+ 14
X=25.94
X= 25.89
Sum of positi ve signed ranks = 7 2
Sum of negative signed ranks = 64
T = 64
N = 18-2=16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
TABLE 3
Perfo rm a nc e of the Subjects on the Spanish Task
Third
Grade
Fourth
Grade
Fifth
Grade
Exper.
Group
Control
Group
Score
1
5
1
2
10
3
Score
d
rank of d
20
15
-17
2
16
6
-13
12
3
14
2
-7
4
10
4
11
1
-3
5
7
5
10
3
-8.5
6
15
6
11
4
+ 11.5
7
11
7
12
1
-3
8
8
8
10
2
-7
9
8
9
8
0
none
10
11
10
18
7
-14. 5
11
9
11
10
1
12
11
12
15
4
13
5
13
18
13
-16
14
13
14
12
1
+3
15
11
15
13
2
-7
16
7
16
8
1
-3
17
7
17
14
7
-14. 5
18
13
18
10
3
+ 8.5
X = 9 . 61
-3
-11. 5
X = 1 2 . 78
Sum of neg ative signed ranks = 128
23
Sum of posi tive signed ranks =
T = 23
N = 18-1=17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IV
D ISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to de termine the effect
of bi l i n g u a l i s m on a subject's comprehension of English s y n ­
tactical patterns.
Two groups of eighteen subjects each were
p re s ented w it h two tests of syntax,
Spanish.
one in English and one in
Each subject was shown a series of twenty-seven p i c ­
tures.
The subject heard three different tape-recorded s e n ­
tences
for each illustration and was asked to select the one
gr ammat ically accurate sentence w hi c h corresponded
picture.
The hypothesis,
to the
that the English monolingual control
group w o u l d score significantly higher on a task of auditory
comp rehension of English syntax than w o ul d the Spanish-English
bi lingual group, was not supported by the results of this study.
The factors affecting the outcome of the study appeared to be
many and varied and included limitations imposed by the a v a i l ­
able population,
limitations
of the test,
and a possible w e a k ­
ness in the contrastive analysis used to determine the i n t e r ­
ference products.
A discussion of these factors
follows.
Failure of the monol ingual group to achieve a s i g n i f i ­
cantly greater number of correct answers on the English task
than the bilingual group may have been due to the lack of
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
sufficient Spanish language experience and the wide variab i li t y
of degree of b i l i n g u a l i s m among the subjects
mental group.
in the e x p e r i ­
The answers given on the questionnaire and
summarized in Chapter three were such that no "pure" group
of bilinguals could be defined.
this was due,
For example,
in part,
The examiner concluded that
to inadequacies of the questionnaire.
the design of some of the questions was such
that a pa r e n t ne e de d to make some of his own interpretations
as to w h at the question meant in order to answer the question.
A parent wh o se child spoke a limited amount of Spanish may
have ans wered "no" w he n asked,
"Does your child speak any
language other than En glish now?" because in his judgment
an answer of "yes" could only have been considered if the child
spoke Sp a nish fluently.
On the other hand,
another parent
whose child also spoke a limited amount of Spanish may have
answered "yes" to this same question because in his opinion
the child did "speak a language other than English."
This is
supported by the fact that some children, who spoke no Sp anish
according to their parents, o bt a in e d scores higher than the
mean score for the bilingual group on the test in Spanish,
while other children who reportedly spoke Spanish obtained
scores
lower than the mean on this
test.
In addition,
no
child in the experimental group scored higher on the test
in Spanish than on the test in English.
A n o t h e r factor which should be considered was the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
app arent reluctance on the pa rt of some of the parents
to
admit to the amount of Spanish spoken by their children.
Some pa rents
expressed a concern that their children only
be e xp o s e d to and taught English, pa rticularly at school.
School admi nistrators
indicated to the researcher that this
p ro b le m ha d be e n enc ountered previously.
being taken,
Alt hough steps are
such as the establishment of bilingual programs
in schools w i t h Chicano populations,
to instill a pride in the
Sp anish language and in the Mexican culture,
their initial stages.
point,
they are still in
The attitude of most parents,
at this
seems to be that the learning and use of English,
op posed to Spanish,
their children.
as
is the major accomplishment hoped for for
The researcher was not able to assess to
what extent the reluctance of the parents
to admit that their
children spoke Spanish affected this study, but it must be
considered to have had some effect.
More questionnaires may
have been returned and different information may have been
p ro v i d e d by the parents
if this attitude were non-existent.
As m e nt ioned previously in this paper,
tors,
non-st ructural f a c ­
such as o n e ’s attitude toward his language and his
culture,
affects the speech and co mprehension of a bilingual
(Weinreich,
1953).
One must also consider the possi bility that some children
who spoke Spanish and who achiev ed low scores on the task in
Spanish may have comprehended the content of spoken Spanish
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
very w e l l e v en though they did not have knowledge of accurate
grammar.
Su ch a conclusion is supported by the case of the
bilingual child wh o indicated to the examiner that his S p a n ­
ish w as
"better" than his English and yet who scored much
higher on the test in English than on the one in Spanish.
Here again,
a cultural
identification to Spanish may have
been the r eason for the c h i l d ’s appearing to feel more c o m ­
fortable w i t h Spanish despite a modest score on the Spanish
grammatical test.
Limi tations of the tasks use d in the study must also be
considered, p ar t ic u la r ly in relation to the po pulation w i t h
which they were used.
Al t h o u g h the examiner designed the
English task so that a perfect perf ormance was expected from
the m o n o l i n g u a l group,
mental group.
experimental,
task might
jects.
this was not expected from the e x p e r i ­
The fact that both groups,
achieved nea rly perfect scores on the En glish
indicate that the task was too easy for these s u b ­
There appeared to be a tendency for language i n t e r ­
ference to occur at the third-grade
group.
the control and the
level in the bilingual
Two children in that age level obtained the two
lowest scores on the En glish task of anyone in the experimental
group.
This
tendency did not appear wit h the third graders
the control group.
subjects
in
Ju dging from the responses of the bilingual
in this study,
the English task used in this study
could e asily be given to y o unger bilingual children in order
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
to de t er m in e the functioning of interference in children less
s op histicated in their competence with English grammar.
Other
alternatives w o u l d involve the use of a task made up of more
complex transformations w i t h the same age group,
or the use
of a more homogeneous po p ul a ti o n w it h more Spanish language
experience and less competence in English to increase the
likelihood of occurrences of interference.
Contrastive analysis may not be as useful a technique
for p r ed i ct i ng linguistic interference as it appears to be.
It is possible that other linguistic methods may produce
tasks m u ch more sensitive to interference effects.
and Jackson
(1972)
Whitman
adminis tered two sets of English syntax
to 2500 Japane se students learning En glish as a second l a n ­
guage.
They used four different contrastive analyses to p r e ­
dict the relative difficulty the students wo u ld have with the
various
test items.
When the results of the test were c o m ­
p ared w i th these predictions,
they found that the contrastive
analyses did not serve as predictors of the level of d i f f i ­
culty a non-native speaker of Engl ish w ould have with English
syntactic patterns.
W hitman and Jackson
(1972)
concluded
that there were two possible explanations for the results
they encountered:
1. Contrastive analysis, as represented by the
four analyses tested in this project, is in a de ­
quate, theoretically and practically, to p r e ­
dict the interference problems of a language
learner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
2. Interference, or n a t i v e - t o - t a r g e t language
transfer, plays such a small role in language
learning p e r f o r ma n ce that no contrastive
analysis, no ma t t e r how well conceived, cou ld
correlate hi ghly w i t h p e r f o rm a nc e data, at
least in the level of syntax.
More r e s e a r c h is needed,
they indicated,
sions c o u l d be d e cl a r e d d e f i n i t i v e .
before these c o n c l u ­
However,
the appli c at i on
of th e se conclusions to this study should be conside r ed as a
p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n for the outcome of the study.
A l t h o u g h the hypothesis
by the results
in this research was not s up p orted
of the experiment,
there are substantial reasons
for c o n t i n u i n g r e se a rc h in this area and even using the same
bil i ng u al population.
for the Billings
unpublished,
Mr. Augie Lopez,
school district,
a bilingual c o un selor
conducted a study,
as yet
in w h i c h the Illinois Test of P s yc h olinguistic
A b i l i t ie s and the Peabody Picture V oc a bu l a r y Test were p r e ­
sented to 132 students
ing to Mr,
Lopez,
guage defici en c ie s
children.
in Title I schools
in Billings.
Accord­
the results of the testing revealed that l a n ­
in E n glish were prevalent among the Chicano
Realizing that these tests were de signed for the
sta ndard A m e r i c a n En glish speaker and that they w er e not s t a n ­
dar d i z e d for use w i t h m in ority groups,
one might still agree
that they serve as predictors of areas of language diffic u lt y
in E n g l i s h for the Chicano child.
Mr.
Lopez also indicated that,
in his opinion,
the lack
of e x p e r i e n c e w i t h st a nd a rd E nglish before a child enters
school makes
it difficult for the child to co mprehend i n s t r u c ­
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
tions g i v e n to hi m by his teacher.
the child's
This
factor,
along w it h
sometimes n eg ative attitude toward his language
or his culture,
contri bu t e to his di f ficulties w it h English.
The i n a b i l i t y of a c hild to identify w it h any p ar t ic u l a r c u l ­
ture m a y be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y ha mp e ri n g in his attempts to use
language properly.
On the basis of these observations,
it
w o u l d s e e m imperative that further r es earch be conducted to
d et e r m i n e
the sources
of deficits
in En g li s h competence by
these children.
S everal kinds of studies are s u gg e st e d by the pr esent
study.
It w o u l d be beneficial
to conduct a similar study to
this one w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n wh i c h was more truly bilingual,
p o s s i b l y w i t h the use of mo r e complex transformations in
order to help determine w h e t h e r interference does operate as
s ug g ested thus
far in the m a j o r i t y of the available l i t e r a ­
ture .
Stud ies of y ou n g e r bilingual ch i ld r en should be co m pl e te d
as c h ildren of p re s ch o ol age just devel o pi n g basic g r a m m a t i ­
cal rules should more readily exhibit interference effects.
S tudies emplo yi n g several a lternative contrastive a n a l y ­
ses,
such as that c on d uc t ed by W h i t m a n
and Jackson
s hould be done in an effort to identify more
(1972),
fruitful methods
of id e n t i f y i n g language interference.
Stud ies in w hi c h the language of Chicano childre n is
e x a m i n e d through the use of ex is t in g tests
of English syntax
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
m i g h t be useful to help researchers
locate the specific areas
of d i f f i c u l t y e x p e r i en c ed by a bilingual child in u n d e r s t a n d ­
ing a nd spe aking English.
Finally,
the resea rc h er thinks
that m u c h more study
should b e c o n d u c t e d to assess the effects a n eg ative attitude
towa rd one's language and/or culture has on a b i l i n g u a l 's
language ab ility in bo th of his
languages.
A better u n d e r ­
standing of the relationship bet ween non-structural
factors
in l an guage learning and a b i l i n g u a l 's speech is imperative
if e ff e ct i ve help
is to be pr o v i d e d for bili ngual children.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C HAPTER V
SUMM ARY A N D C O NCLUSIONS
The p u rpose of this study was to d e te rmine the effect
of b i l i n g u a l i s m on children's c o mp r eh e ns i on of English s y n ­
tactical patterns.
Ei g ht e en m at c he d pairs of students from
the third through fifth grades we re used as subjects
the experiment.
for
Each subject was c lassified as being from
a m on o li n gu a l environment or from a bilin gual environment
on the basis of answers p r o v i d e d on ba c kg r ou n d questionnaires
compl et e d by the s u b j e c t s ’ parents.
Results obtained by the
schools on a b i l i n g u a l i s m survey were also used to classify
the subjects as m o n o l in g ua l or bilingual.
Each subject was
a dm i ni s te r ed two tests of syntax--one in English and one in
Spanish.
A total of twenty - se v en pic tures were shown to each
child in each test.
After h earing three tape-r ec o rd e d s e n ­
tences w h i c h c o rr e sp o nd e d to a picture,
the subject was r e ­
quired to circle the n umber of the sentence on his answer
sheet w h i c h was g r am m a t i c a l l y accurate
to the picture.
and w h ic h corresp o nd e d
There was only one correct answer for each
picture.
The m e a n scores
lated.
for e a ch group on each test was c a l c u ­
On the E n glish test,
the me an score obtained by the
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
m o n o l i n g u a l group was 25-94 and the m e an score o bt a i n e d by
the b i l i n g u a l group was 25.84,
coxon m a t c h e d pairs
cant T at the
The a p p l i c a ti o n of the Wil-
signed ranks test p r o d u c e d an i n s i g n i f i ­
.025 level of significance.
Me a n scores o b ta i ne d
by the two groups on the Sp anish test were 9.61 by the m o n o ­
lingual group and 12.78 by the bilin gu a l group.
The T was
s ig n if i ca n t for these test results.
On the basis of the r e ­
sults obtained,
that the subjects
the null hypothesis,
in the
e xp e r i m e n t a l group w o u l d achieve the same scores on the test
of E n g l i s h syntax as the subjects
in the control group, was
not rejected.
A s u mmary was ma de of the characteristics
of the p o p u l a ­
tions invol v ed in the study th rough the use of the answers
p ro v i d e d on the questionnaires.
A l though the subjects
b il i ng u al group we re not homogeneous,
in the
they po s se s s e d c h a r a c ­
teristics w h i c h d if f e r e n t i a t e d them from the subjects in the
control group.
A di s cu s si o n followed w h i c h centered around p o ss i bl e e x ­
p lanati o ns
for the inabil ity of the researcher to reject the
null hypothesis.
the scores
Even though a significant difference b e tw e en
of the two groups was not obtained on this p a r t i c u ­
lar test of E n g l i s h syntax,
langua ge problems
there was evidence to suggest that
ex isted among the members of the bi lingual
group w h i c h could be at t r ib ut e d to their bilingualism.
It
was c o n c l u d e d that the test of E nglish syntax used in this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
p a r t i c u l a r study did not detect interference effects because
the b i l i n g u a l subjects had insufficient Spanish language
experience.
Implications
for future re search were discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A P P E N D I C E S
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Q UE S TI O NN A IR E
1. Name o f child_____
(Nombre del niîio)
2, Sex of child
(Sexo del niho)
3. B i r t h d a t e of child
(Fecha del nacimientd)
4. O c c u p a t i o n of m o t h e r ____
(Empleo de la madre]
5. O c c u p a t i o n of f ather____
(Empleo del padre)
6. E d u c a t i o n of m ot h er
(Educacion de la madre)
7. E d u c a t i o n of father
(Educacidn del padre)
8. Place of birth of child
(Lugar del n ac i mi e nt o del niffo)
9.
If the child was not born in the U nited States, at wh at age
did he enter the U nited S tates?_______________ ______ _____ ____
(Si el nino no nacicT en los Estados Unidos, J a qud^ edad
e n t r o " en los EEUU?)
10. Place of birth of m o t h e r ____________
(Lugar de nacimie n to de la madre
of
del padre)
father
_
11.
Does yo ur child speak more than one language n o w? ______________
If yes, which languages does he sp ea k? _____________ ____________
(iHabla su niffo mis de un idioma?
Si contesta si,/cuales?)
12.
Does any other m e m b e r of this c h i l d ’s family speak any
language other than E n g l i s h ? ________________ If yes, w h i c h
languages ?__________ ___________________ _________ _____________ _
(6Hay algun otro m i embro de la familia que habla un idioma
ade mas del inglds?
d Cuales?)
13. Has the child ever spoken a language other than E n gl i s h ? ______
(dHa hablado el niho alguna vez otro idioma ademas del
inglds?)
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
If the c h i l d speaks more than one language, p l ea s e answer the
f ol l o wi n g questions.
(Si es que el niho habla mas de un idioma, favor de c o n t e s tar
las p r e g u n t a s siguientes.)
14. W h i c h
language did your c hild learn how to speak first?
(dCuàl es el p r i m e r idioma que aprendic^ su niho?)
15. At w h a t age did he learn to speak his second language?
__
((!A que edad a p r e n d i d su nino a hablar su segundo idioma?)
16. W h at formal language training has the child had in his second
l a n g u a g e ? _________________ W h e n and w h e r e ? ______________________
(<* Ha cursado’"su niho lecciones de ingles q cualquier otro
idioma antes de entrar en la escuela?
dCudndo? c'Ddhde?)
17. Ho w ma n y years has the mo t h e r of this child lived in the
U n i t e d States?
the father?
(dCudntos ahos hace q u e 1a madre vive en los EEUU?
el padre?)
18. Does the moth er of this child unders ta n d English? _______________ _
the f ather?_____
■
(c'Comprende ingïës la madre 3e^ este nitio?
el padre?)
19.
Does the m o t h e r of this child speak E n g l i s h ? ____________
the father? __________________
(dHabla inglds eh cualquier forma la madre de este nino?
el padre?)
20. W h i c h language w o u l d yo u say the child prefers to us e ?__________
( E n su opinion, dque^ idioma p re fiere el nilKo usar?)
21. W h i c h language w o u l d y ou say the child uses m o s t ? ________________
(dQud idioma habla el nino mâs?)
22. Wh i ch language is used most in the h o m e ? _________________________
CdQud idioma h a b l a n ustedes mâs en casaT)
23. W h i c h language is u se d the most for teaching in the child's
s ch o ol ? _______________________
( En la es cuela a que asiste su nino, 6 qué idioma se usa
mas p a r a la ensenanza?)
24. W h i c h language does the child use w h e n speaking to:
(cfQue' idioma usa su nilïo cuando h ab l a con:)
his m o th e r (su m a d r e ) ____________________
his father (su p a d r e ) _________ __________
his brothers and sisters (sus h e r m a n o s )_____________________
his friends (sus amigos)_________ _________________
o ther relatives (otros parientes)
~ ~ ______________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A P P E N D I X
B
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
L E T T E R AN D P ER M IS S I O N SLIP
Dea r Parent,
A study wi ll be c o nd u ct ed in this school in o r de r to
de termine the differences in the way n a ti v e English speakers
and n a t i v e Sp an ish speakers he ar different sentences.
The
test wi ll take about ten mi nutes two differ ent times for each
child.
The results of the test w i 11 help the school better
u n d e r s t a n d some of the language difficulties yo ur child m ay
be having.
If you are w i l l i n g to allow y o ur son or da ughter to
participate, wo u ld y o u p lease sign the slip below.
He l pi n g
you r c h i l d complete the questionnaire att ached to this letter
and r et u rn i ng it to the school imme diately wi ll also be h e l p ­
ful to the study.
Thank y ou for yo ur cooperation.
Est imados
senores padres de familia.
U n es tudio seraf efectuado en esta e s cuela p a r a determinar
corao c o n t e s taria un nino, u n a pregunta, al oirla en un idioma
di ferente a su lengua nativa.
La p rueba tendra'" una d u racidn
de diez minutos en dos dias diferentes.
Los resultados de la
p ru e ba ayu daran a la escuela, en una u otra forma, pa ra
d e t e r m i n a r las dificultades en el aprendizaje de un idioma
extraho.
Como usted pu ede ver, el fin de esta p rueba es
b e n e f icioso y si usted esta^ interesado en p er m it i r que su hijo
o su h i j a participe, por favor firme en el espacio correspondiente
indicado abajo.
A yu dando a su hijo a contestar el c u estionario
y d ev o lv i en d ol o a la es c ue l a lo antes po sible el cual ser^ util
p ar a efectuar este estudio.
A gr a di c i^ n do l e de antemano por su c o l a b o r a c i o n .
Sinceramente,
(Signature of principal)
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
___________________
has my p e r m i s s i o n to be
Name o f C h i l d
(Nombre del nifio tiene mi p er m is e p a ra
a s u bj e c t in the study de s cr i be d above,
p a r t i c i p a r en el estudio pr e vi a me n te explicado.)
Date
(Fecha)
P a r e n t ’s signature
(Firma del
padre o de la madre.)
E ac h c h il d who returns this slip and the questionnaire
w il l re c e i v e a quarter.
(Cada estudiante que devuelve este papel y el cu e st i on a ri o
r e c i b i r a ' 25 centavos.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A P P E N D I X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T A P E - R E C O R D E D INSTRUC TIONS A ND STATEMENTS MADE BY
THE E X A M I N E R TO THE SU BJECT
A t the onset of the task,
the subject was p r e s e n t e d
wit h the following ta p e- r ec o rd e d instructions:
In front of y o u is a piece of p a p e r w i t h letters
going down the side.
After each letter, there are
three numbers, one, two, and three.
First, I will
s h o w you a p i cture and then you wil l hear three
sentences.
Af t er you hear all of the sentences,
p i c k the one y o u think fits the p ic t ur e and is the
"best" sentence.
Then circle the n u mb e r of this
sentence on y o ur paper.
Let's try some and I will
help you.
The s ub j ec t was then given two pr actice items.
i nd i ca t ed that he did not u n d e r st a nd the task,
corder was
If the child
the tape r e ­
turned off and the e xa miner p r ov i d e d the subject
w i t h f u r t h e r instruction until he judged the subject to u n d e r ­
stand the task.
If the child w a i t e d to hear all of the sentences
sample items before circling his answer,
lowing verbal
in the
he was given the f o l ­
reinforcement:
Good.
Y o u didn't circle yo u r answer until yo u heard
all of the sentences.
The r e ma i n i n g t w en t y- s ev e n sentences were pr esented after the
child heard:
N o w you will hear the rest of the sentences.
If at any time during the test the child circled his answer
before h e aring all of the sentences,
the examiner said:
W a i t until y o u hear all of the sentences before
y o u circle yo u r answer.
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
If the child h e s i t a t e d b efore answering,
by the examiner.
In addition,
he was told to guess
if the child lost his place,
it w a s p o i n t e d out to hi m by the examiner.
Before
the initia t io n of the task in Spanish,
the
e xa miner told each child:
This test is just like the other one except that it
is in Spanish.
If the child said that he did not kn ow Spanish or seemed to
become frust ra t ed at any time during the test he was
Y o u are doing fine.
told:
Just g u e s s .
At the b e g i n n i n g of the tape the child heard the following
instructions
in Spanish:
Por favor, conteste las siguientes pregu ntas en
el mismo m od o como lo hizo en i n g l ^ . (Please
answer the foll owing questions in the same way
that you did in English.)
The same p ro c ed u re s as those used for the English task were
then followed for the remainder of the Span ish test.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A P P E N D I X
D
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
M A T C H E D PAIRS
M on o li n gu a l Group
Bilingual Group
Sex
Grade
Age
1.
F
Third
9-6
52
2.
F
Third
8- 6
3.
F
Third
4.
M
5.
SE Rating
Grade
Age
SE Rating
F
Third
9-4
64
60
F
Third
8“8
66
9-7
71
F
Third
9-4
64
Third
8-11
52
M
Third
8-0
68
M
Third
9-4
52
M
Third
8-9
58
6.
M
Third
8-9
68
M
Third
8-7
65
7.
M
Fourth
9-7
56
M
Fourth
9-10
58
8.
M
Fourth
10-5
74
M
Fourth
9-8
68
9.
M
Fourth
10-3
56
M
Fourth
9-10
54
10.
F
Fourth
10-5
60
F
Fourth
10-2
62
11.
F
Fourth
10-3
59
F
Fourth
10-0
63
12.
M
Fifth
10-7
51
M
Fifth
11-1
68
13.
M
Fifth
11-2
59
M
Fifth
12-1
62
14.
M
Fifth
10-8
56
M
Fifth
11-4
64
15.
F
Fifth
10-5
55
F
Fifth
10-9
54
16.
F
Fifth
10-10
68
F
Fifth
11-6
64
17.
F
Fifth
10-7
52
F
Fifth
10-11
64
18.
F
Fifth
11-2
62
F
Fifth
11-7
62
X = 10
X = 59.06
Sex
X = 10-1
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X = 62.1:
A P P E N D I X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STIMULUS SEN TENCES
Samples
a) 1. It dog IS .
2 . Dog is it.
3. I t ’s a dog.
b)
1. The b o y eating is.
2. The boy is eating.
3. The eating b o y is.
Category 1, S p e c i f ic a ti o n of Subject
1) 1. It is raining.
2. Is raining.
3. Raining is it.
1. E s t^ lloviendo hoy.
2. Lloviendo hoy estd^.
3. Hoy el està^ lloviendo
2) 1. Hot is it.
2. It is hot.
3. Is hot.
1. / Calor hace que! .
2. /Que calor hace ell
3. / Que calor hace!
3) 1. It is a nice day.
2. It a nice day is.
3. Is a nice day.
1. Es un hermoso dia.
2. Es un dia hermoso.
3. El es un dia hermoso.
Category 2, Position of Object Pronoun
1) See the book?
i^Ve u sted el libro?
1. The girl it is giving
to her mother.
2. The girl giving to her
mother it.
3. The girl is gi vi ng it to
her mother.
2) Does
she have the flowers?
1. Yes,
2. Yes,
3. Yes,
1. La muc hacha lo da a
su madre.
2. La m uc h ac h a a su madre
dale,
3. La m uc hacha dale a su
madre.
dTie ne ella las flores?
1. Si, las tiene.
2. T^ene las, si.
3. Si, tiene las.
she has them.
has them she.
she them has.
3) See the apple?
d V e usted la manzana?
1. El la mu chacho c o g e .
2. El mu chacho la coge.
3. El mu chacho coge la.
1. The boy is holding it.
2. The ho lding boy is it.
3. The boy it is holding.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Category 3, Personal Nouns as Direct Objects
1) 1. He sees his friend.
2. He sees to his friend.
3. Sees his friend he.
1. Ve su amigo.
2. Su ve amigo.
3. Ve a su amigo.
2) 1. Hugging is her she mother.
2. She is hugging her mother.
3. She is hugging to her mother.
1. Abraza su madre.
2. Madre abraza su.
3. Abraza a su madre.
3) 1. The mother is washing her
baby.
2. Her is washing the mother
baby.
3. The mother is washing to her
baby.
1. La nina la madre bana.
2. A la nina la bana la
madre.
3. La madre bana la nina.
Category 4, Word Order and Formation of Negative Declaratives
1) 1. John is not here.
2. John here not is.
3. John no is here.
1. Juan esta no aqui.
2. Juan no esta"" aqui.
3. No Juan estd' aqui.
2) 1. Tall the girl not is.
2. The girl is not tall.
3. The girl no is tall.
1. La muchacha es no alta.
2. La alta muchacha es no.
3. La muchacha no es alta.
3) 1. The boy does not have the
doll.
2. The boy no has the doll.
1. El muchacho no tiene la
mufieca.
2. El muchacho tiene no la
muneca.
3. No el muchacho tiene la
muneca.
3. The no boy the doll has.
Category 5, Word Order in Yes/No Interrogatives
1) 1. Red the is car?
Yes.
2.
Is red
the car? Yes.
3.
Is the
car red? Yes.
1.
2.
3.
2) 1. The is sleeping girl? Yes.
1.
2.
Is sleeping the girl? Yes.
3.
Is the
girl sleeping? Yes.
3) 1. Is reading the boy? Yes.
6 El
&Es
iEs
rojo esauto? Si.
el auto rojo? Si.
rojo elauto? Si.
EstSL durmiendo la
muchacha?
Si.
^
2. 4 La durmiendo muchacha esta'
Si.
3. 4 Esta' la muchacha durmiendo"
Si.
1.
(‘Esta’ el muchacho leyendo?
Si.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
2. The boy reading is? Yes.
3. Is the boy reading? Yes.
2.
Leyendo esta muchacho el?
Si.
3. i Esta"' leyendo el muchacho?
Si.
Category 6, Subject-Object Pronoun Positioning
1) 1. Her is hitting the boy
2, Is her hitting the boy.
3. The boy is hitting her
1. El muchacho golpea la.
2. La golpea el muchacho.
3. Golpea el muchacho la.
2) See the dog?
1. It is petting the boy.
2. The is petting it boy.
3. The boy is petting it.
^Ve usted el perro?
1. El muchacho mimalo.
2. El lo muchacho mima.
3. Lo mima el muchacho.
3) See the ball?
1. The boy is kicking it,
2. It is kicking the boy.
3. Is kicking the boy it.
d Ve usted la pelota?
1. Patea el lo muchacho.
2. Lo patea el muchacho.
3. El muchacho patea lo.
Category 7, Use of Definite and Indefinite Articles
1)
1. The Mrs. Brown is teaching
the lesson.
2. Mrs. Brown is teaching the
lesson.
3. Mrs. Brown the lesson
teaching is.
1. La sefiora Santos ensena
la leccion.
La
senora la leccion
2.
Santos enseha.
3. Sehora Santos ensena la
leccion.
2) 1. Is doctor he.
2. He is doctor.
3. He is a doctor.
1. Es un medico.
2. Es mddico un.
3. Es médico.
5) 1. She is going to the church.
2. She the church to is going.
3. She is going to church.
1. A la va iglesia.
2. Va a la iglesia.
3. Va a iglesia.
Category 8, Connection Between Verbs or Adjectives
Dependent Infinitives
1. Esta salir
1.
He
is
ready
for to leave.
1)
2. Estd" lis to
2. He to leave is ready.
3. Esta'' lis to
3. He is ready to leave.
2) 1. She is trying of to ride a
bike.
2. She is trying to ride a bike.
3. She to ride is trying a bike.
and
liste para.
salir.
para salir.
1. En trata de andar
b ic i cl e ta .
2. Trata de andar en
bicicleta.
Trata
andar en bicicleta.
5,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
3) 1. The girl quit eating.
2. The eating quit girl.
3. The girl quit of eating.
1. La muchacha dejo comer.
2. La muchacha d e j de
comer.
/
3. De la muchacha comer de jo'.
Category 9, Reflexive Constructions
1) 1. The plate was broken
2. The broken plate was.
3. The plate broke itself.
1. El se plato quebro.
2. Se quebrcf' el plato.
3. Quebro* el plato.
2) 1. The door opened itself.
2. Opened door the.
3. The door was opened.
1. Abrio la puerta.
2. La abrio^ puerta.
3. Se abrio' la puerta.
3) 1. The milk was spilled.
2. The milk spilled itself.
3. The was milk spilled.
1. Derramo la leche se
2. Se derramo'la leche
3. Derramo^ la leche-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A P P E N D I X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A N S W E R SHEET FOR E N GLISH TEST
Name
Do it like this:
©
3
S amples :
1
2
3
n
1
a.
o.
1
2
b.
P
1
2
q-
1
2
3
d.
1
2
3
e.
1
2
3
3
£.
t.
1
2
3
g
u.
1
2
3
h.
V.
2
3
1.
w.
2
3
X.
2
3
1
k.
1.
z,
m.
3-3 . •
2
1
1
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A P P E N D I X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A N S W E R SHEET FOR S PA NISH TEST
Name
H ag a l o asi:
Do it like this:
(2)
a.
n.
b.
o.
c.
P*
1
2
3
d.
q-
1
2
3
e.
r,
1
2
3
f.
rr.
1
2
3
g
s.
1
2
3
h.
t.
1
2
3
1.
u.
1
2
3
V.
1
2
3
k.
w.
1
2
3
1.
X,
1
2
3
1
2
3
m.
n.
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BI BLIOGRAPHY
Ammons,
Robert B. and Ammons, Helen S.
V o c a b u l a r y T e s t , 1948.
Full-Range Picture
B u r o s , O s c a r Krisen, ed.
The Se venth Mental Measurements
Y e a r b o o k . 2 vols.
Hi ghland Park, New Jersey:
G ryphon Press, 1972.
C a r r o w , S ister M, A.
"Linguistic Function of Bilingual and
M o n o l i n gu a l Children."
Journal of Speech and H e a r ­
ing Disorders 22 (September 1957): 371-380.
Carrow,
Elizabeth.
"Compr ehension of English and Spa nish by
Preschool M e xi c an - A m e r i c a n Children."
Modern Language Journal LV (May 1971): 299-305.
____________ . "Auditory Comprehension of English by Monolin g ua l
and Bilingual Preschool Children."
Journal of Speech
a n d Hearing Research 15 (June 1972): 407-412.
Test for Aud itory Comprehension of L a n g u a g e :
E n g l i s h / S p a n i s h . Austin, Texas: Urban Research
Group, Inc., 1973.
Sc reening Test for Auditory Comprehension of L a n ­
guage . Austin, Texas: Learning Concepts, 1973.
Cohen, A n d r e w D.
A Sociolinguistic Ap proach to Bilingual
E d u c a t i o n . Stanford, California: Stanford University,
1970.
Finocchiaro, Mary.
Teaching English as a Second L a n g u a g e :
Revised and E n l a r g e d . New York: Harper ^ Row, P u b ­
lishers, 1958, 1969.
Haugen,
Einar.
B il i ng u al i sm in the Americas: A Bibl iography
and Re search Guide No. 26, Published by the A m er i ca n
Dialect Soci ety (November, 1956).
Hoffman,
Moses Naphthali.
The Measurement of Bilingual B a c k ­
g r o u n d . New York: Bureau of Publications, T e a c h e r ’s
College, Columbia University, 1934-
Lado,
Robert.
Linguistics Across Culture: Applied Linguistics
for Language T e a c h e r s . Ann Arbor: The Un iversity of
M i c h i g a n Press, 1957.
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Language Testing: The Construction and Use of
F or eign Language T e s t s . N e w York: McGraw-Hill, 19 51.
Politz er, Robert L. and Ramirez, Ar nulfo G.
"An Error
A nalysis of the Spoken English of M e x i c a n- A me r ic a n
Pupils in a Bi lingual School and a Monol ingual School."
L anguage Learning: A Journal of A p p l i e d Linguistics
23(1)
(June 1973): 39-61.
Politzer, Robert L. and Staubach, Charles N.
Teaching S p a n ­
ish: A Linguistic O r i e n t a t i o n . Waltham, Massachusetts:
B la i sdell Publishing Company, 1965.
Siegel,
Sidney.
Nonpara m et r ic Statistics for the Behavioral
S c i e n c e s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Stockwell, Robert P., Bowen, J. Donald, and Martin, John W.
The Gra mmatical Structures of Engl ish and S p a n i s h .
Chicago; The U n iv e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1965.
Ugarte,
Francisco.
Gramatica Espanola de R e p a s o .
The Odyssey Press, 1958.
New York:
U. S. Bu r e a u of the Census.
Current Population Reports P - 20,
No. 250.
"Persons of Spanish Origin in the United
States: M a r c h 1972 and 1971,"
U.S. Gover nment P r i n t ­
ing Office.
Wa shington, D.C., 1973.
Warner.
W. L . , Meeker, M. and Eells, K.
Social Class in
A m e r i c a . Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949.
Weinreich, Uriel.
Languages in
Originally p u b l i s h e d as
tions of the Linguistic
1953).
Third Printing,
Mout on § Company, 1964.
Whitman,
Contact: Findings and P r o b l e m s .
No. 1 in the series " P u b l i c a ­
Circle of New York" (New York,
The Hague, the Netherlands:
Randal and Jackson, Kenneth L.
"The U n p r e d i ct a bi l it y
of Contrastive A n al y s i s . "
Language Learning: A Journal
of Ap p l i e d Li nguistics 22(1) (June, 1972): 29-41.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976
Th
i s
SUBSISTS,
is
An
a n
y
u n p u b l i s h e d
f u r t h e r
m a n u s c r i p t
r e p r i n t i n g
o f
in
its
w h i c h
c o p y r i g h t
c o n t e n t s
m u s t
APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR,
Ma
n s f i e l d
Un
i v e r s i t y
Da
t e
;
.
L
i b r a r y
o f
Mo
1 9.8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
n t a n a
b e