Participantes del estudio

This section addresses the research question RQ1a): What are the HOME and SCHOOL

repertoires? I.e. what are the range of forms (i.e. variants) in each context and their frequencies? The distribution of the three forms V, Ving and Vbat, are presented in Table 6-1 below. As there are over twice the number of tokens occurring in HOME

contexts than in SCHOOL contexts, it is important to focus on proportionality of tokens

of each form, rather than raw distributions. The V form is proportionally similar in its rate of occurrence in HOME (42%) and SCHOOL (49%) contexts. Contrary to this, the

Ving and Vbat forms show different distributional characteristics in each context. The Ving form constitutes more of the SCHOOL data (51%) than HOME data (22%).

Conversely, the Vbat form is proportionally greater in the HOME language system (36%)

and is virtually non-existent in the SCHOOL data. There are only 20 recorded tokens in

the SCHOOL context, constituting only 4% of SCHOOL tokens. In fact if we look in more

detail at the instances of Vbat use in the SCHOOL context, most of these tokens (15/20)

are produced by three children in the youngest age bracket (5;0-5;5), that is, in the early days of their pre-schooling career. It would seem, therefore, that Vbat is a form which is largely confined to the HOME language system. Therefore, since these tokens are clearly a

minor form in the school data, below the categorical threshold, they will be excluded from analysis (they are included in square brackets in Table 6-1 to indicate that they have not been included in the totals in this table). This is the first indication that there are indeed two separate present temporal reference systems in operation. The HOME

system is composed of three forms: V, Ving and Vbat. The SCHOOL system is composed

of two forms: V, and Ving. This result is graphed in Figure 6-1. Further, the SCHOOL

data set is different from the HOME data set in a way that makes it more like SAE: the

Table 6-1: Distribution of V, Ving and Vbat in HOME and SCHOOL contexts

Basic

context V Ving Vbat Total

% N % N % N

Home 42 278 22 149 36 240 667

School 49 158 51 163 [4] [20] 321

Total 436 312 240 988

Figure 6-1: Distribution of present temporal reference variants V, Ving and Vbat, HOME

[N=667] and SCHOOL contexts [N=321] (data from Table 6-1)

Recall that one of the possible distributions of Ving and Vbat in Australian contact languages is that Vbat is used on transitive verbs, while Ving is used on intransitive verbs (discussed in §5.2). In fact, transitivity (defined here as clauses of two or more participants) impacts on the current data set as well. In the HOME data, presented in

Table 6-2, there are only 20 tokens of Ving used in transitive clauses: therefore in HOME

transitive contexts Ving is a minor variant that is not really competing with V and Vbat. Vbat is also clearly less common in intransitive contexts [N=54], though not

insignificant since it still marks 18% of intransitive verbs. The distribution of V is fairly steady in both transitive (N=119; 39%) and intransitive (N=159; 43.5%) conditions. It is clear from these distributions that transitivity is fundamental to the variation in the

HOME data set.

Table 6-2: Distribution of V, Ving and Vbat forms per TRANSITIVITY, HOME context

[significant χ2(2, N=667)=153.5127, p<.001]

V Ving Vbat Total

% N % N % N Intransitive 39 119 43 129 18 54 302 Transitive 43.5 159 [5.5] [20] 51 186 365 Total 42 278 22 149 36 240 667 V 42% Ving 22% Vbat 36% HOME V 49% Ving 51% SCHOOL

V 39% Ving 43% Vbat 18%

HOME

SCHOOL

Table 6-3: Distribution of V, and Ving forms per TRANSITIVITY, SCHOOL context [significant χ2(2, N=321)=31.777, p<.001] V Ving Total % N % N Intransitive 34 54 66 107 161 Transitive 65 104 35 56 160 Total 49 158 51 163 321

By contrast, in the SCHOOL data, Ving is now a substantial variant in transitive clauses

(appearing in 35% of transitive clauses, as shown in Table 6-3). As with the HOME data,

it is still asymmetrical in its distribution, since it appears at twice this rate (66%) in intransitive clauses. The fact that Ving is now a robust variant in transitive clauses represents an important difference in the HOME and SCHOOL present temporal reference

systems. This difference in distributions is represented graphically in Figure 6-2, in which the 20 tokens of transitive Ving in the HOME data have been excluded. This figure

also makes it visually clear that the main reason for the increase in overall incidence of Ving in the SCHOOL data (to 51%, up from 22% of the HOME data as shown in Figure 6-1

above) is that it is now used much more in transitive clauses.

Figure 6-2: HOME and SCHOOL repertoires per TRANSITIVITY condition

V 46% Vbat 54%

HOME

SCHOOL

This examination of the HOME and SCHOOL repertoires has revealed some similarities

and several differences. The forms V and Ving are common to both HOME and SCHOOL

data, and V occurs with similar overall frequency. However, when the data is broken down according to transitivity, an asymmetry in the incidence of V in the SCHOOL data

emerges (65% in transitive; 34% in intransitive), while the incidence of V across transitivity conditions in the HOME data is less polarised (46% in transitive; 39% in

intransitive). The Ving form has very different distributions in the HOME and SCHOOL

data: it is used in transitive clauses in the SCHOOL data while virtually never in this

context in the HOME data. As predicted, Vbat does not occur to any meaningful extent in

the SCHOOL data, a sign that children’s school-based speech is distinct from Alyawarr

English and more like SAE.

Several questions remain to be examined. In transitive clauses, does the absence of Vbat in the SCHOOL data, coupled with the advent of Ving in this context mean that Ving has

simply replaced Vbat or is there a complete reorganisation of the roles of V and Ving in the absence of Vbat? If the latter is the case, does this also extend to intransitive clauses, or is the SCHOOL data more divided by transitivity than it would appear from the

distributions? To answer these questions we need to delve deeper into the factors which are constraining the variation of each form in each system. Before this can be done, we must determine the extent of variation within the system.