The next subcategory to be analysed concerns the ‘phonological and articulatory PSM’ within ‘L2 resource deficit’. The table below presents the distribution of CSs obtained for each of the mechanisms that form this subcategory in addition to the normalised frequencies for each CS.
Table 5.7 Results for Phonological-articulatory PSM-L2 RD
Phonological-articulatory PSM Level A CSs/1000 words Level B CSs/1000 words morphological tip-of-the-tongue 34 5.2 41 11.99 lexical tip-of-the-tongue 45 6.9 48 4.7 use-of-similar-sounding word 7 1.1 15 4.45 Totals 86 13.1 104 10.3 118
It is interesting to note that, on the one hand, the level B learners resorted more frequently to the morphological tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon, while the Level A learners employed more often the same CS, but its lexical counterpart. Hence, both CSs will be now analysed and discussed to see the possible effects that the proficiency level might have on the use of these CSs.
Tip of the tongue phenomenon refers to a retrieval mechanism which is used ‘in an attempt to retrieve and articulate an item, saying a series of incomplete or wrong forms or structures before reaching the optimal form’ (Dӧrnyei & Kormos, 1998:361). This phenomenon is present in Færch & Kasper’s taxonomy of CSs as ‘retrieval strategies’, a broader concept which is said to be ‘identified on the basis of performance features which indicate that the speaker is searching for a linguistic rule/item or perhaps testing out various possibilities before executing any of them’ (1983:224). The study of this ‘retrieval’ CS has been quite limited (García Nuñez, 2006; Prebianca, 2009) in comparison to the ‘lexical PSM’, and it has only been included in the taxonomies proposed by Færch & Kasper (1983) and Dӧrnyei & Kormos (1998). The morphological tip of the tongue phenomenon, more frequently employed by the Level B learners, was included in this study within the phonological and articulatory mechanisms due to the type of data found in the analysis, since it was observed that, in addition to lexical forms (lexical tip of the tongue), most learners had difficulties when trying to retrieve verb forms. Both types of mechanisms were used in most instances in conjunction with own accuracy checks, which refer to the speakers being uncertain of the correctness of the word/s they are producing. Morphologicaltip of the tongue is illustrated in the excerpt below, where it is clear that NNS7B is trying to retrieve the appropriate verb form, although unsuccessfully.
Example 5.8.1 morphological tip of the tongue
NNS7B: y creo que tengo cuatro por si cuando el lle llegas a llega llegara↑ (0.2) Llegaba a a su casa con su maleta
and I think that I have four for yes when he arri arrive to arrives will arrive↑ (0.2) arrived to to his house with his suitcase
Retrospective comments NNS7B: I was thinking how to say ‘he arrived’ ‘he was arriving’.
The higher frequency of this CS by the more proficient subjects appears to demonstrate these learners’ developing stage of interlanguage. It seems that they are still uncertain about verb forms when trying to convey verbal structures, and thus need to retrieve a series of incorrect
forms until reaching an optimal construction which may help them to get their message across. This CS usage may have also been intensified by the difficulties that the Spanish verb forms present to especially English speakers (Salaberry, 2000; Ruiz Debbe, 2005), thus making them feel more doubtful about their appropriate use, hence their need to compensate for this type of problem more often.
Regarding lexical tip of the tongue, more frequently employed by the Level A learners, the data revealed that they also resorted to this CS, on most occasions, together with own accuracy checks. As shown in the excerpt below, these learners attempted to find the correct lexical item by repeating partsof the intended meaning, and also through checking whether the word uttered was correct by means of own accuracy checks.
Example 5.8.2 lexical tip of the tongue
NNS15A: en el en el su suro suroeste↑ En el suroeste de Francia
In the in the su south southeast↑ in the southeast of France
Retrospective comments NNS15A: I didn’t know if that was right, so I repeated it but I think I said it in French I don’t know (why do you think you used rising intonation there?) it was for her to nod me to say that she understands.
From the few studies which have examined this phenomenon, the low production of these types of mechanisms has not made it possible to draw any firm conclusions (Prebianca, 2009; García Nuñez, 2006). From what has been here analysed, on the other hand, it can be concluded that the more restricted L2 knowledge, which still govern the output of the lower level learners, seems to demonstrate their lack of linguistic resources in the L2. These learners still encounter more problems than the more proficient learners to remember and retrieve the lexical items necessary to communicate, thus their need to compensate for these gaps by resorting to lexical tip of the tongue more often than the more competent subjects. Thus, it seems that the more proficient learners have relatively richer L2 resources to draw upon in more problematic instances, which enable them to produce lexical items more easily than the less proficient subjects. Nonetheless, these resources are still not enough to overcome grammar-related problems, and especially in an L2 with more flexible grammar features. The more limited L2 repertoire of the lower level learners, on the other hand, makes them encounter more difficulties related to vocabulary, which is a feature of the L2 which beginner levels are just acquiring at this early stage of IL development. This also confirms a point already mentioned: lexis-related problems are more salient for the lower level, as opposed to grammar-related problems, which seem to be more relevant for the higher level.
The main conclusion which can be drawn concerning ‘L2 resource deficit’ is that the lower level learners seem to be more concerned with solving lexis-related problems over grammar- related problems. This was demonstrated through their frequent use of CSs such as lexical tip of the tongue, code-switching and sub-approximation. This behaviour was also supported by a higher frequency of grammatical reduction, specifically through the omission of grammatical words, which seemed to suggest that these learners rely mostly on their lexical knowledge, by trying to communicate meaning through mainly content words, as shown in the omission of auxiliaries and verb inflections. On the other hand, the higher use of
grammatical tip of the tongue by the more proficient learners appears to indicate their concern for grammar-related problems.This seems to be further confirmed by the fact that these types of difficulties, which might be regarded as more complex –– such as verb inflections – are still relatively more predominant in these learners’ speech. This behaviour, more preferred by the higher level, can be contrasted with the lower level’s focus on gender- related instances, as well as on their slightly more frequent incorrect use of prepositions, linguistic issues which may be considered less complex. All this seems to support the rationale previously suggested: the lower level learners are primarily more concerned about lexis, and are just in the process of focusing their attention on less complex grammar structures, whilst the more proficient subjects’ primary focus seems to be on more complex structures, such as verbal constructions, and thus mostly on grammar-related problems.