DEVELOPMENT OF PLURAL CONCORD IN ENGLISH AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN

R. Lalitha Raja and N. Rajasekharan Nair CAS in Linguistics, Annamalai University

ABSTRACTThis article aims to look at the development of plural

concord in English among children of age 8 to10 years (i.e.from standards III to V] whose, mother tongue is Tamil andwho learn English as a second language in schools. Also itsees the causes for the individual differences such as;influence of gender, influence of teaching methodologyfollowed by teachers, influence of teaching materials,influence of socio-economic status, influence ofpsychological factors. Hypotheses were framed accordingly andthe data were collected from Tamil mother tongue children inChidambaram Taluk. Data has been collected systematically andresults were proved statistically. Developmental errorspatterns were also listed.

Plurality in English

In English, we find number-contrasts in nouns (e.g. one

dog, two dogs), in some determiners (this book, these books), in

pronouns (e.g., he /they) and in infinite verbs (e.g., He smells,

They smell). The features which play a role in grammatical

(i.e., morphological or syntactic) processes are called

grammatical features. Here, it is to be stated because,

grammatical features include number (singular and plural)

features, since these play an obvious role in syntax of

reflexive anaphors (e.g., He/*She/*It turned himself into a giant).

Likewise they include person features, which play a role in

1

the syntax of subject – verb agreement (e.g., He /I* /*You likes

syntax).

The rules for plural formation (i.e. number contrasts in

nouns) given in the school grammar books are;

Rule 1: adding – es

When a noun ends in -sh, -ch, -x, -s

Rule 2: adding – ies

When a noun ends with ‘–y’ and preceded with vowel add

simply ‘-s’, if it is not preceded with vowels then remove

‘–y’ and add ‘– ies’.

Rule 3: adding – ves

When a noun ends in ‘ -f’ or ‘-fe’, then remove ‘-f’’ or ‘-fe’

and add ‘–ves’.

Rule 4: Some irregular plural formations are there, for eg:

ox - oxen

mouse- mice

sheep - sheep

foot - feet

Rule 5: adding – s.

2

For all other nouns add simply ‘-s’ (other than the above-

mentioned noun categories).

Acquisition of Plurality

According to Corbett (2000) “There has been rather

little work done on the acquisition of number, by children

and by second language learners: perhaps researchers have

imagined it to be straight forward”. But there are some

significant works done around the world. One of the very

famous and impressing study is done by Berko (1958), who

presented children with drawing of new entities, the most

celebrated being a bird – like creature called a ‘wug’, and

asked them what two such creatures would be called.

Aim

The present study aims to investigate,

1. the development of plural concord in English among

children of age 8 to10 years (i.e. from standards III

to V] whose, mother tongue is Tamil and who learn

English as a second language in schools.

2. the causes for the individual differences such as;

3

(a) influence of gender

(b) influence of teaching methodology followed by

teachers.

(c) influence of teaching materials.

(d) influence of socio-economic status.

(e) influence of psychological factors.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses are framed for the present

study.

1. As the age (standard of education) increases,

children’s proficiency in plural concord also

increases.

2. Girls are better in acquiring plural concord than

boys.

3. Socio-economic status (SES) influences the syntactic

development and hence middle SES children are better

in learning than that of the low SES children.

4. Teaching methodology influences the development of

plural concord.

4

5. Teaching material influences the development of plural

concord.

6. Psychological factors such as motivation, attitude,

aptitude, learning strategies and learning styles

influence the development of plural concord.

Design

A 2x2x3 factorial design has been followed with

manipulation of gender (boys and girls), two levels of socio-

economic status (middle and low), and three cross-

longitudinal factors (ages 8, 9 and 10).

Sample selection

Only Tamil mother tongue children were selected as the

subjects for the study. Schools were selected on the basis of

their standard. For this a pilot survey has been conducted

and six schools were selected on the basis of the following

conditions.

(i) Degree of co-operation extended by the schools for,

1) class observation 2) data collection through

5

test materials, 3) personal interaction 4) teaching

material observation with teachers

(ii) Standard of schools on behalf of the parent’s and

public’s observation (High, medium and low).

(iii) Accessibility of schools and availability of

required number of students.

As far as possible, by choosing such widely scattered schools

it is ensured that, the sample drawn truly represented the

population. A random sampling method has been followed. So,

they also however, contributed to low and unequal number of

observations in each cell in the research paradigm. The

sample drawn from various schools were also unequal.

Table 1 indicates the schools and the samples drawn.

SCHOOLS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL*S1 33 29 62*S2 36 27 63*S3 69 67 136*S4 20 12 32*S5 15 14 29*S6 72 65 137

Total 245 214 459

Table-1

Data collection Procedure

The study was conducted in six stages. In each stage one

school was taken for study. In each school three days were

6

spent as one day for class observation, one day for data

collection and one day for interview with teachers and

personal interaction with students.

(i) During the class observation, teaching methodology

practiced by the teachers was observed in 24 aspects and

graded in five point scale. Also, motivation given by the

teachers, student’s behaviour, class interaction, positive/

negative feedback given by students, learning strategies used

by students were also observed.

(ii) During data collection, several examples were given.

When the children were not able to comprehend the given test,

they were explained in Tamil. About 5 minutes have been

spent for each child for completing their personal

information and explaining the way to answer the test given.

(iii) During interviews and interactions with teachers, their

problems due to teaching material, due to students behaviour,

identification of problematic students, information about

learning disabled students, their testing methods, and

interaction with parents were collected in detail.

(iv) During personal interaction with students, attitude

towards language learning, attitude towards teachers and home

7

environment (whether reinforcement is given or not) were

collected.

Method of Analysis

The quantitative and qualitative type of analyses were

applied

(i) through the tests on development of plural concord

(ii) through grading of the teaching method observed

(iii) through a scrutiny of the teaching material

(iv) through data collected from written text

(a) Quantitative Analysis

1)t – test has been applied for checking influence of

SES and gender difference in the development of

plural concord in children.

2) Pearson correlation has been applied for testing

the correlation between (a) teaching methodology

and student’s proficiency in plural concord. (b)

Teaching material – students’ proficiency in plural

concord.

8

3) To get the overall picture of development

irrespective of school, gender and socio-economic

status one – way ANOVA was done.

(b) Qualitative Analysis

The written answers were classified into three

categories.

CORRECT RESPONSES

DATA UNANSWERED ITEMS

IRRELEVANT ANSWERS

ERRORS

DEVELOPMENTAL ERRORS

Under irrelevant answers, meaningless answers like

repeating the same item given, same answers for all items,

scribbled scripts that are meaningless, answers given just

for the sake of filling the paper are considered.

Except developmental errors no other type of answers

were considered. Developmental errors were classified

according to their pattern under each category of test and

discussed.

9

Analysis on the development of plural concord

Hypothesis: As the age (standard of education) increases,children’s syntactic proficiency alsoincreases.

TABLE 2 The Mean, S.D and F - value of III, IV and VClass irrespective of the schools in the pluralconcord test.

Table 2

From Table 2, it could be seen that the mean scores of

three classes do not show an increase as its class increases.

As a result the obtained mean difference is not confirmed by

the calculated F – ratio (0.408) which is not significant at

1% and 5% level. Therefore the stated hypothesis is

rejected. So it is concluded from the analysis that when the

children’s educational level increases, it does not show

gradual development. Sometimes due to the influence of many

factors, a downhill is seen in their learning of plural. A

pictorial representation of the plural concord development is

given below

Class N Mean S.D SEMF -

ratio III 154 47.95 24.52 1.98

0.408IV 148 50.48 25.79 2.12V 157 48.79 23.83 1.90

10

According to the suggestions given by Prof. Ron Smyth,

Prof. Lyn Frasier, Prof. Sean Devitt, and Prof. Judith

Johnston, this developmental fluctuation may be due to the

learning of other new aspects of syntax*. The learning of new

aspects may make the children to use the new pattern more than

the aspect which has been learnt previously. So, the

previously learned aspect may be forgotten by the children who

may need a rehearsal to recollect it. So it also shows a

developmental fluctuation when tested. Plural aspect showed a

developmental fluctuation in this study when tested and out of

blue when the researchers asked for suggestions, the above-

mentioned scholars gave this suggestion. Plural marker is

learnt from their class I, but after that only other aspects

are introduced. So, this may be one of the causes for

Graph 1 is showing the performance of children in plural concord test on the basis of

their class

47.95

50.48

48.79

46.5

47

47.5

48

48.5

49

49.5

50

50.5

51

III

IV

VClass

Mean value

11

* Information given by them through e-mail.

developmental fluctuation found among the children which is

given in this study.

A) Gender Variation

Hypothesis: Girls are better in acquiring language skillsthan boys.

TABLE 3 The Mean, S.D and t–ratio of all the childrenirrespective of the classes and schoolsregarding their gender in plural concord test.

Gender N Mean S.D SEM t-ratio LS

Boys 245 44.69

23.84 1.52

4.11 1%Girls 214 54.0

524.72 1.69

Table 3

Though individual schools and classes show non-

significance in the gender influence in learning process of

number, when the total population is taken irrespective of

schools and classes, the mean score of girls (54.05) is more

than that of boys (44.69). The difference of obtained mean

score is statistically confirmed by the calculated t-ratio

(4.61) which is significant at 5% level. So regarding the

whole population, irrespective of schools and classes the

12

hypothesis that the girls have better learning capacity than

the boys is accepted.

B) SES

Hypothesis: Socio-economic status (SES) influences thedevelopment of plural concord and hence middleSES children are better in learning than thatof the low SES children.

TABLE 4 The Mean, S.D and t-ratio of all childrenirrespective of their classes and schools,regarding their SES in plural concord test.

SES N Mean S.D SEM t-ratioMiddle 290 60.16 21.22 1.25 16.44Low 169 29.99 17.51 1.35

Table 4

Though individual school and class shows non-

significance in the influence of socio-economic status in

some contexts, when the total student population is taken as

a whole irrespective of schools and classes, it shows that

socio-economic children of middle class have got more mean

score (60.16) than that of low socio-economic children

(29.99) in the development of plural concord. The difference

of obtained mean score is statistically confirmed by the

calculated t-ratio (16.44) which is significant at 1% level.

Therefore the above-mentioned hypothesis is accepted.

13

C) Teaching Material

Hypothesis: Teaching material influences the development ofplural concord.

TABLE 5 The correlation for plural concord developmentof school children with their respectiveteaching material.

Class S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

III -0.128

-0.310

-0.019 0.092 -

0.212-

0.014

IV -0.092

-0.606 0.062 0.299 -

0.470-

0.044

V -0.121

-0.122 0.155 -

0.125-

0.567-

0.098Table 5

From the above table, it is clearly known that schools

S1, S2, S5 and S6 show a negative correlation with their

teaching material for all classes, which shows that the

teaching material they use is not suitable for the children

who learn through it. So the influence of teaching material

is one of the causes for the variation found among schools.

School S3 shows negative correlation with the teaching

material for III class, which shows that the teaching

material they use is not suitable for the children who learn

through it. But it positively correlates for IV and V class

which shows that the teaching material they use is suitable

14

for the children. So the influence of teaching material is

there for III class children of this school.

School S4 shows negative correlation with the

teaching material for III and IV classes, which shows that

the teaching material they use is not suitable for the

children who learn through it. But it positively correlates

for V class which shows that the teaching material they use

is suitable for the children. So the influence of teaching

material is there for III and IV class children of this

school.

D) Teaching Methodology

Hypothesis: Teaching methodology influences the developmentof plural concord.

TABLE 6 The correlation for plural concord developmentof school children with their respectiveteacher’s teaching methodology.

Class S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

III -0.097

-0.096

-0.097

-0.021

-0.047

1

-0.012

IV -0.245 0.148 0.031 -

0.009-

0.072 0.301

V -0.040 0.296 0.218 0.028 -

0.052 0.258

Table 6

15

From the above table, it is clearly evident that schools

S1 and S5 show a negative correlation with their teaching

methodology for all classes, which shows that the teaching

methodology they follow, is not suitable for the children who

learn through it. So the influence of teaching methodology is

one of the causes for the variation found among schools.

School S2, S3 and S6 show negative correlation with the

teaching methodology for III class, which shows that the

teaching methodology they follow is not suitable for the

children who learn through it. But it positively correlates

for IV and V classes which show that the teaching methodology

they follow is suitable for the children. So the influence of

teaching methodology is there for III class children of these

schools.

School S4 shows negative correlation with the teaching

methodology for III and IV classes, which shows that the

teaching methodology they follow is not suitable for the

children who learn through it. But it positively correlates

for V class which shows that the teaching methodology they

follow is suitable for the children. So the influence of

16

teaching methodology is there for III and IV class children

of this school.

E) Psychological factors

Motivation

98% of the children who excel in their studies have 100%

external motivation (by parents and teachers) and 97.45%

internal motivation. But average learners have only 68.78%

external and 62.46% internal motivation. Poor language

learners have only 32.66% external and 26.28% internal

motivation.

Aptitude

‘Language aptitude is affected by learning disability

and not because of the intelligence’ is the one of the

findings in the present study. Out of 459 children 46 were LD

children and according to school, gender and standard the

number of children is listed in the table below.

School Std TotalIII IV V

S3G1 B3 G1 B4 G1 B3 134 5 4

S6G2 B2 G1 B4 G2 B3 144 5 5

S1G0 B2 G0 B3 G0 B3 82 3 3

17

S2G0 B3 G1 B1 G1 B1 73 2 2

S4G1 B0 G0 B1 G0 B0 21 1 0

S5G0 B1 G0 B0 G0 B1 21 0 115 16 15 46

Further on deep scrutiny on these 46 children, the

following categorization was made.

Out of these 46, 21 were dyslexic, dysgraphic and

dyscalculic

12 were dyslexic and dysgraphic

7 were dyslexic and attention deficits

6 were dysgraphic and attention deficits.

Attitude

About 83.49% of children responded that only due to their

parents’ and classmates, they are able to learn the language

successfully. Due to this belief they have positive and

negative attitude towards learning English according to the

background they have. During the data collection, the

researchers interestingly met many children (about 40) who are

basically intelligent, score above 80% marks in all the

subjects but they do not open their mouth in their class in

18

presence of teachers. But they articulate very well with

their peers and parents. This attitude makes them to lag

behind their development in learning English. Though these

children score good marks, their comprehension is very low.

They memorize the lessons without knowing the meaning of it.

When they were asked to explain the meaning to the answer

given in the text book, they were not able to give.

Learning Strategies

Learning strategies are adopted by the children based on

their learning styles. So, first the teachers must know to

find out their learning style and strategy they use

respectively. On the observation and interaction with teachers

and children, their learning styles and the respective

strategy that they follow have been identified.

All the children are given training to use cognitive

strategies. But training percentage varies from teacher to

teacher and school to school. Visual and Auditory learners

mostly opt, for cognitive strategy.

19

Metacognitive strategies for cognitive strategy usage

depend on the social background and their own style. Auditory

learners opt this.

The parents and teachers have to give training on social

strategies to the learners who are kinesthetic and tactile

learners.

According to the results, out of 459,

40.92% use cognitive and social strategies

16.43% use cognitive strategies

12.86% use meta cognitive strategies

24.67% use both cognitive and meta cognitive strategies

5.12% use all cognitive, meta cognitive and social

strategies together.

The success rates of the students according to the strategy

they use were given below;

i. The children who use all the three strategies together

are scoring more than 80%

ii. The children who use both cognitive and social strategies

score more than 65%

iii. The children who use both cognitive and metacognitive

strategies score more than 53%

20

iv. The children who use cognitive strategies alone score

more than 48%

v. The children who use metacognitive strategies alone score

more than 36%

Developmental error patterns

a) Developmental error patterns for each class

III Class:- Stage – 1

1) Repetition of same word (No inflection)

2) ‘-s’ for all nouns. (over generalization errors)

3) ‘es’ instead of ‘s’, ’ves’, ‘ies’

4) ‘ies’ for ‘e’, ‘es’.

IV Class – Stage 2

1) Repetition of same word ( No inflection )

2) ‘-s’ for all nouns.

3) ‘es’ instead of ‘ves’, ‘ies’, ‘es’, and also for

irregular forms.

4) ‘-ies’ for ‘es’.

5) Transistional errors – mens, wented

V Class – Stage 3

1) No inflection (very rarely seen)

21

2) Over generalization errors.

3) Transistional errors.

b) Error patterns with examples

(a) Errors due to confusion

(i) ‘-es’ instead of ‘-s’ . (ii) ‘-es’

instead of ‘Ø’

(e.g) doges, monkeys, keyes, (e.g)

sheepes

balloones, songes, birdes

(iii) ‘-es’ instead of ‘-ves’ (iv) ‘-es’

for ‘-en’

(e.g) leafes, thiefes (e.g) oxes,

childes

(v) ‘-es’ instead of ‘-ies’ (vi) ‘-es’ in

inflected

(e.g) cherryes, ponyies forms such

as

(e.g.) mousees, gooses

22

A similar phenomenon is noted by Peter A. Reich (1986)

as a 3rd stage of developmental pattern in the description of

steps in acquisition of irregular inflections.

(b) Transitional errors

Inflected forms with additional marker.

Oxens, Childrens, Mens, Mices

Peter A. Reich (1986) shows this pattern in 4th stage of

developmental pattern as a transitional error.

(c) Over regularization errors

‘-s’ instead of inflected form

(i) ‘es’ (ii) ‘-ies’

(e.g) dishs, benchs, boxes (e.g) ponys,

cherrys

(iii) ‘-ves’ (iv) ‘-en’

(e.g) thiefs (e.g) childs, oxs

(v) irregular forms

(e.g) mouses, mans

In the study of van der Molen and Morton (1979) they

found these types of errors. They say that, sometimes the

plural would be transferred as it were to a different noun,

23

which suggested that the plural marker is stored separately

from the stem.

(d) No inflection (repetition of same word).

box, child etc.

A similar pattern is also seen in the study of Peter A. R.

(1986).

References

Anisfield, M. and Tucker, G. R. 1967. English pluralization

rules of six–years–old children. Child Development, 38: 1201

-17.

Arnot, M., David, M. and Weiner, G. 1996. Educational

reforms and gender equality in schools. In Equal

opportunities Commission Research Discussion Series, No. 17,

Manchester: EOC.

Bates, E., Bretherton, I. and Synder, L. 1988. From First Words to

Grammar: Individual Differences and Dissociable Mechanism. Cambridge:

Cambridge University press.

Batters, J. 1986. Do boys really think languages are just

girt – talk? Modern Language, 67: 75 – 79.

Berko, J. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology.

Word, 14: 150-177.

24

Bernstein Ratner, N. 1986. Durational cues which mark clause

boundaries in mother – child speech. Journal of Phonetics, 14:

303-309.

Bhor, S.D. 1970. ‘Present’ Tenses in Marathi and English. Hyderabad:

Central Institute of English.

Bialystok, E. 1994. Analysis and control in the development of

second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 16: 157-168.

Bloom, L. 1973. One Word at a Time: The Use of Single Word Utterances before

Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.

Bloom, P. 1994. Recent controversies in the study of language

acquisition. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Hand Book of

Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.

Bowerman, M. 1973. Learning to Talk: A Cross Linguistic Study of Early

Syntactic Development, With Special Reference to Finnish.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corbett, G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University

press.

Lalitha Raja, R. 2002a. Language Learning in School

Children: A Psycholinguistic Approach. Presented in the

UGC- National Seminar, held at CAS in Linguistics,

Annamalai University, during 7th to 9th, January 2002.

(Mimeo)

25

Lalitha Raja, R. 2002b. Development of English

Interrogatives in School Children. Presented in 4th

International Conference on South Asian Languages, held

at CAS in Linguistics, Annamalai University during 3rd

to 5th, December 2002. (Mimeo)

Lalitha Raja, R. and Saranya, R. 2002c. English Learning

Strategies among Postgraduate Students. Presented in

4th International Conference on South Asian Languages,

held at CAS in Linguistics, Annamalai University during

3rd to 5th, December 2002. (Mimeo)

Lalitha Raja, R. 2003. Development of English Negative

Structure in School Children. In Aatha. Muthaiya (Ed.),

Proceedings of International Seminar on the Development of Criticism in

Tamilology, Vol-2 (pp. 1226-1231). A. Veeriya Vandayar

Memorial Sri Pushpam College, Poondi, Thanjavur.

Lalitha Raja, R. 2003. Syntactic Development of Tamil Mother Tongue

Children in Learning English. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation.

Annamalai Nagar: Annamalai University.

Levy, Y. and Schlesinger, I.M. 1988. The Child’s early

categories: Approaches to language acquisition theory. In

Y. Levy, I.M. Schlesinger, and M.D.S. Braine (Eds.),

Categories and processes language acquisition (pp. 261 – 276).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Macnamara, J. 1972. Cognitive basis of language learning in

infants.Psychological Review, 79: 1 – 13.

26

Macnamara, J. 1982. Names for Things: A Study of Human Learning.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Marcus, G. F., Ullman, M., Pinker, S., Hollandar, M., Rosen,

T. J., and Xu, F.1992. Over regularization in

Language Acquisition. Monographs of the society for Research

in Child Development, 57.

Molen, Hugo van der and Morton, John. 1979. Remembering

plurals: unit of coding and form of coding during serial

recall. Cognition, 7: 35 -47.

Reich P.A. 1986. Language Development, New Jersey: Prentice –

Hall.

27