A General Discussion of the Findings

- 131 - numbers 19–22 illustrates what we were talking about there. In each case Humira uses a prepositional phrase to express the indirect object. This is a grammatically correct alternative to the more usual pattern described by Quirk and Greenbaum 1973:370: an indirect object normally animate, which is positioned first, and a direct object normally concrete: He gave the girl a doll S V O i O d So, returning to our own data, we can say that: for 19, a. “to send me a letter” is more idiomatic than b. “to send a letter to me”; for 20, a. “the snowman wrote Mr. Thomas a letter” is more idiomatic than b. “the snowman wrote a letter to Mr. Thomas”; and for 22, a. “Mr. Thomas gave the snowman a letter” is more idiomatic than b. “Mr. Thomas gave a letter to the snowman”. Panjabi does not have this choice of forms. Indirect objects can only be expressed by adpositional phrases i.e. postpositional, not prepositional, and so, in Panjabi, all the a. clauses would be ungrammatical. This may possibly explain Humira’s preference for adpositional phrases in English. Some researchers would dispute this, however, claiming that the influence of L1 structures on L2 syntax is minimal see Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982, chapter 5. However, in 21, where the two objects are expressed as pronouns, Humira’s “gave it to him” is the standard form, and the alternative “gave him it” is an informal style variant not fully approved of by teachers.

4.4 A General Discussion of the Findings

We now turn from a detailed look at one narrative to a more general look at all the narratives produced. From the forty-eight sessions described above, only forty-five narratives were collected from the eight L2 “Speakers”. Fehdah gave us two refusals and one version in Panjabi entered as zeros in the tables below; nine stories by L1 speakers have been included in the data and these will be referred to in the following chapter where we compare them directly with the narratives produced by L2 subjects. It may be helpful to tabulate some of the details from the forty-five L2 narratives. Table 4.2 lists the numbers - 132 - and types of clauses produced in each narrative and also the number of clauses which contain devices which are potentially evaluative. As well as the raw scores, we have indicated using round brackets the proportion of the whole which fit into each category and subcategory, e.g. Shvinder’s Story A is eighty-two clauses long. Of those eighty-two clauses: 44 are Independent clauses, 56 are Subordinate clauses. Of the Independent or Main clauses: 17 consist of Orientation, 80 are Narrative clauses, and 3 belong to the Coda. Of the Subordinate clauses: 78 consist of Direct SpeechQuotation 4 are Indirect Speech, and 17 are other types of Subordinate clauses. Of all clauses Independent or Subordinate: 78 contain some kind of internal evaluative device or devices, and 22 additionally contain some kind of external evaluation. The Internal Evaluation occurs in all sections of the narrative in the following proportions see figure 4.3, p. 116: 20 in the Orientation, 22 in the Narrative Section, 2 in the Coda, and 56 in the Reported Conversations which form 78 of the Subordinate clauses. - 133 - Direct Speech, then, is recorded both under Subordination and Evaluation. We will be discussing the implications of this overlap in the discussion which follows. The table has been subdivided according to the six model stories, i.e. A, B, C, D, E, F, so that comparisons may be made between the various versions of the same original and, also, between the six sets of stories. Table 4.2. Story A Continues overleaf SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Main Clauses 36 44 24 65 18 67 15 60 19 56 12 100 15 71 11 85 Title 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orientation 6 17 5 21 5 28 3 20 5 26 1 8 2 13 2 18 Narrative 29 80 18 75 12 67 11 73 13 68 10 83 13 87 9 82 Coda 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 8 0 0 Subordinate Clauses 46 56 13 35 9 33 10 40 15 44 0 6 29 2 15 Direct Speech or Quotation 36 78 9 69 3 33 7 70 12 80 0 3 50 1 50 Indirect Speech 2 4 1 8 3 33 0 1 7 0 0 0 Other Subordinate Clauses 8 17 3 23 3 33 3 30 2 13 0 3 50 1 50 Clauses Total 82 37 27 25 34 12 21 13 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” INTERNAL 64 78 28 76 17 63 13 52 24 71 6 50 13 62 4 31 Title 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orientation 13 20 7 25 5 29 1 8 5 21 1 17 1 8 1 25 Narrative 14 22 11 39 7 41 4 31 7 29 4 66 9 69 2 50 Coda 1 2 1 4 2 12 1 8 0 1 17 0 0 - 134 - SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Direct Speech 36 56 9 32 3 18 7 54 12 50 3 23 1 25 First Language 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” EXTERNAL 18 22 1 3 8 30 2 8 9 26 0 2 10 Embedded Orientation 11 61 1 100 4 50 2 100 9 100 0 2 100 Evaluative Action 4 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suspension of the Action 3 17 0 4 50 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4.2. Story B Continues overleaf SPEAKERS Shvin- der Fariba Sakan- der Hum- ira Sheiba 1 Sheiba 2 Aqeel 1 Aqeel 2 Shazia Feh- dah Main Clauses 30 68 20 56 26 70 20 44 11 73 19 83 20 91 21 78 21 81 7 70 Title 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orientation 4 13 3 15 3 12 4 20 1 9 3 16 2 10 7 33 2 29 Narrative 23 77 13 65 19 73 11 55 10 91 15 79 17 85 13 62 21 100 5 71 Coda 3 10 4 20 4 15 4 20 1 5 1 5 1 5 0 0 Subordinate Clauses. 14 32 16 44 11 30 26 57 4 27 4 17 2 9 6 22 5 19 3 30 Direct Speech or Quotation 10 71 10 63 7 64 19 73 3 75 2 50 2 100 5 83 1 20 3 100 Indirect Speech 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Subordinate Clauses 4 29 6 38 4 36 6 23 1 25 2 50 1 17 4 80 Clauses Total 44 36 37 46 15 23 22 27 26 10 - 135 - SPEAKERS Shvin- der Fariba Sakan- der Hum- ira Sheiba 1 Sheiba 2 Aqeel 1 Aqeel 2 Shazia Feh- dah No. of Clauses “Evaluated” INTERNAL 32 73 25 69 27 73 38 83 7 47 14 61 16 73 16 59 15 58 8 80 Title 0 1 3 Orientation 5 16 5 20 8 30 4 11 1 14 4 29 2 13 5 31 2 25 Narrative 15 47 6 24 8 30 8 21 3 43 7 50 1 6 5 31 14 93 Coda 2 6 4 16 4 15 6 16 1 7 1 7 Direct Speech 10 31 10 40 7 26 19 50 3 43 2 14 2 13 5 31 1 7 3 38 First Language 11 69 3 38 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” EXTERNAL 4 9 3 8 1 3 7 16 1 7 2 9 Embedded Orientation 3 75 2 67 1 7 1 2 Evaluative Action 1 25 1 33 Suspension of the Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4.2. Story C Continues overleaf SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Main Clauses 26 58 18 72 21 55 13 59 27 75 12 80 12 100 Title 0 Orientation 6 23 2 11 7 33 3 23 6 22 5 42 5 42 Narrative 20 77 14 78 12 57 9 69 21 78 6 50 7 58 - 136 - SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Coda 0 2 11 2 10 1 8 1 8 Subordinate Clauses 19 42 7 28 17 45 9 41 9 25 3 20 Direct Speech or Quotation 14 74 7 100 12 71 8 89 9 100 2 67 Indirect Speech 1 6 Other Subordinate Clauses 5 26 4 24 1 11 1 33 Clauses Total 45 25 38 22 36 15 12 0 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” INTERNAL 34 76 13 52 28 74 17 77 20 56 13 87 7 58 Title 0 Orientation 5 15 2 15 10 36 3 18 4 20 5 38 5 71 Narrative 15 44 2 15 2 7 5 29 7 35 5 38 2 29 Coda 0 2 15 4 14 1 6 1 8 Direct Speech 14 41 7 54 12 43 8 47 9 45 2 15 First Language 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” EXTERNAL 5 11 1 4 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 Embedded Orientation 4 80 1 1 33 Evaluative Action 1 20 2 67 Suspension of the Action - 137 - Table 4.2. Story D Continues overleaf SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Main Clauses 25 60 26 76 15 63 27 46 15 65 14 93 10 77 Title 0 1 4 Orientation 2 8 10 38 4 27 3 11 1 7 2 14 2 20 Narrative 22 88 15 58 10 67 22 81 14 93 11 79 8 80 Coda 1 4 1 4 1 7 1 4 1 7 Subordinate Clauses 17 40 8 24 9 38 32 54 8 35 1 7 3 23 Direct Speech or Quotation 13 76 4 50 7 78 23 72 8 100 1 100 1 33 Indirect Speech 1 12 1 3 Other Subordinate Clauses 4 24 3 38 2 22 8 25 2 67 Clauses Total 42 34 24 59 23 15 13 0 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” INTERNAL 31 74 23 68 19 79 42 71 16 70 12 80 8 62 Title 0 1 2 Orientation 5 16 10 43 4 21 6 14 1 6 2 18 2 25 Narrative 12 39 8 35 6 32 11 26 7 44 7 64 5 63 Coda 1 3 1 4 2 11 1 2 1 9 Direct Speech 13 42 4 17 7 37 23 55 8 50 1 9 1 13 First Language - 138 - SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah No. of Clauses “Evaluated” EXTERNAL 3 7 3 5 1 13 Embedded Orientation 3 100 3 100 1 100 Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action Table 4.2. Story E Continues overleaf SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Main Clauses 22 61 32 53 28 67 20 54 22 63 12 92 16 73 Title 0 Orientation 2 9 2 6 6 21 1 5 1 5 1 8 3 19 Narrative 20 91 29 91 21 75 18 90 21 95 10 83 13 81 Coda 0 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 8 Subordinate Clauses 14 39 28 47 14 33 17 46 13 37 1 8 6 27 Direct Speech or Quotation 10 71 23 82 2 14 15 88 12 92 1 100 3 50 Indirect Speech 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Subordinate Clauses 4 29 5 18 12 86 2 12 1 8 3 50 Clauses Total 36 60 42 37 35 13 22 0 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” INTERNAL 32 89 48 80 33 79 21 57 24 69 8 62 6 27 Title 0 - 139 - SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah Orientation 4 13 5 10 13 39 1 5 1 4 1 12 1 17 Narrative 18 56 19 40 17 52 4 19 11 46 5 63 2 33 Coda 0 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 12 Direct Speech 10 31 23 48 2 6 15 71 12 50 1 12 3 50 First Language 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” EXTERNAL 3 8 5 8 8 18 1 5 1 3 1 5 Embedded Orientation 1 100 Evaluative Action 3 100 5 100 8 100 1 100 1 100 Suspension of the Action Table 4.2. Story F Continues overleaf SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Shazia Fehdah Main Clauses 31 54 23 64 18 55 11 23 8 100 23 85 Title 0 Orientation 2 6 3 13 2 11 3 25 1 12 3 13 Narrative 25 81 18 78 15 83 8 67 7 88 20 87 Coda 4 13 2 9 1 6 1 8 Subordinate Clauses 26 46 13 36 15 45 37 77 4 15 Direct Speech or Quotation 22 85 9 69 9 60 36 97 3 75 - 140 - SPEAKERS Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Shazia Fehdah Indirect Speech 2 13 Other Subordinate Clauses 4 15 4 31 4 27 1 3 1 25 Clauses Total 57 36 33 48 8 27 No. of Clauses “Evaluated” INTERNAL 42 74 27 75 16 48 42 88 3 38 14 52 Title 0 Orientation 2 5 5 19 1 6 1 2 5 36 Narrative 13 31 11 41 5 31 4 10 3 100 6 43 Coda 5 12 2 7 1 6 1 2 Direct Speech 22 52 9 33 9 56 36 86 3 21 First Language No. of Clauses “Evaluated” EXTERNAL 25 52 1 7 Embedded Orientation 25 100 Evaluative Action Suspension of the Action 1 100 Having displayed the details of each story, we now want to see how well the facts fit together. From a casual glance at table 4.2, it would seem that the more able subjects produced longer stories, with more subordination and evaluation, than the less able subjects. We might infer that these stories were, therefore, in some way better stories than those of the less able. But is there any real connection, or correlation, between a general assessment of the subject’s ability in L2, the total length of the story, the amount of subordination used, and the number of evaluative devices coded? We predict that there - 141 - should be, and the raw scores obtained seem to confirm these predictions. However, there is a big difference between an eighty-two-clause story and one of only twelve clauses in length, such as Aqeel’s Story A; so raw scores for amounts of subordination and evaluation, on their own, give misleading results. For example, Shvinder has sixty-four internally evaluated clauses in her Story A and Aqeel only six, but the gap between them is not so large as it at first appears: 6482 is 78 percent and 612 50 percent of the whole story, whereas Fehdah’s 413 only two less means that only 31 percent of his Story A is evaluated. It is not practicable to work out the correlations of the four parameters—language ability in L2, story length, amount of subordination, and how much of the story is evaluated—for each story separately, as there is too much variation among the eight subjects in the six stories. Instead, total scores have been used, as follows: table 4.3 gives the total numbers of clauses produced by each subject; table 4.4 gives the total percentages of subordinate clauses produced; and table 4.5 gives the total percentages for internal and external evaluation in each of the six stories. The subjects are listed according to their teachers’ assessments of their ability in L2 and they are then given a rank for the other parameters in turn. Table 4.3. Total number of clauses Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah A 82 37 27 25 34 12 21 13 B 44 36 37 46 15 22 26 10 C 45 25 38 22 36 15 12 0 D 42 34 24 59 23 15 13 0 E 36 60 42 37 35 13 22 0 F 57 36 33 48 23 27 8 27 Total 306 228 201 237 166 104 102 50 Rank 1 3 4 2 5 6 7 8 indicates a second version of Story B, not Story F in tables 4.3–4.5 Here, in table 4.3, we have a perfect correlation apart from Humira; of all the eight subjects, Humira’s results are the least consistent. - 142 - Table 4.4. Total percentages of subordinate clauses Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah A 56 35 33 40 44 0 29 15 B 32 44 30 57 27 9 19 30 C 42 28 45 41 25 20 0 0 D 40 24 38 54 35 7 23 0 E 39 47 33 46 37 8 27 0 F 46 36 45 77 17 22 0 15 Total 255 214 224 315 185 66 98 60 Rank 2 4 3 1 5 7 6 8 Table 4.5. Percentages of internal and external evaluation Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah A 78 76 63 52 71 50 62 31 B 73 69 73 83 47 73 58 80 C 76 52 74 77 56 87 58 0 D 74 68 79 71 70 80 62 0 E 89 80 79 57 69 62 27 0 I N T E R N A L F 74 75 48 88 61 59 38 52 A 22 3 30 8 26 0 10 0 B 9 8 3 16 7 0 0 0 C 11 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 D 7 0 0 5 0 0 13 0 E 8 8 18 5 3 0 5 0 E X T E R N A L F 0 0 0 52 9 0 0 7 Totals 521 443 467 514 427 411 333 170 Rank 1 4 3 2 5 6 7 8 In table 4.4, only Sakander, Sheiba, and Fehdah are ranked in the same order as they are for language ability, so there is much more overall variation with this parameter. - 143 - Here again we have a perfect correlation apart from the switch between Fariba and Humira. When we look at individual consistency, it is striking to find total consistency with Sheiba and Fehdah, ranked 5 and 8, respectively; consistent results 34 with Shvinder, Sakander, Aqeel, and Shazia, at 1, 3, 6 and 7; but variable results 2,3,4,4 with Fariba and very variable results 4,2,1,2 with Humira. Having obtained rank orders for all eight subjects over the four parameters, we then compare each parameter with the other three, using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. The rank order correlation determines the degree of similarity between two sets of ranks at a time and provides a useful, though rough, estimate of the agreement between the two sets of ordered items. It is a rough guide only, because slight changes in rank, of the kind we have been noting above, can seriously alter the value of Rho r s – the degree of agreement in ranks when the number of items, or subjects, to be compared is ten or less. In spite of this limitation, we decided to use this statistical test; it is the only one that can be applied where there is a difference in scale between cardinal scores on the one hand and value judgments on the other. As an example of how the Spearman test is applied, we will set out the calculations for comparing the correlation between ability in L2 and the total number of clauses produced. Having ranked the scores on the two parameters, we calculate the difference d between each pair of ranks and then square these differences; they are then added up to give a total for d 2 . In order to use the formula, we also have to count the number of subjects N. L.A. Tot. d d 2 1 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 3 4 1 1 4 2 2 4 5 5 0 0 6 6 0 0 7 7 0 0 8 8 0 0 d 2 = 6 Using the formula: 1 6 1 2 2 − × − = N N d r s we get: 1 64 8 6 6 1 − × − 929 . 071 . 1 504 36 1 = − = − - 144 - This figure is then looked up in the appropriate table and we find that it is significant at the value of p 0.005, because it exceeds the critical value of 0.881. All the other correlations were calculated in the same way and the results are displayed in the matrix in table 4.6. Table 4.6 shows that all the results indicate a significant relationship between the pairs of variables, ranging from 0.810 to 0.976. For a correlation of 0.810, the odds of obtaining a correlation this high by chance are less than one in 40 written p 0.025 and for 0.976 the odds are less than one in 200 written p 0.005. At the very least, we can say that there is some evidence for claiming that a subject’s storytelling ability can be assessed according to hisher general language ability in L2, the length of the story, the amount of structural complexity subordination, the number of potentially evaluative devices observed and that these features seem to be directly related. This is in line with the positive correlation predicted and the choice of a one-tailed, rather than a two-tailed hypothesis. Table 4.6. Combined scores for stories A–F Ability in L2 Total no. of Clauses of Clauses “Evaluated” of Subordinate Clauses Ability in L2 X 0.929 significant at 0.005 0.905 significant at 0.005 0.810 significant at 0.025 Total no. of Clauses X 0.976 significant at 0.005 0.929 significant at 0.005 of Clauses “Evaluated” X 0.976 significant at 0.005 of Subordinate Clauses X However, there is a considerable degree of overlap between subordination and evaluation. In table 4.2, we noted that Direct SpeechQuotation is counted twice, both as subordination and evaluation, and this favourably skews the results. The “other subordinate clauses” category also includes evaluative material, especially simple qualifications and causal constructions including reasonresult, and temporal subordinate clauses, occurring at key points in the narrative, which foreground the main clause events that follow. So, to get a true correlation, we need to confine our discussion to the non- evaluative uses of subordination i.e. subordination which is used for purposes other than - 145 - evaluation, examples include: infinitive clauses, conditional clauses, relative clauses, and clauses functioning as the objects of verbs such as know. Table 4.7 gives two sets of figures: 1 the numbers of unevaluated subordinate clauses present in the body of the narratives and 2 details of similar clauses embedded within the direct speech. Table 4.7. Total numbers of unevaluated subordinate clauses 1 Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah A 3 1 5 3 2 0 0 1 B 2 1 2 6 1 0 1 0 C 5 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 D 1 3 1 5 0 0 2 0 E 0 1 5 2 0 0 3 0 F 4 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 Shvinder Fariba Sakander Humira Sheiba Aqeel Shazia Fehdah A 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 B 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 C 3 1 4 3 2 0 0 0 D 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 E 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 F 2 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 Total 32 14 26 30 10 1 6 1 SL 0.104 0.061 0.129 0.126 0.060 0.009 0.058 0.02 Rank 3 4 1 2 5 8 6 7 These figures are totalled and then divided by the total number of clauses, to give a set of ratios expressed as a single decimal which can be ranked and correlated with the amount of evaluation, using the Spearman Test. As expected, the correlation is not so high as that - 146 - recorded in table 4.6; however, at 0.762, it is still significant at the p 0.025 level for a one- tailed test i.e. less than a 1 in 40 chance of obtaining this result by chance.

4.5 Evaluative Devices Preferred by Young Speakers