1

DEDICATION

Isaac Orina:

My husband who stood by me and encouraged me to pursue the

masters degree and tirelessly assisted me financially through the

course.

Cynthia, Brian and Kelly:

My children, who endured my continuous absence from home in

the course of my study.

Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Barasa and Mrs. Teresa Nyakerario:

My parents who served as pillars of support and strength during

my study.

May their sincere efforts be rewarded in my plans.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2

The impetus of this study came from students of St. Joseph’s

Junior Seminary Molo during the years I taught there. The first

time was during teaching practice, and secondly upon employment.

This is when I came face to face with a serious problem learners

had in the use of prepositions. Mr. Isaac Orina, who was an

experienced teacher in that school, cajoled me many times to take a

study on preposition difficulties.

The other great encouragement came from my thesis supervisors;

Dr. Kitetu, Dr. Kimani Njoroge and Dr. Mutiti from Language and

Linguistics Department (Egerton University). They consistently

supervised my work; guiding me intellectually and morally up to

the end of my course. It is clear that without their intellectual input,

this thesis would not have been written.

Special thanks go to my parents for encouraging me to pursue a

Masters degree and for funding the venture. Mr. and Mrs.

Raymond Barasa and Mrs. Teresa Nyakerario. Special thanks also

go to my relatives Mr. and Mrs. Murumba, Mr. Julius Motaroki

and Robert Kombo for standing by me morally and materially.

I also thank the administration, teachers and students of Getuki

Secondary School, Bombaba Secondary School, St. Angel

Sengera Girls High School and Nyamagwa Girls Secondary School

for participating in this study.

3

Finally, I wish to thank little angels Cynthia, Brian and Kelly for

persevering my occasional absence from home during the study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication..........................................................................................

4

Acknowledgements............................................................................

......................

Tableof

contents..............................................................................................

......

List of

Tables.................................................................................................

List of

figures................................................................................................

........

Abbreviations and

symbols..................................................................................

Definition of

terms..............................................................................................

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Background to the study

..................................................................................

Statement of the problem

.................................................................................

Objectives of the study

.....................................................................................

Hypotheses of the

study....................................................................................

5

Justification of the study

...................................................................................

Scope andLimitations

......................................................................................

Scope

............................................................................................................

Limitations…………………………………………………………

……

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature

review.................................................................................................

..

Introduction

...........................................................................................................

Studies on classification of

prepositions................................................................ Meanings of

prepositions under study................................................................

Studies on the Theory of Markedness and Core Grammar

..........................

Frequency of use and

markedness…………………………………………

Organisation and teaching of English preposition in the secondary

school

6

Curriculum…………………………………………………………

…………..

Studies conducted locally on the learning of English

prepositions………….

Theoretical framework

....................................................................................

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Methodology

........................................................................................................

Introduction

..........................................................................................................

Population

............................................................................................................

Sample and Sampling method

.............................................................................

Location of study

.................................................................................................

Instrumentation

....................................................................................................

Data collection phases

.........................................................................................

Data collection

procedure.................................................................................

7

Scoring procedure and Data

analysis................................................................

Interpretation of

scores..................................................................................

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION

Data analysis and interpretation

............................................................................

Introduction........................................................................................

...................

Preposition

continuum.........................................................................................

Preposition learning in Form 1 class

..................................................................

Preposition learning in Form 2

class...............................................................

Preposition learning in Form 3 class

.................................................................. Preposition Continuum

from Form 1 to Form 3 ..............................................

Preposition performance with untargeted semantic function

……………..

Preposition learning and

markedness...................................................................

8

Preposition acquisition and frequency of semantic

functions………..……..

Summary……………………………………………………………

………

CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATION

Findings, conclusions and

recommendations……………………………….

Introduction

.........................................................................................................

Findings................

..............................................................................................

Conclusions

........................................................................................................

Recommendations

..............................................................................................

Further research

.................................................................................................

Summary……………………………………………………………

……….

References

............................................................................................................

...

9

Appendices

............................................................................................................

..

Written

test………………………………………………………..…

Map of Gucha

District…………………………………………..…

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

K.I.E: Kenya Institute of Education

K.N.E.C: Kenya National Examination Council

M.O.E: Ministry of Education

F: Form

F1: Form one

F2: Form two

F3: Form three

L1: Language one (first language)

L2: Language two (second language)

10

X: Raw score

ΣX: Sum scores

N: Number of students under study

+: In addition to

IL: Inter Language

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

√ : Correct preposition and targeted meaning. (high accuracy of

use)

× : Incorrect preposition use (no accuracy)

: Correct preposition but untargeted meaning.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

First Language

This term is used to refer to the first language acquired by a child

(Selinker 1972).

Second Language Acquisition (L2)

In this thesis, Second language (L2) acquisition was defined as the

process of learning another language after the basics of the first

language have been acquired, starting at about five years of age

and thereafter. (Dulay, H et al (1982))

Prepositions

11

These are invariable forms that fall under phrase level category and

function within a Noun Phrase or a Prepositional Phrase in

showing relationship between things, people or events.(Radford

1988)

Error

This refers to a systematic deviation made by learners who have

not mastered the rules of the second language (Corder 1974).

Performance, Competence

In this study, performance referred to the students’ actual use of

their knowledge of the target language in communicating

effectively. Competence referred to the knowledge a learner has

about the rules of language.

Communicative Competence

These terms were used to refer to the ability of learners to start and

end conversations using the target language prepositions correctly.

Learning and acquisition

In this study, these two terms were used interchangeably to refer to

the process by which a learner develops proficiency specifically in

the use of prepositions.

Semantic Loading

12

In this study, semantic loading refers to the number of meanings

attached to a given preposition. For example, a preposition which

conveys fifteen different meanings is more semantically loaded

than the one which conveys only two.

Markedness versus Unmarkedness

In this thesis, these terms were defined and used in relation to the

various major senses of markedness posited by salient linguistics

such as Greenberg (1966), Trubetzkoy (1939), Jakobson (1963),

Chomsky (1981) and Radford (1988). Thus markedness referred to

structures that are peripheral (not governed by general tendencies

of a language), restricted in their distribution and rare/uncommon.

While unmarkedness referred to structures that are core (accord

with general tendencies of a language), widely distributed and

more frequent/common in texts. In relation to semantic loading

parameter, prepositions that conveyed many meanings were

considered more loaded hence unmarked. Whereas those that

conveyed few meanings were considered to be less loaded

therefore rare hence marked.

Easy

This term was used to refer to prepositions, which secondary

school learners acquire with ease. Greenberg (1966) says that

unmarked structures are easier to produce than marked ones.

Difficult

13

This term referred to prepositions that secondary school learners

acquired with difficulty. Greenberg (1966).

Interlanguage

The term was used to refer to the structured system, which the

learner constructs at any given time in his/her L2 development

(Selinker 1972).

Frequency

This term was used to refer to structures that occurred in a wider

range of contexts. (Lehrer 1985). In this thesis, prepositions that

conveyed many semantic functions were considered to be more

frequent than those that conveyed few meanings.

14

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

English language is the medium of instruction in most institutions

of learning in Kenya. The learners are guided through the use of

correct elements of speaking and writing in order to communicate

effectively. Towards achieving the communicative competence in

learners, the use of appropriate prepositions becomes crucial. This

is because prepositions control all the circumstantial relations in

any given utterance. Due to this importance of prepositions, this

study was carried out with an aim of establishing the perceived

difficulties in the use of the English prepositions and further

finding out whether the semantic functions of such items

determined their acquisition and use.

15

The correct use of the English prepositions is vital because

inability to use these items, impacts negatively on the learners’

ability to communicate. In this thesis, chapter one was an

introductory chapter and outlined the nature of the problem in this

study, the objectives and hypotheses that guided the researcher.

The chapter underscored the various theoretical frameworks that

gave an impetus to the study of the problem; especially the Theory

of Markedness in Universal Grammar and Second Language

Acquisition.

Chapter two was a review on the work of scholars on second

language acquisition to establish the source and cause of difficulty

in mastering the English language. Specifically, the study dealt

with categorization of prepositions and their circumstantial roles

and the general organization of the secondary school curriculum in

the teaching of English prepositions. It also highlighted the

scholarly work on issues of Markedness in relation to second

language acquisition. Also the findings of scholars both from

within and outside Kenya were reviewed.

Chapter three covered the methodology of the research. Mainly the

sample, location of study and data collection phases and analysis.

Chapter four presented an actual analysis and the interpretation of

the raw data through descriptive and inferential analysis.

16

Finally, Chapter five outlined the use of the findings from the

study and the recommendations given.

1.1 Background to the study

The background to this study was the growing interest that had

attracted many language teachers, educationists and linguists on

the use of prepositions as a part of speech. The main aim of this

research was to establish the perceived difficulties in the use of

prepositions and to ascertain whether these difficulties are caused

by unmarkedness/ markedness relations. To begin with,

prepositions are defined as invariable forms that fall under the

phrase level category and function within a noun phrase or

prepositional phrase. For example: The ball is on the grass. (‘on

the grass’ is a preposition showing surface). The area of

prepositions has been of interest especially to various stakeholders

in the field of education in Kenya due to poor performance by

students in the national examinations. Similarly, language teachers

have also been alarmed by the incompetence of students to use

prepositions. The Ministry of Education (M.O.E) in conjunction

with the Kenya National Examination Council (K.N.E.C) (1999)

reports cite the fact that prepositions are very complex parts of

speech to be handled by learners, as quoted below:

“One of the difficulties of the English language is in use of

prepositions” (K.N.E.C, 1989:40).

17

In addition to this observation, poor performance in the area of

prepositions has been observed in the consequent years as noted in

the report written by the M.O.E, K.I.E and K.N.E.C in 1999.

Schmied (1996) found out that some grammatical areas were

problematic even for advanced students. These are; conjunctions,

relative constructions, function words, prepositions and tenses.

For example;

[GRPREP1] “The spirits of the ancestors were called upon to

_________

the ritual.

(join in/ join with/ join at)

(Schmied. (1996: 6)

In addition,Pemagbi, Jibril, P (1990) says that idiomatic

expressions and prepositions are the most difficult grammatical

areas.

Similarly, K.I.E (1987) in their handbook for English teachers,

strongly indicated prepositions as one of the intricate areas handled

by learners.

Despite the above observation s, very few studies have been done

to establish the possible causes and this is how the present research

came in.

18

It is not only the educationists who had observed the difficulties in

the use of prepositions but also scholars. Mutiti (2000) ascertained

preposition problems among L1 (source) language speakers. He

said that L1 interfered with the preposition acquisition in the

second language. Mutiti (ibid) did not specifically establish the

learnability problems as indicated in his work.

Furthermore, Fitikides (1963) observed the general difficulties that

prepositions posed to source learners of English as a second

language. This was discussed in detail in section 2.4. In studying

the common errors in English, Jowitt D, and Nnamonu, M (1985:

87) say that, “the preposition difficulties are real and the various

examples given are the representation of errors commonly made by

foreign students”. Nevertheless, they did not look into the possible

reasons underlying such predicted difficulties.

Besides Fitikides (ibid), another study in the area of prepositions

was done by White (1986) who after carrying out a research on

stranding, earlier done by Goodluck and Gullici (1986) exclusively

using English – speaking children, recommended another

investigation about preposition stranding in relation to the issues of

markedness/unmarkedness. The present research particularly

looked at the general use of prepositions by secondary school

students in relation to markedness and unmarkedness relations.

19

Apart from preposition stranding, Goodluck et al, found out that

prepositions generally posed problems among foreign learners of

English. A foreign student has to know:

(a) Whether in any construction a preposition is required

or not, and

(b) Which preposition to use when one is required.

Many words used as prepositions can also be used as conjunctions

and adverb. For example, when referring to temporal situations

like “He arrived on Saturday – ON is expressing adverb of time.

(We cooked) before (the guest arrived.)

(“before” a co-ordinating conjunction joining the

independent

clauses (we cooked) and (the guests arrived) Mwangi, H

(2004:127)

According to Eckman (1977), language is only difficult to learn

due to the issue of markedness and unmarkedness.

Despite the observations made by various scholars, linguists and

local bodies responsible for education in Kenya like MOE, KIE,

KNEC, concerning preposition difficulties, few have carried out

research to establish the difficulties. Thus, the researcher found it

necessary to go to the field and carry out a research to establish the

cause of preposition difficulties and consequently investigate

whether the issues of markedness/unmarkedness are the

predicators of such difficulties.

20

Statement of the problem

Learners’ conceptualization of prepositions in second language

acquisition of English is problematic given that prepositions

encode several semantic functions. This research is aimed at

ascertaining whether there is an order of difficulty that may be

correlated with markedness issues.

Objectives of the study

The following were the main objectives of the research:

1. To establish the relationship between semantic functions

and acquisition of English prepositions.

2. To find out whether markedness/unmarkedness determine

the acquisition of English prepositions.

3. To investigate the continuum in the acquisition of English

prepositions.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Is there a relationship between semantic functions and the

acquisition of prepositions?

2. Do Markedness/Unmarkedness relations determine the

acquisition of prepositions?

3. Does the acquisition of English prepositions follow a specific

21

Continuum?

Justification of the study

A poor command in the use of prepositions affects the students’

ability to communicate the intended meaning. The correct

communicative situation of a given utterance is pegged on the

meaning conveyed by a preposition. The research findings of this

study were crucial in highlighting the nature of the learning order

of the English prepositions by secondary schools students. This

would help the language teacher and the learner to reflect on the

observed areas of difficulty in the use of prepositions and come up

with strategies on how to improve on their mastery.

Corder (1981) says that the language teachers’ decisions about the

teaching process should, to a large extent, be informed by

knowledge of the subject matter they are teaching, (that is, the

target language) and by the knowledge of a unique group of

learners with whom they are working and of the language learning

process. Thus, the findings of this study would help the English

language teacher understand the learning

order of the English prepositions. This would in turn serve as

feedback to the language teacher in focusing on the difficult

prepositions by integrating learning procedures in order to

facilitate correct preposition use. The findings would lead to

22

greater teacher awareness of the acquisition of prepositions and

thus become sensitive to the specific

learners’ preposition needs.

In the field of Second Language Acquisition, the findings were

valuable in predicting the development of SLA in the area of

prepositions, White (1977). In addition, the acquisition order of the

English prepositions is also valuable in Error Analysis. The

findings are expected to be used by researchers in investigating

prepositional errors. That is, learners may tend to have many errors

in prepositions which are difficult for them to acquire.

Similarly, to discourse analysts, the research findings are valuable

in explaining the reasons for variations in discourse.

The findings will also be important in facilitating the learning of

English language as an official language and medium of

instruction in Kenya.

The results are also expected to be of use to curriculum developers.

The findings will help in sequencing preposition structures in the

syllabus in accordance with the learners’ needs. This will in turn

help the writers of English textbooks to organise the preposition

content that suits the learners’ needs. This will also lead to an

improvement in the language teaching methodologies.

23

Last but not least, currently, in Kenya no studies have been carried

out to establish the acquisition order of the English prepositions by

secondary school learners. The findings of this study will therefore

be important to language teachers, curriculum developers and

learners. The results provided an insight on how to facilitate the

acquisition of prepositions in secondary schools.

Scope and limitations

Scope

The study was limited to secondary school learners. The Form 1,

Form 2 and Form 3 students were used as the respondents. The

secondary school English teaching curriculum organises the

teaching of prepositions and their possible meanings in Form 1 and

Form 2 classes. One word prepositions are covered in Form 1,

while more than one word prepositions are covered in Form 2. The

Form 3 preposition content is on distinguishing a preposition from

a connector or an adverb. The Form 3 content thus tests the

competence of the learner in the mastery of prepositions after

learning prepositions in Form 1 and Form 2. Therefore in this

research, the selection of Form 1, Form 2 and Form 3 learners was

appropriate in investigating the use of prepositions.

In terms of geographical location, the study was carried out in

Gucha District in four secondary schools. The selection of this

study was appropriate and could be in any school teaching English

24

as a Second Language. This is because the study did not consider

L1 as a variable, therefore it could have been in any secondary

school in Kenya.

In terms of the intellectual area, the study was confined to Second

Language Acquisition (SLA) in the area of Grammar; specifically

prepositions. The research sought to establish the learning order in

the acquisition of English prepositions by using differentials in

English preposition meaning. The study also sought to establish

whether the learners could use prepositions correctly in various

syntactical contexts.

Fourteen one word prepositions were tested. These were ON, IN,

AT, FOR, FROM, WITH, TO, OVER, BESIDE, DESPITE,

BENEATH, BEHIND, AMONG and UNDERNEATH. Two more

than one word prepositions were also studied: IN SPITE OF and

IN FRONT OF. These prepositions were adapted from secondary

school learners’ English textbooks for example Mwangi, (2005),

Bukenya, (2003), Vikiru, (2005) among others.

The researcher used variability of meaning in the English

preposition to study the use of prepositions. The prepositional

meanings considered were related to:

(i) PLACE {Locative meanings}

(a) Dimension

When prepositions are used to indicate place, it is done in

relation to the dimensional properties whether subjectively

25

or objectively conceived ,of the location concerned.

Prepositions like IN, ON, AT can be used to show

dimensionless area, one- dimensional area, two-

dimensional area or a three -dimensional area.

(b) Positive position and direction.

Prepositions such as AT,TO,ON,IN can be used to show

positive position and direction in relation to space. Simple

position is a static location and direction is movement with

respect to a destination

( c) Relative position.

Prepositions may express the relative position of two

objects or groups of objects.

Prepositions like OVER and UNDERNEATH tend to

indicate direct vertical relations or spatial proximity. The

same case applies to BENEATH.

(d) Relative destination

This is movement towards a specific destination.

For example prepositions such as BENEATH,

UNDERNEATH, TO, IN FRONT OF, BEHIND,OVER

express relative destination.

(e) Passage

With verbs of motion, prepositions may express the idea of

PASSAGE (that is movement towards and then away

from a place), as well as destination. for example

AMONG,OVER, BEHIND,UNDERNEATH, BENEATH,

26

IN and ON as locative prepositions are also used with a

sense of passage to show surface or volume.

(f) Direction

When prepositions like TO, IN, ON,FROM, IN FRONT

OF, OVER , UNDERNEATH, BENEATH and BEHIND

are used with verbs of motion, they make a group of

prepositions expressing movement with reference to an axis

or directional path. When the goal is physical such as

destination, such prepositions may imply movement in the

direction of goal.

(g) Orientation.

Prepositions can be used in the static sense of orientation

this refers to two things being spatially related : Viz a

point of orientation at which the speaker is standing. The

preposition OVER can combine the meaning of beyond (

on the far side of) with no specific information of

dimension type. Prepositions like ON, BEHIND, IN

FRONT OF , BENNEATH, UNDERNEATH , BESIDE are

used orientation ally with reference to an axis.

(h) Resultative meaning:

Prepositions can have a static resultative meaning

indicating the state of having reached a destination. For

example ON, OVER.

(i) Pervasive meaning

27

Pervasive meaning is either static or motional. The axis

type of prepositions like OVER, UNDERNEATH,

BENEATH are used in the pervasive sense.

( j) Metaphorical or abstract use of place prepositions.

Place prepositions have abstract meanings which are

clearly related through metaphorical connection, to their

locative uses for example

vertical direction – abstract scale – BENEATH

vertical direction – subjection – UNDERNEATH

stating point / destination – originator / recipient – FROM/

TO.

Relative position- abstract relation between participants –

AMONG

Resultative meaning – physical – abstract – OVER,ON

Ratio / comparison – TO, FOR

Level of ability – AT

Support – FOR

Possession / ingredients – WITH

Reaction, stimulus - TO,AT

Accompaniment – WITH

Subject matter – ON

2. TIME (temporal meanings ):

Prepositions show two dimension types of time:

a. Point of time;

28

AT - is used for points of time and idiomatically for

holiday periods.

b. Period of time

ON,IN are used with phrases referring to days to

indicate period of time.

c. Duration ;

Duration is mainly expressed by FOR which means all

through. FROM…To is a pair of prepositions whose

locative meaning is transferred to duration.

3. Contingency meanings;

PURPOSE, INTENDED DESTINATION, RAESON. The

phrases of purpose or destination answer the questions “why

………………” “what ……………”, “where ………….for”

or who ……………… for?. The preposition mainly used to

show such meanings is FOR. Prepositions like IN SPITE OF

and DESPITE show concession and contrast.

4. Process meanings;

a. RECIPIENT , GOAL , TARGET:

FOR , AT, TO, are used for intended recipient equated

with an indirect object. AT is used to express intended

goal or target .

b. SOURCE, ORIGIN : FROM

The converse of to (= ‘goal’ ) is from (= ‘source’)

FROM is used with reference to a place of origin.

c. MEANS , AGENTIVE , INSTRUMENT

29

d.Preposition like WITH can be used to show manner or

like. WITH may also express instrumental meaning .

All the above circumstantial roles were captured in the test.

(See section 3.5) of this thesis.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study is that the researcher focused

on the variability of meaning expressed by a preposition and not

the form of a preposition. Out of the sixteen prepositions under

study, fourteen were simple prepositions, that is, consisting of only

one word while two were complex that is consisting of more than

one word. Greenberg (1966) says that forms that are shorter are

used more frequently than longer ones because they require lower

cognitive accessibility.

The researcher overcame this limitation by only focusing on the

semantic function of the preposition since the objective of the

study was how semantic functions of prepositions determine their

acquisition.

The other limitation of this research was that the research

investigated the difficulty in the acquisition of preposition in

relation to markedness theory and Selinker’s Interlanguage theory

only. Selinker’s Interlanguage theory was used because the study

focused on establishing if there is a defined continuum in the

acquisition of prepositions and how markedness ,universals,

contribute to interlanguage development.

30

Selinker’s [1972] Interlanguage theory also had its own limitations

as used in this study .

The relationship that exists between the input and the learners’

internal processing mechanisms was ignored .The researcher

overcame this limitation by considering the concept of strategy not

as hidden mental process but as a device for relating the input to

existing knowledge on one hand and relating existing knowledge

to output on the other.

The theory used in this research that is, the Markedness Theory in

Universal Grammar Chomsky (1981) had one limitation.

Kellerman (1984) points out that various criteria have been used to

explicate markedness – core versus peripheral, typological

frequency, complexity, simplicity, explicitness, unmarked by one

researcher and marked by another. Ellis R (ibid) says that the

criticisms levelled on theory of markedness and Core Grammar

suggest that at the moment, its explanatory power may be limited,

but it still remains crucial in prediction of SLA order of

development.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This study focused on the ability of learners to identify the correct

use of a given preposition in a sentence. It also looked at

31

markedness and unmarkedness as predictors of correct/incorrect

use of the prepositions. Therefore, the literature review that was

done in this study was based on the categorisation of prepositions

on the basis of their encoded circumstantial roles. It also dealt with

a review on scholars’ work on the parameters of

markedness/unmarkedness.

2.2 Studies on classification of prepositions

Leech, G (1975) classified the English prepositions on the basis of

form; that is simple (consist of one word for example, about, to, by,

after, on, along etc) and complex (consists of more than one word

for example, according to, due to, by means of, etc). Within the

simple and complex prepositions, Leech (ibid) sub-classifies

prepositions on the basis of the functions they play. These

functions overlap making mastery of prepositions hard. According

to Leech, the following are the sub-groups of prepositions: which

are based on function:

(a) At –type prepositions. In this case, place is seen as a point

for example; We went to the hotel. For example to, at, …..

(b) On –type prepositions: the place is also seen as a surface

for example, He fell on (to) the floor. For example on,

onto, …..

(c) In- type prepositions: the place is seen as an area usually

of ground or territory enclosed by boundaries, for example.

They crowded into the streets. For example in, onto, …..

32

(d) ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ are sometimes used instead of in (to)

of, for example.

We went / stayed inside the building.

When overlap arises in the use of prepositions, there are changes in

meaning.

For example:

1. My car is at cottage. Point

2. There’s a new roof on the cottage. Surface

3. There is one bed in the cottage. Volume

Consider the following

4. (a) There are potholes on the road Surface

(b) We sat on the grass (surface- grass is

short)

(c) We sat in the grass (grass is long)

Clark (1980) hypothesised that the acquisition of the prepositions

in, on and under would be in that order because of the influence of

such non-linguistic cognitive constraints. This claim was qualified

on different accounts by Parlemo (1974) indicated that part of the

child’s response set was determined by functional relations

between nouns (for example, Cars normally go on roads).

Slobin (1973) had systematically compared the acquisition of

locative expressions in English, Latin, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish.

Specifically they found the same general order of development as:

33

IN ≥ ON ≥ UNDER ≥ BESIDE ≥ BETWEEN ≥ BACK ≥

FRONT

The above prepositions will be acquired in the above order

when

learned with featured objects.

The above order changed when learners learned the

prepositions

under study with non-featured objects. The learning order

was.

IN ≥ ON ≥ UNDER ≥ BESIDE ≥ BETWEEN ≥ FRONT ≥

BACK

Learners will first know how to use the preposition IN than

BETWEEN in that order. The nature of the order reveals that

prepositions are acquired in the above respective order due to non-

linguistic constraints. The above nature is characterised on the

basis of functional locative circumstances which relate to space,

position, direction and distance.

Prepositions are used to realise nearly all types of circumstances

like place and time. The circumstances are usually additional

gratuitous information about a situation. Circumstances are subject

to constraints of semantic compatibility, that is, prepositions

acquire meaning according to the context in which they are found.

Prepositions always occur in phrases. They are usually followed by

another item, most often a noun/ a pronoun. Since the preposition

34

is the primary realisation of the circumstantial meaning; the

following table attempts to classify the various meaning categories

in the use of prepositions.

Table 1: Classification of Prepositions

Prepositions

By Form One-word preposition e.g. IN,

ON,TO

Two or three-words preposition

e.g. IN SPITE OF, IN FRONT

OF

35

By Function

PLACE (LOCATIVE

MEANINGS)

a) Dimension

b) Positive position and

direction

c) Relative position

d) Relative destination

e) Passage

f) Direction

g) Orientation

h) Resultative

i) Pervasive

j) Metaphorical / abstract

scale

TIME (TEMPORAL

MEANINGS )

a) Point of time

b) Period of time

c) Duration

CONTINGENCY MEANING

purpose , intended destination ,

reason, concession, contrast.

PROCESS MEANINGS

36

a) recipient , goal , target

b) source , origin

c) means , manner,

agentive, instrument.

(Content adapted from Leech, 1975; the table by the researcher)

The above classification is discussed below:

In this study, the researcher studied fourteen one-word prepositions

( IN, ON, UNDERNEATH, FOR, FROM, BENEATH, AT, TO,

AMONG, OVER, DESPITE, BESIDE, BEHIND, WITH), and two

, three - word (IN SPITE OF, and IN FRONT OF). This study

focused mainly on whether the learners could supply an

appropriate preposition in the sentence given . The appropriateness

of the preposition chosen mainly depended on the meaning of the

preposition which is largely contextual .

In terms of functional classification of prepositions, the semantic

label LOCATIVE subsumed circumstances relating to space,

position, direction , distance (see table 1). All the sixteen

prepositions under study tested the circumstantial roles shown in

section 1.6.1 of this thesis.

37

Similarly, the semantic label “TEMPORAL” enclosed meanings of

time, position, duration and ‘PROCESS’ relate to the question

(‘How?’). The ‘how’ of an event or action may encompass a

number of different types of process, namely; manner, means

which the question answers ‘By what means? Instrument process

answers the specific question ‘With what?’ while the Agentive

process answer to the question ‘By whom?: Finally,

‘CONTINGENCY’ circumstance has subtypes that express various

kinds of contingent circumstance, including, cause, reason,

purpose, result, condition and concession. These contingencies are

related but differ only in perspective. That is cause, reason,

purpose - all ask the question ‘why?’

The use of prepositions is largely depended on the context in

which they are used. A single syntactic unit may be used with

different prepositions depending on the context or the intended

meaning one wishes to express. In this study, the learners were

expected to fill in the blank spaces in the sentences with an

appropriate preposition while relating to the linguistic rules (i.e.

the input ) they have internalized on prepositional meanings which

is mainly from instruction.

The following section is a detailed description of the meanings

each preposition under study conveys.

38

Meanings of Prepositions under Study

Markedness as used in this research refers to items which are more

semantically loaded hence peripheral.

The more meanings a preposition encodes, the more semantically

loaded it is; while the few the meanings it has, the less

semantically loaded it becomes. Thus semantic loading has been

used as parameter to gauge whether a preposition is marked or

unmarked. The following is an explanation of the various possible

meanings conveyed by the above sixteen prepositions under study.

The meanings are based on function, and not the structure of a

preposition.

The following illustrations are from Quirk and GreenBaum

(1973:146-165) some are adaptations by the researcher. The

prepositional meanings would be identified through the learners’

use of the preposition in a given test item. A correct preposition

would correlate with a given semantic function depending on the

context of use. The researcher derived the prepositional meaning

from the way the leaner used the preposition in the given test item.

Chomsky (1981) points out that the reason why a learner selects

item X and not Y is an indicator of the availability of such an item

in the learners’ language data. Consequently a selection of a

misinformed / wrong preposition or no preposition at all is also an

39

indicator of the linguistic experience a leaner has at that point in

time.

The following is a description of variability in meaning of the

prepositions under study .

1. On

1. SUBJECT MATTER: He spoke on Drug Abuse.

2. AREA (two-dimensional): Put a new roof on the house.

3. ATTACHED TO: The fruits are on the trees.

4. ON TOP OF: The cup is on the table.

5. DIRECTION: The stone fell on the ground.

6. AREA (one dimension): Write on this page.

7. POSITION: The chalk is on the floor.

8. SURFACE: He made patterns on the window.

9. TIME (when): The kiosk is closed on Mondays.

10. RELATIVE DESTINATION: She

fell on the ground.

11. RECIPIENT: She used her left

hand on her maid.

12. REASON: He was congratulated on his success.

13. RESULTATIVE: At last we were on the hill.

14. ORIENTATION: He lives on the rough road.

15. PATRONY: (metaphorical): I will be on you this week.

40

2. In

1 MANNER: He replied in an offensive way.

2. COMPARISON: He is like his brother in one respect.

3. POSITION (the three-dimensional objects): There is a bed in the

room.

4. POSITION (two-dimensional objects): The sheep are in the field.

5. DIRECTION: She ran in the opposite direction.

6. AREA: He appeared in the window.

7. IDENTITY: John was born in Kenya.

8. DESTINATION: He dived in the water.

9. METAPHOR: Mary is in difficulties.

10. TIME (duration): He is to come in two months time.

11. REFERENCE: In regard to your letter......

12. QUASI-AGENT: Salome is interested in English.

13. RESULT: He succeeded in the end.

14. LEVEL OF ABILITY: She is good in games.

15. ACCOMPANIMENT: He went in the company of three.

16. TIME (LENGTH): She completed the work in two minutes.

3. At

1. POINT (LOCATION): My van is at the garage.

2. POSITION: He is at the window.

3. TIME (Point): Mary left at noon.

4. TARGET (Goal): He aimed the gun at him.

5. PLACE (attending): John is at school.

41

6. RESULT: We arrived at last.

7. REACTION (stimulus): The teacher was alarmed at John’s

behaviour.

8. LEVEL OF ABILITY: She is bad at remembering faces.

9. DIRECTION: He is pointing at you.

4. To

1. DIRECTION (path): She went to the house.

2. AGAINST: She bent to the wall.

3. RECIPIENT (actual): He gave a gift to his wife.

4. REACTION (emotional): To my annoyance, they rejected the

offer.

5. GOAL (intended): She lent the pen to me (recipient).

6. COMPARISON/RATIO: W e won by three goals to nil.

7. TIME (end of a period): The show will start from Monday to

Saturday

8. COMPLETION OF ACTION: Jean fell to the floor.

9. MOVEMENT (specific direction): Drive to the city.

10. METAPHORICAL: I may be his daughter, but not to his

manners.

11. PERCEPTUAL RESPONSES: It looked to me like a dream.

5. For

1. DURATION: The guests are here for two months.

2. PURPOSE: He does anything for a living.

42

3. DESTINATION (intended): They ran for shelter.

4. RECIPIENT (intended): He made a doll for his daughter.

5. SUPPORT: You are for the plan.

I am for the idea.

6. COMPARISON: He is a bit too old for you.

7. RESPECT (STANDARD): She is a bit too old for you.

8. REASON: He was jailed for defiling a minor.

6. From

1. SOURCE: This book is from John.

2. ORIGIN: I come from Kenya.

3. STARTING POINT: From Monday to Friday.

4. MATERIAL CAUSE: They died from lack of food.

5. SEPARATION / DISTINCTION: Can you tell butter from

Margarine.

6. METAPHORICAL: From grace to grass.

7. MOVEMENT: The boy came from the village just the other

day.

8. PERCEPTION: From the look of things, this child will fail her

exam.

7. With

1. Manner: We were received with a smile.

43

2. INSTRUMENT: The screen was broken with a stone.

3. COMPANY: Mary will come with Ben.

4. OPINION: Go with public trend for safety.

5. POSSESSION: I saw a man with long black beard.

6. CONTENTS / INGREDIENTS: The food is filled with water.

7. REFERENCE: With reference to your letter dated ……

8. REACTION: I am disappointed with you.

8. Beside

1. RELATIVE, POSITION: Sit beside him.

2. ORIENTATION: The house is beside the hill.

3. METAPHORICAL SUPPORT: Go ahead am beside you.

9. Over

1. POSITION: He hid the keys over the door.

2. DESTINATION: The sheet was drawn over him.

3. MOVEMENT/ PASSAGE: Rogers climbed over the fence.

4. ORIENTATION: The man lives over the hill.

5. RESULTATIVE: At least we are over the hill.

6. PERVASIVE (STATIC): The leaves lay thick over the ground.

7. PERVASIVE (MOTION): They splashed water over me.

10. Despite

1. CONCESSION: I like him despite his faults.

2. CONTRAST: Despite the rains we went home.

44

3. IRRESPECTIVE / WITH ALL: He is very weak despite eating

good food.

11. In spite of

1. FOR ALL: I admire him in spite of his faults.

2. CONCESSION: I agree with him in spite of the quarrels.

12. Underneath

1. COVERED (COMPLETELY): The victims are underneath the

rubble.

2. PASSAGE: The coin rolled underneath the chairs.

3. RELATIVE POSITION: The coin is underneath the tin.

4. RELATIVE DESTINATION: When it rained they rushed

underneath the tress.

5. VERTICAL DIRECTION: (Abstract scale): We are underneath

you.

13. Beneath

1. ORIENTATION: The shop is beneath the butchery.

2. RELATIVE POSITION: The people are beneath the rubble.

3. VERTICAL DIRECTION: (Abstract scale): Such manners are

beneath him.

14. Behind

45

1. RELATIVE DESTINATION: I dashed behind the bush to hide.

2. PASSAGE: John ran behind the bushes.

3. ORIENTATION: The servants live behind the valley.

4. RELATIVE SUPPORT (Metaphorical): Go ahead with the plan

I am right behind

you.

5. PART AND PARCEL: The head boy is behind the strike.

15. In front of

1. ORIENTATION: The butchery is in front of the hotel.

2. RELATIVE POSITION: There is a van in front of us.

3. DIRECTION (VERTICAL): The teacher is in front of the house.

16. Among

1. PASSAGE: Njeri is dancing among people.

2. RELATIVE POSITION: He is standing among friends.

3. ONE OF THEM: Kenya is among Tanzania, Uganda and

Sudan.

The table below summarises the above information.

46

Table 2: Description of prepositions according to variability of

meaning .

ASPECT NUMBER OF MEANINGS

(SEMANTIC LOADING

PARAMETERS)

ASPECT NUMBER OF MEANINGS

(SEMANTIC LOADING

PARAMETERS)

IN

ON

TO

AT

FOR

16

15

11

9

8

UNDERNEATH

BEHIND

BESIDE

DESPITE

BENEATH

5

5

3

3

3

47

WITH

FROM

OVER

8

8

7

IN FRONT OF

AMONG

3

2

It is worth noting that all of the above meanings were captured in

the test item in the study.

The research used these circumstantial meanings to formulate the

test for the respondents with an aim of investigating meaning

differentials as a reason towards preposition difficulties. In the test

(see appendix (i)), each task tested on a single aspect (preposition)

in which the learner had to use a given preposition correctly to

show the contextual meaning provided in each sentence.

In each task all the diverse meanings of the same preposition were

tested (see section 2.2.1 of this thesis) where the learner was to

identify prepositions as expressing either locative, temporal,

contingency or process meanings (see table 1)

Studies on the theory of markedness in universal grammar and

second language acquisition

Several scholars have done research on how the Theory of

Markedness and Core Grammar predicts the acquisition in second

language. Some of such studies are discussed below.

48

It is worth noting that according to Chomsky (ibid) the core rules

are unmarked and thus easy to learn whereas the peripheral rules

are marked thus learned with some difficulties.

Rutherford (1982) in predicting whether markedness scale is able

to predict the order of development; provides a number of

examples of unmarked and marked rules for English. The criterion

of markedness that he applies is whether one pair of rules or

features is more grammatically restricted than the other.

Rutherford (ibid) says that the adjectives ‘big’, ‘long’ and ‘fast’ are

unmarked in relation to ‘small’, ‘short’ and ‘slow’ because they

occur in both declarative and interrogative sentences, while the

latter occur only in declarative sentences. (they can not be used in

interrogative sentences) where syntax is concerned, Rutherford

(ibid) gives an example of declarative versus interrogative

sentences. The former are considered to be unmarked because they

can be used to form both statements and questions.

He can run fast.

He can run fast? (said with rising intonation) (Ellis 1985:

194).

While the latter can be used only to form questions, in general,

unmarked rules are thought to be less complex than marked ones.

Wode (1976) justifies the claim that markedness scale is able to

predict the order of development in Second Language Acquisition

as said by Rutherford (1982) and Gass (1989). Wode (ibid) used

49

the acquisition of L2 negation to justify his claim. In his study he

established that the unmarked or the less marked items are learned

early and the more marked items later. The present study aimed at

identifying which prepositions are learned early and which ones

are learned late by the secondary school learners.

Rutherford (1982) provides an interesting illustration of how

markedness factor can influence SLA. He shows that following

acquisitional order for WH-questions reported in Burt and Dulay

(1982) can be explained by Markedness Theory. He says simple

questions can be considered unmarked in relation to embedded

questions (I don’t know what this is?). Therefore according to him,

simple singular questions are learnt first then followed by singular

embedded ones. Stowel (1981) used the Theory of Markedness and

in Universal Grammar and observed that the unmarked word order

in English is headfirst and specifier first and the marked one is

head-last and specifier last. For example (here in-complement +

Head preposition/Radford (1988: 274).

According to the Stowel (ibid) the complement + preposition order

illustrated in the above sentence is highly marked and hence

subject to heavy restrictions on its use. Forms such as thereafter,

herein, whereby are stylistically highly marked (that is they are

only used in particular registers such as legal language). There are

also severe syntactic restrictions on the constructions; only a

50

locative pronoun like there, here, and where can be used as a

preceding complement of a preposition. There is also lexical

restriction (that is restrictions on the choice of prepositions which

precede the locative complement. For example we can have

thereby, there in, there to, there after, and there from but less freely

*there under, or *there over, *there inside, *there behind.(* means

rare prepositional complement).

Related to the area of preposition, Gulluci and Goodluck (1986)

studied the development of English-speaking children’s ability to

comprehend prepositions-initial and preposition-final relative

clauses. Learners were exclusively exposed to the prepositional-

final forms around them. For example (John sees the donkey which

the camel pushes the zebra to final form) [the example is the

researcher’s] English favours the preposition final forms than the

preposition initial forms. For example (John sees the donkey to

which the camel pushes the zebra - initial form). According to this

study, learners found problems comprehending the preposition

initial forms. The initial form (…..to which…. ) is generally

considered to be unmarked, normal form. While the preposition

final form (…….which ……..to) to be marked. Nonetheless,

modern English favours the marked prepositional final forms.

Gulluci and Goodluck (ibid) says this poses as one of the main

difficulties among foreign learners of English as regards

preposition use. They thus conclude that the case of acquisition

51

sequence may follow the dictates of the speech forms the child

hears around him rather than the order predicted by a progression

from unmarked for marked forms.

Frequency of use and markedness

Haspelmath (1999) says that frequency of use with regard to

meaningful categories is a variable that make five of the

markedness senses. Frequency of use is a property of parole or

performance, not of language structure or competence, and

throughout the 20th

century most linguists have shown little interest

in explaining structure in terms of use. Frequency is not just one

correlate of markedness, but in fact a major determinant of

markedness effects in morphosyntax.

Greenberg (1996: 65: 69) noted that much of morphosyntactic and

lexical markedness can be explained by frequency of use.

Greenberg (ibid) emphasised the importance of frequency for

markedness asymmetries, and he was the first to assign it an

explanatory role in this context. Also Baayen et al. (1997: 14)

explicitly defined marked forms as the forms that occur less

frequently. In explaining text frequency, Greenberg (ibid) says that

“If tokens of a typologically marked value of a category occur at a

certain frequency in a given text sample, then tokens of the

unmarked value will occur at least as frequently in the text sample”

(Croft 2003: 110).

52

Waugh (1982: 307) pointed out that the only way in which the

relevant contexts can be defined is with reference to frequency of

use. Mayerthaler (1981: 136 - 140)claims that both unmarkedness

as morphological difficulty and conceptual unmarkedness explain

high frequency in texts, without providing a mechanism. Such a

mechanism is provided by Lehrer (1985: 399) (and similarly

Waugh 1982: 302): “ the unmarked member may occur in a wider

range of contexts and will also be more frequent”.

In Greenberg’s (1966: 32) figures, the singular occurs in 75 – 85%

of the cases, the plural in 15 – 25%. From Leech (2001) for

gradable antonyms in English, it shows that ‘unmarked’ gradable

adjectives are between twice and six times as frequent as their

‘marked’ counterparts. For example unmarked member (long) =

frequency (392)/ marked member (short) = frequency (198); Ratio

unmarked/marked 2.0 (Leech et al. 2001, per million word tokens).

Consequently, Fenk – Oczlon (1991: 373 - 381) in explaining the

role of frequency in language acquisition, processing and leveling,

noted that a category that is used more frequently will of course be

easier to process in a number of ways than a rarely used category.

In support of Oczlon (ibid), Givon (1991) says that conceptual

difficulty is apparently the cause for the lower frequency of a

category. He also states that structures that are processed with

53

more difficulty and acquired later by children is probably due to

their lower frequency.

In this research, frequency of prepositional meanings played a

great role in establishing the relationship between semantic

functions and the acquisition and use of English prepositions. A

preposition that conveyed many semantic functions was considered

to be frequent in the learners language data than the one that

conveyed few semantic functions.

It is worth noting that though some of the above studies were not

the focus of this study in terms of preposition use, they show that

language universals may influence how L2 grammars are formed.

They thus give a background to the use of Markedness Theory in

Universal Grammar as suitable theoretical framework for this

study. From the studies above, there is evidence that universals

place constraints on interlanguage, that acquisition may follow the

hierarchical ordering of features and that unmarked or less marked

features are acquired before marked or more marked features. In

relation to this rules, the present research sought to identify the

difficulty order in the use of prepositions by secondary school

learners. The prepositional use was based on the differentials in the

meanings of the English prepositions.

54

Organization and teaching of English prepositions in the

secondary school curriculum

The approved English textbooks in secondary schools address the

preposition content in line with the English syllabus. The English

syllabus organises the teaching of the English prepositions at

different levels of learning. This is briefly illustrated below.

Form 1- Prepositions (e.g. in, on, at) one word prepositions.

Form 2- Prepositions (e.g. in spite of) more than one word

prepositions.

Form 3- Distinguishing prepositions from connectors and adverb

particles.

Form 4- Functions of prepositions in sentences.

A brief review on how the English textbooks present the above

preposition content is discussed below.

Formal instruction plays a very important role in second language

acquisition. This is an important issue because it addresses the

question of the role played by environmental factors in SLA.

Language pedagogy has traditionally operated on the assumption

that grammar can be taught. The way instructions take place

affects the route of SLA in the classroom.

Language instruction has a purpose of teaching the learner the

formal systems of L2 in particular grammar. Selinker’s (1972).

Interlanguage theory suggested five processes that operated in

55

interlanguage. The third of these processes focused on transfer of

training. That is, a rule enters the learners system as a result of

instruction.

In instructional methods, an assumption is made that focusing on

linguistic form aids the acquisition of grammatical knowledge or

that raising learner’s consciousness about the nature of target

language rules helps the learner to internalize them. In this regard

the researcher found it necessary to comment on the instructional

materials especially how English text books approach the

prepositional content

(a) Form 1 class content on English preposition.

The form 1 class English textbooks have been written by various

established writers. For example, Excelling in English (Mwangi

2005), New Integrated English. (Gathumbi (2002), Advancing in

English, (Vikiru. (2005) and Bukenya. (2003), Headstart

Secondary English. These are the approved textbooks for the

teaching of the English language in secondary schools.

The above writers address the content of one word prepositions

and their contextual meanings from almost a similar perspective.

Efforts have been made to mention the examples of one word

prepositions. The ones mentioned commonly are: ON, OVER,

DOWN, THROUGH, UP, ROUND, INTO, TOWARDS, IN, AT,

56

TO, FROM, DURING, SINCE, BY, FOR…., ALONG, the

researcher observed that the coverage on examples of the one word

preposition was deficient because the writers focused on only a

few of them as mentioned above.

The researcher also observed that, writers addressed the coverage

of contextual roles of prepositions very lightly. It is only Mwangi

(2005) who attempts a pictorial presentation that shows the

meanings of a few prepositions. Other writers, as mentioned above,

do not make such an attempt. The common meanings covered by

all the four authors that is, Mwangi (2005), Vikiru (2005),

Gathumbi.(2002) and Bukenya. (2003) are as follows:

Direction ((towards) on, in, from, to, down)

Position (on, in, at, under, over, between, among)

Passage (over, through, into, round)

Time (on, at, during, since, from, for)

Movement (by, from, on, to)

Place (at, in, on, in, under, along,)

Transport (by, in, on, off, into, on)

Conclusively, it is quite evident that the coverage of the English

prepositions and their denotative meanings in the Form 1 class is

wanting . ( Selinker’s (1972) third strategy of transfer of training ).

The approach of prepositional content in form 1 class may not

fully facilitate the internalization of the rules in the learner. Only a

57

few prepositions are handled and a few circumstantial roles are

described. The prepositional meanings that are not addressed are

for example Orientation, Distance, Area, Agent, Source, Goal,

Passage, Cause, Reason among others. Consequently, the English

prepositions that have not been given adequate coverage are as

follows: WITH, DESPITE, BESIDE, AFTER, UNDERNEATH,

ACROSS, AMONG, BETWEEN, OVER and others. Therefore, it

is evident that , transfer of training on prepositions in form one

class is insufficient. Selinker (1972).

(b) Form 2 class content on English prepositions.

The aforementioned English textbook writers have also written the

Form 2 English textbooks. The Form 2 Grammar syllabus focuses

on the teaching of two or more words prepositions and their

possible circumstantial roles. These writers organise the coverage

of these prepositions in terms of structure. That is, those made up

two words like ACCORDING TO, and those of three words like

IN ADDITION TO.

In the textbook by Bukenya (2003) no effort is made to discuss the

various uses of the two or more words prepositions. Similarly,

Vikiru (2005) only identifies examples of such prepositions

without making any discussion on their possible meanings. Only

one textbook by Mwangi, (ibid) identifies a few of these

prepositions and their possible meanings. The meanings covered

are those of place/space (a way from), cause/reason (due to),

58

exception (apart from), and alternative (instead of). Other

circumstantial meanings like contrast, concession, have not been

covered.

(c) Form 3 class English preposition content.

The Form 3 class preposition content is on distinguishing among a

preposition, an adverb or a connector. A similar word can function

at all the above three classes given different contexts. The

researcher observed that the Form 3 class preposition content was

mainly at the definition level. All the aforementioned writers

address this content as such.

(d) Form 4 class English preposition content.

The Form 4 class English preposition content is on identifying the

functions of prepositions in a syntactic unit. That is a prepositional

phrase can function as a modifier of a noun, a modifier of an

adjective or adverbials.

In conclusion, the above review on how the secondary school

curriculum organises the teaching of English prepositions vis à viz

the available approved teaching textbooks; shows that the coverage

of English prepositions is deficient. The researcher observed that

59

the coverage on the variability of the English prepositional

meanings of both one-word and more than one-word prepositions

is incomplete/inadequate. In addition, a few common prepositions

are given prominence. This literature review was crucial in

explaining the findings of this particular study on the use of

prepositions. (See chapter 5 of this thesis.) It is thus evident that

transfer of training of the prepositional content in secondary school

is deficient. This type of instruction affects the route and rate of

SLA in the class room.

Studies conducted locally on the learning of English

prepositions

A few studies have been carried out by scholars in the area of

prepositions. Among them are Mutiti (2000) and Mwangi (2004).

Mwangi (ibid) looked at the grammatical variation in second

language. Varieties Of English: The Case of Prepositions in

Kenya. She observed that most of the research has focused and

concentrated on the more salient aspects of language, especially

vocabulary and pronunciation while little has been done on

grammatical aspects.

Mwangi (ibid) examined the usage of prepositions in Kenyan

English, with the aim of showing the extent to which this

var iety varies from its parent variety (Brit ish English). She

asserts that the English prepositional system is well known for

60

i ts complexity and studies of second language acquisition have

documented the difficulties encountered by second language

learners in the attempt to master these complexities.

She quotes from Kennedy (1998 : 139) who says that "when the

h igh frequency and difficulty of acquisition of the English

prepositional system is considered, it is somewhat surprising that

there have not been more corpus-based studies of how the system

is used." Thus Mwangi ( i b id ) in her study compared the usage of

prepositions in two components of the International Corpus of

English (1CE), the British Component (ICE-GB) and the Kenyan

Component ( ICE-K) .

Her findings showed that differences in the collocational patterns

of prepositions and the distribution of their semantic functions

are important markers of variety differences. She also established

that some prepositions in Kenyan English do not perform all

semantic functions as they do in British English. She says there

are a lot of semantic restrictions in the usage of some prepositions,

which consequently expands the semantic range of others. Thus

certain semantic distinctions which are made in British English

are not made in Kenyan English. She concluded tha t the

Engl i sh prepositional system is more simplified in Kenyan

61

English which is as a result of the influence by a range of

linguistic and contextual factors.

Mwangi ( ib id) gives one of the following examples of

simplification in the use of preposition in the Kenyan English.

1. For guys you just wash Now imagine like flo’s hair

yeah if that thing

just decides to go in.

2. ……..but let us take the length and width of Zanzibar

Island and the people who are there what do you think

if there are so many people just coming in the country

(Mwangi, 2004: 27-32)

She says that the above examples indicate the cause and effect

relationship between preposition of location and direction which is

not always maintained in Kenyan English. In sentence (1), the verb

‘go’ is dynamic and the preposition ‘into’ would therefore obtain

in Standard English, because ‘hair’ should be seen as a volume into

which something goes. In sentence (2), the preposition ‘into’ is not

obligatory because, when a place is being regarded as a destination

rather than a position, it is more natural to see it vaguely as a

geographical point than as an area. Hence the more frequent use of

‘to’ than ‘into’ in reference to countries.

62

This research did not look at the English variety but looked at

differentials in the meaning of English prepositions as a factor

influencing the acquisition of prepositions by secondary school

learners. The present research focused on how secondary school

learners learn the English prepositions. It did not look at the

collocational distribution of the prepositions. The prepositions with

high semantic functions were considered complex hence

peripheral. While those with a few semantic functions were

considered simple hence core.

Mutiti (2000), in his work attributed the difficulties in the use of

prepositions to the first language acquisition. The present research

did not study interference as a factor influencing the learning of the

English prepositions.

Theoretical frame work

This study was guided by Selinker (1972) Interlanguage theory

which refers to an internal system that a learner has constructed at

a single point in time; and the Theory of Markedness as

propounded by salient representatives like Zobl (1983), Rutherford

(1982), Greenberg (1966). Each of the above theories is discussed

in the sections below.

(a) The Interlanguage Theory

63

The term interlanguage was first used by Selinker (1972). Various

alternative terms have been used by different researchers to refer to

the same phenomenon. Nemser (1971) refers to approximative

systems and Corder (1971) to idiosyncratic dialects and transitional

competence. These terms reflect two related but different concepts.

First, interlanguage refers to the structured system which the

learner constructs at any given stage of development. Second , the

term refers to the series of interlocking systems which form what

Corder (1967) called the learner’s ‘built in sylabus’ ( i.e

Interlanguage continuum)

The assumptions underlying interlanguage theory were stated

clearly by Nemser (1971.

They were (1) at any given time the approximative system is

distinct from the L1 and

L2 : (2) the approximative systems form an evolving series : and

(3) that in a given contact situation, the approximative systems of

learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide.

The concept of ‘hypothesis – testing” was used to explain how L2

learner progressed along the Interlanguage continuum, in much the

same way as it was used to explain L1 acquisition as it was used to

explain L1 acquisition . Corder (1967) made this comparison

explicit by exposing that at least some of the strategies used by the

64

L2 learner were the same as those by which L1 acquisition takes

place “Hypothesis testing ‘ was a mentalist notion.

Selinker (1972) suggested that five principle processes operated in

Interlanguage. These were (1 ) language transfer (2)

overgeneralization of target language rules: (3) transfer of training

i.e. a rule enters the learner’s system as a result of instruction) (4)

strategies of L2 learning (i.e. identifiable approach by the leaner to

the material to be learned ‘ 1972 :37) and (5) strategies of l2

communication i.e. ) an identifiable approach by the learner to

communication with native speakers.

The five processes together constitute the ways in which the

learner tries to internalize the L2 system. They are the means by

which a learner tries to reduce the learning burden to manageable

proportions and they can be subsumed under the general

processes of simplification. The learners have limited processing

space and therefore, cannot cope with the total complexity of the

language system. So they limit the number of hypothesis they test

at one point in time.

Selinker also noted that many L2 learners (perhaps as many as 95

per cent ) fail to reach target language competence. That is they do

not reach the end of the interlanguage continuum. They stop

learning when their interlanguage contains at least some rules

65

different from those of the target language forms. He referred to

this as fossilization.

So far the account of interlanguage theory has closely followed the

principles of mentalist theories of language acquisition. This is due

to the emphasis on “ hypothesis – testing ‘ and internal process,

together with the insistence on the notion of a continuum of

learning involving successive restructuring of an internal system .

Selinker’s (1972) seminal paper provided the theoretical

framework for interpreting SLA as a mentalistic process and for

the empirical investigation of language learner language.

Subsequent discussions of interlanguage focused on its three

principal features;

1. Language – learner language is permeable

The L2 learner’s interlanguage system is permeable , in the sense

that rules that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage

are not fixed , but are open to amendment. The loss of permeability

is what brings about fossilization.

2. Language – learner language is dynamic.

The L2 laener’s interlanguage is constantly changing. The learner

slowly revises the interim systems to accommodate new

hypotheses about the target language system.

3. Language – leaner language is systematic

Despite the variability of interlanguage , it is possible to detect the

rule – based nature of the learner’s use of the L2. He does not

66

select haphazardly from his store of interlanguage rules, but in

predictable ways.

It is worth noting that each grammar the learner builds is more

complex than the one preceding it. That is why the researcher

investigated the acquisition of prepositions at three different levels

of learning. That is Form 1 , Form 2, and Form 3.

Empirical studies have shown that linguistic universals like

markedness have effect on interlanguage development. The studies

found out that L2 learners learn unmarked (or less marked)

properties before marked (or more marked) properties of the target

language Rutherford (1982). The acquisition of one feature low

down on the hierarchy could trigger off the acquisition of other

features higher up. This showed a relationship between

implicational hierarchy and implicational cluster. Such

implications show whether the difficulty order is the same as the

acquisition order.

The findings of this study indicated that learners progressed

through a defined Interlanguage continuum. At the Form 1 level,

the learners expressed the highest degree of unfamiliarity to the

meanings encoded by the prepositions. At Form 2 level, and Form

3 level, familiarity was average.

67

(b) Theory of Markedness and Core Grammar

The theory of markedness was first proposed by Nicholas

Trubetzkoy and Roman Jakobson in the 1930s. Since then, the

term markedness has been very popular in linguistics. It was

embraced by European structuralists, generative phonology,

functional – typological linguistics, Chomskyian principles – and –

parameters syntax, Neo – Gricean pragmatics, optimality theory,

first and second language acquisition. In the course of this process,

the term markedness developed a multiplicity of sometimes widely

diverging senses and it lost its association with a particular

theoretical approach and became established as an almost theory –

neutral everyday term in linguistics.

At first, the term markedness was confined to phonetics: in a pair

of opposite phonemes, one is characterised as marked, while the

other one lacks such markedness. Earlier on , these oppositions

will be found in different environment – paradigms the way they

relate to other forms.

In such opposition , one might be more restricted than the other

referred to as the marked structure while the non- restricted is the

unmarked structure. The marked structures are usually complex as

opposed to simplicity. They also exhibit more information than the

unmarked structure.

68

The unmarked forms are easier to produce and are more available

in data , than marked structures which are rare in occurrence. In

relation to Universal Grammar, structures and rule systems within

the UG framework can be seen in relation to the characteristics of

markedeness .For example, in UG , Chomskyian paradigm ,

considers that there are universal grammar rules and principles that

are core to human language. The UG core rules are normally

regarded as unmarked which means that every human being will

relate to them. Chomsky also says that there are the peripheral

rules which are relatively marked.

The peripheral rules are difficult to relate to, use and acquire when

it comes to acquisition of language. A given rule or principle might

be related to another as a subset. The implicational universals can

be considered in the notion of markedness. For example

if a rule P is subset of rule Q ,Q will be the unmarked in relation to

the rule P which is relatively marked. That is if P then Q.

The implicational relationship between Q and P is that P and Q can

be found in acquisition, that is , present and secondly , P and Q

may not be present (-P, -Q) . The third possibility is Q will be

present and –P will also be present.

69

P and - Q will not be allowed ( not possible to acquire a subset rule

in a language while there is a superset you have not acquired . For

example ,

-P and -Q ( not acquired both)

-P and Q ( -P and Q means acquiring a superset first)

P and Q ( allowed . This means acquiring both)

Note that (-P and - Q followed by P and Q, is a faster way of

acquiring a language.

( P sub set principle ) marked

(Q general / superset principle ) unmarked.

Therefore, in any stage of interlanguage development the quantity

of producing successful instances of Q will be greater than or

equal to the quantity of Production of P. ( That is, Q is always

greater than P or equal to P). In case of substitution in any

interlanguage stage , Q substitutes for P and not vice versa.

Now it has been widely applied to the researches on phonetics,

grammar, semantics, pragmatics, psychological linguistics and

applied injustices.

Markedness was used with various senses which are connected

through their historical origins (ultimately in Trubetzkoy’s and

70

Jakobson’s work of the 1930s) and synchronically through family

resemblances. The term markedness can thus be divided into

twelve different senses grouped into four major classes.

(Haspelmath 1999) and Battistella (1996).

A. Markedness as complexity

1. Semantic markedness (Jakobson 1932): Markedness as

specification for a semantic distinction.

“In the English opposition dog/bitch, dog is the

unmarked member because it can refer to male dogs or

to dogs in general.”

2. Formal markedness (Passim): Markedness as Overt

coding.

“In English, the past tense is marked ( by – ed

morpheme) and the present tense is unmarked.”

B. Markedness as difficulty

3. Markedness as morphological difficulty/unnaturalness.

“A singular/plural pair like book/books is less marked

than sheep/sheep because the latter is not iconic.”

(Wurzel 1998)

4. Cognitive markedness (Givon 1991): Markedness as

conceptual difficulty.

“The plural category is marked because it requires more

mental effort and processing time than the singular.”

C. Markedness as abnormality

71

5. Textual markedness (Greenberg 1966): Markedness as

a rarity in texts.

“For direct objects, coreference with the subject is

marked and disjoint reference is unmarked.”

6. Situational markedness (Passim): Markedness as rarity

in the world.

“For marked situations, languages typically use

complex expressions.”

7. Typological markedness (Jakobson 1941, 1963):

Markedness as typological implication or cross –

linguistic rarity.

8. Distributional markedness (Passim): Markedness as

restricted distribution.

“Object – verb word order is the marked case: it occurs

only in negation.”

9. Markedness as deviation from default parameter

setting. (Chomsky 1981)

“Absence of noun incorporation is the unmarked case,

and the presence of productive noun incorporation has

to be triggered by a specific parametric property.”

10. Markedness as a multidimensional correlation

(Greenberg 1966, Croft 1990)

“The singular is more marked than the plural, and the

plural is more marked than the dual. Frequency of use

is primary in grammar and lexicon.”

72

The above are some markedness senses and their salient

representatives. Haspelmath (1999) says that most linguists who

use the terms marked/unmarked use them only in one or a subset of

various senses. Haspelmath (ibid) noted that only Anderson

(2001), Battistella (1990) presented works that tried to work with a

concept of markedness that subsumes all or at least a large part of

the diverse senses of markedness. The present research tried to

work with a concept of markedness that subsumed markedness as

difficulty Wurzel (1998), Givon (1991), markedness as a rarity in

texts (Greenberg 1966), markedness as deviation from default

parameter setting (Chomsky 1981) and markedness as a

multidimensional correlation (Greenberg 1966, Croft 1990).

Rice (2003) pointed out that the ‘intuitive’ shared sense of

marked/unmarked is not from the sense of everyday words like

uncommon/common, abnormal/normal, common/uncommon,

unusual/usual, unexpected/expected. Rice (ibid) observed that the

larger class of abnormality was in effect what all markedness

senses share. On this basis, Radford (1988) says that an unmarked

phenomenon is one which goes against some relative universal and

hence is ‘exceptional’ in some way. The term unmarked can be

equated with ‘regular’, ‘normal’ or ‘usual’ and marked with

“irregular”, “abnormal”, “exceptional” or “unusual”.

73

Chomsky (1981) says that core rules are those that can be arrived

at through the application of the general, abstract principles of

language structure and they are unmarked. Peripheral rules are not

governed by universal principles and thus they are marked or

exceptional in some way.

According to Croft (1990) and Greenberg (1966) , comparable

linguistic structures exhibit the same markedness values for

different markedness dimensions (“criteria”). Thus a marked

structure would be defined as semantically complex, overtly coded,

rare in texts, found only in some languages and restricted in their

distribution. While an unmarked structure will be semantically

simple, not overtly coded, frequent in texts, found in all or most

languages, and unrestricted in their distribution.

Similarly, Archangeli (1992: 391) says that “ …… the typical

pattern or property is called unmarked, the atypical one marked”.

He also says that the term markedness is used to refer to the

continuum between language – universal and language particular

properties, with completely unmarked properties being those found

in virtually all languages and extremely marked properties found

quite rarely.

Baayen et al. (1997: 14) explicitly defined a marked form as the

one which occurs less frequently.

74

In this research, markedness referred to prepositions that conveyed

few meanings and are thus less semantically loaded, consequently

rare. Unmarkedness referred to prepositions that conveyed many

meanings hence more semantically loaded, consequently common

in occurrence.

Empirical studies have shown that L2 learners learn unmarked (or

less marked) properties before marked (or more marked) properties

of the target language. An example of this was provided in section

2.3 of this thesis. This research aimed at identifying the learning

order of English prepositions by secondary school learners.

Availability in differentials in meaning and frequency of English

prepositions were used to determine if a preposition was acquired

first or late.

The Theory of Markedness in Universal grammar plays an

important role in Second Language Acquisition. Children master

unmarked forms relatively quickly since they are core. This would

do on the basis of their linguistic experience found in the target

language learning. (Chomsky 1981)

According to Chomsky (ibid) the linguistic universals of Core

Grammar contribute to interlanguage development. He says that

although the learning sequences do not entirely follow the

markedness scale; because of maturational processes to do with

75

‘development’ interfere, it is nevertheless expected that at least

some transition features can be explained by Markedness Theory.

White (1977) points out that by recognizing degrees of

markedness, predictions can be made about the acquisition order.

This research aimed at identifying the learning order in the use of

prepositions by the secondary school learners.

Further studies on the importance of the Theory of Markedness in

Universal grammar and SLA were discussed in the literature

review section in this thesis. (Chapter 2).

Finally, from the theory of Interlanguage by Selinker, it is implicit

that learners progress through an Interlanguage at different levels

of their learning a second language. This research aimed at

identifying such a continuum.

CHAPTER THREE

76

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter explains the procedure used in data collection and

presentation. In the initial stages of research, the library research

strategies were used especially in the review of related literature.

The second stage of research covered field work where the

researcher collected the raw data.

The research was conducted using a survey approach. The task

mode was in form of a written test (see appendix (i)) administered

to Form 1, Form 2 and Form 3 students. The task focus was a

linguistic manipulation task where linguistic rules were required to

perform the task.

This study made use of descriptive and inferential statistical

methods in describing, recording, analysis and interpretation of

data. In the following section of this chapter, a description of the

methodologies used is discussed in detail.

Population

77

The population of secondary schools in Gucha was 141 schools

with an average of 16,920 students in Form 1, Form 2 and Form 3.

Since this was a cross – sectional study, the sample sizes used in

the language development literature range from 24 to over 1,200,

Dulay and Burt (1982: 246). In this study 60 respondents were

selected for the linguistic task.

Sample and sampling method

The researcher employed random sampling procedure to select the

sample schools from the stated population. Four schools were

sampled. These were School A - Mixed secondary, School B -Girls

secondary, School C -Mixed secondary and School D - Girls

secondary.

Random sampling was used to select five students from each class

giving rise to a total of 15 students per school who were given the

written test as shown in the table below;

Table 3: Description of samples.

78

NAME OF

SCHOOL

A

MIXED

SECONDARY

SCHOOL

B

GIRLS HIGH

SCHOOL

C

MIXED

SECONDARY

SCHOOL

D

GIRLS

SECONDARY

SCHOOL

Level of learners F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3

Total No. of

learners

90 120 100 60 75 80 70 45 54 60 60 90

Average age of

learners

16 17 18 13 14 17 15 15 17 14 15 16

No. of learners

used for analysis

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Total No. used for

data analysis for

three classes

15 15 15 15

Grand total of

learners under

study

60

KEY:

F = FORM

(F1, F2, F3) = FORM 1, FORM 2, FORM 3.

No. = Number

79

Location of study

The study was conducted in Gucha district in Nyanza province of

Kenya. (See appendix (ii)). Since this research did not consider L1

as a variable, the location of the study would have been anywhere

in the country Kenya; in English as a second language situation.

The learners comprised the Form 1, Form 2 and Form 3. These

groups were chosen because the syllabus covers the prepositions

and their meanings in Form 1 and Form 2. Thus, a Form 3 student

is expected to show a high level of competence in the use of

prepositions in regard to their inherent meanings.

Also a cross – sectional design simulates actual development over

time by including many learners who are at different stages of L2

development.

Instrumentation

A written test was used for collecting the data from the learners. (

see appendix 1) . The structures were in form of sentences with

blank spaces.

The learners were to select an appropriate preposition from the list

given to fill in the blank spaces. The context of syntactic unit

determined the preposition to be chosen. There were differences in

80

item numbers in relation to variability of semantic functions. Such

functions guided the researcher in identifying the prepositional

meaning indicated by the preposition chosen by the learner for

each test item. Chomsky (1981) says that the reason why a learner

selects item X and not Y is an indicator of the availability of such

an item in the learners language data. Consequently a selection of a

misinformed or no preposition at all is also an indicator of the

linguistic experience a leaner has at that point in time. It underlines

the internal structure of the learners language data. The following

is the description of order of tasks in the test.

Table 4: Variability of meaning of items in the test.

81

TASK ASPECT TARGET

MEANINGS

TESTED

1. ON 15 15

2. IN 16 16

3. AT 9 9

4. TO 11 11

5. FOR 8 8

6. FROM 8 8

7. WITH 8 8

8. BESIDE 3 3

9. OVER 7 7

10. DESPITE 3 3

11. IN SPITE OF 2 2

12. UNDERNEATH 5 5

13. BENEATH 3 3

14. BEHIND 5 5

15. IN FRONT OF 3 3

16. AMONG 3 3

It is worth noting that the researcher tested on both one word and

three-word prepositions. All the prepositions under study except

IN SPITE OF and IN FRONT OF are one word. The researcher

used variability of semantic function to test the learner’s ability to

82

use the correct preposition that reflects the context given. The

meaning of a preposition is determined by the context in the

specific syntactic unit. Leech (1975).

The following variability of semantic functions of prepositions,

guided the researcher in analyzing the contextual meaning of the

preposition chosen by the learner, in a given test item. The

preposition that the learner selects depends on the context of the

sentence. Thus even though such semantic functions were not

provided in each test item they are usually conveyed / encoded by

the preposition being used in relation to that particular context.

Table 5; Description of items in the test on the basis of

prepositional semantic functions;

Preposition tested Meanings tested

83

1. ON Surface

Direction

Area (one dimensional)

On top of

Attached to

Area (two dimensional)

Time (when)

Subject matter

Place (position)

Relative destination

Recipient

Reason

Resultative

Orientation

Metaphorical

84

2. IN Manner

Comparison

Position (three dimensional)

Position (two dimensional)

Time (length)

Destination

Direction

Metaphorical

Area

Identity

Time (duration)

Reference

Quasi-agent

Result

Level of ability

85

Company

3 AT Point (location)

Position

Time (point)

Target goal

Level of ability

Place (attending)

Direction

Reaction (stimulus)

Result

4 TO Direction (path)

Actual recipient

Position (against)

86

Reaction (emotion)

Goal (source)

Perception (response)

Completion of action

Time (end of a period)

Comparison (ratio)

Movement (specific direction)

Metaphorical (different)

5 FOR Duration

Purpose

Destination (intended)

Reason

Recipient (intended)

Support

(Standard) respect

87

Comparison (age)

6 FROM Source

Origin (place)

Time (starting point)

Material cause

Separation/ distinction

Perception

Movement (location)

Metaphorical

7 WITH Manner

Instrument

Company

Support / opinion

Possession / belonging

Reference

88

Contents / ingredients

8 BESIDE Relative position

Orientation

Metaphorical support

9 OVER Position

Destination

Passage/ movement

Orientation

Resultative

Pervasive (static)

Pervasive (motion)

10 DESPITE Concession

Contrast

Irrespective/ with all

89

11 IN SPITE OF For all

Concession

12 UNDERNEATH Covered completely

Passage

Relative position

Relative destination

Vertical direction ( abstract scale)

13 BENEATH Orientation

Relative position

Vertical direction ( abstract scale)

14 BEHIND Relative destination

Passage

Orientation

Relative support (metaphorical)

90

Part and parcel

15 IN FRONT OF Relative position

Orientation

Direction (vertical)

16 AMONG Passage

Relative position

One of them

Data collection phases

In the collection of the desired data, the researcher employed one

phase, which involved carrying out the major research on a larger

population.

Data Collection Procedure

The researcher went in person to the specific schools and after

explaining to the administration and students what she was about

91

to do, she was allowed to administer the test by herself assisted by

language teachers in the school.

The test was done in 4 hours in two sessions with 15 minutes

interval between the sessions.

Table 6: Number of questions administered to the respondents.

Category

respondents

No. of Questions

Administered

Number

returned

% return rate

FORMS No.

One 20 109 109 100

Two 20 109 109 100

Three 20 109 109 100

All the above questions were tested in the test given to the

respondents

Scoring Procedure and Data Analysis

92

Each learner’s work was marked and a score given. The procedure

was an adaptation from Dulay and Burt (1982: 219).

Acquisition criterion is not only set in terms of out put but also in

terms of out put where required. Each obligatory context can be

regarded as a kind of test which the child passes by supplying the

required morpheme or fails by supplying none or one that is not

correct.

Treating each obligatory occasion for a morpheme as a ‘test item’

Dulay and Burt scoring procedure was as follows:

no preposition supplied - 0 point

misinformed preposition - 0 point

correct preposition supplied - 2 points

The scoring process resulted in two scores for each structure in

each subject’s total speech corpus : the subject’s actual score for

each structure, which varied according to the subject’s

performance on that structure; and the expected scores for each

structure, which was always 2 points for each occasion of a

structure in the subject’s protocol. The expected score for a given

93

structure depends on the number of obligatory occasions for a

structure in a subject’s total corpus.

After scoring all obligatory occasions of the structures under

investigation, the group score computational method was used for

the group of subjects to receive a single score for each grammatical

morpheme.

The group score for a particular preposition was obtained as

follows:

Add the expected scores. ( where each occasion is worth two

points) for that preposition across all the learners in the group.

Then divide the total actual score by the total expected score, and

multiply the result by 100. This yields the group’s % of accuracy

in producing that structure.

Group score = actual score X 100

expected score

Using the scores thus obtained , the structures are then ranked

according to the decreasing group score, from which their

acquisition sequence may be inferred.

94

The following is an illustration from a learners’ work.

1. Fill in the blank space in the sentences below with a suitable

preposition

a) This book is θ Nandwa ( 0 point)

( b) The strange man comes from Rwanda ( 2 points)

(c) The refuges died on lack of food (0 point)

( d) Can you tell butter from margarine ? ( 2 points)

(e) The boy came from the village just like other days. (2

points)

From the above illustration the expected score will be (5 X 2)

where 2 refers to points for each occasion and 5 the occasions

in the subject.

The computation procedure would be as follows;

Preposition X.

95

Child

Raw score occasion

a) 0 2

b) 2 2

c) 0 2

d) 2 2

e) 2 2

Total 6 10

Group score = actual score = 10

6

expected score

= .6 X 100 = 60

The actual score is computed by adding all the obligatory occasion

of that Morpheme or preposition across all the children.

Preposition Continuum

96

Groups of structures typically cluster together with very close

scores. For example one group may exhibit scores of 81,& 2 and

84 , while another may cluster at 96,98 and 99 . if all theses items

are ranked in descending order, the simple ranking of 1st, 2

nd ,3

rd

,4th

,5th

and 6th

will give the impression that the items are equally

distinct from each other. Items within each group may well be

unordered with respect to each other. ( Dulay and Burt 1982)

The concept that groups of structures are acquired , rather than one

structure at a time, is by now shared by most language acquisition

researchers. This calls for clustered scores for the structures in a

‘rank order’ study , often with distinct “breaks’ between groups.

Dulay and Burt introduce such procedures in yielding acquisition

hierarchies ( ordered groups of structure. This concept mentioned

was applied by Burt and Dulay to speech data of children from

various groups. The hierarchies show that the items in the group I

are acquired before all the item sin the groups below it. Items in

group II are acquired before those in group III and group IV etc.

The reverse is also true, namely; the acquisition of the items in

Groups I to III .

In this study, the following ranking of prepositions was applied in

establishing the preposition continuums.

Table 7: Preposition Ranking

97

The following points were also considered during the marking of

the test.

1. Beginning a preposition with a capital letter within the

blank space was not penalised.

2. The preposition BENEATH and UNDERNEATH were

awarded points if they were used correctly though

interchangeably.

3. The prepositions that acted as distractors to the learner

were not awarded any mark. These were SINCE, AFTER,

BETWEEN, APART FROM.

4. No mark was awarded for an unattempted question.

5. Beginning a preposition with a capital letter within the

blank space was not penalised.

Rank Percentage group score .

Very easy

Easy

Relatively easy

Difficult

Most difficult

≥ 80%

60 -79%

40 -59%

20 -39%

0 -19%

98

Interpretation of scores

In establishing the learning order of prepositions, the variability of

semantic functions was considered. The group score method

applied as per Dulay and Burt ( 1982) was used. Using the scores

thus obtained the structures are then ranked according to the

decreasing group scores, from which their acquisition sequence is

inferred. This method was used to establish the continuum in the

acquisition of English prepositions and thus identify which

prepositions are simple and difficult to acquire, then draw a

conclusion on whether the established acquisition order is

characterized by markedness issues.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Introduction

For any research to be meaningful there is need for quantification

of the data collected. This automatically paves way for easier

99

analysis and thereafter interpretation of the research findings. In

this study, data collected is mainly expressed in terms of

percentages. As for data presentation, tables and bar graphs, have

well served the purpose. Selinker (1972) says that learners of a

target language, in this case English language, will progress

through a certain interlanguage as they try to acquire the second

Language. The interlanguage will be characterised by previous

rules as well as revised ones. In this section, statistical evidence is

adduced to establish whether learners progress through defined

interlanguages as they learn the English prepositions. Similarly,

Chomsky (1981) says that structures that are marked are usually

difficult and thus may cause learnibility problems to their

acquisition. While the unmarked structures are usually easy and

thus will be acquired with a lot of ease by the learners. in this

chapter, an attempt is made to establish the relationship between

the semantic functions of prepositions and their acquisition and

use; to establish whether markedness/unmarkedness determine the

acquisition of prepositions and investigate the continuum in the

acquisition of English prepositions.

The next sub-section dwells on establishing whether there is a

relationship between semantic functions and acquisition of English

prepositions.

Preposition learning.

100

The table below summarizes the performance of English

prepositions at three levels of learning. Level 1 (Form 1); Level 2

(Form 2) and Level 3 (Form 3).

Table 8. Group scores of prepositions.

% GROUP SCORE Preposition

X LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3

IN 73.5 74.7 71.5

ON 72.3 75.7 72.6

AT 42.4 45.7 40.8

TO 48.6 50.2 40.9

101

FOR 44.3 47.0 49.5

FROM 42.3 44.0 58.4

WITH 41.8 42.0 45.2

BESIDE 9.6 11.0 11.2

OVER 27.0 28.0 31.2

DESPITE 10.5 11.5 12.7

IN SPITE OF 7.8 8.3 9.0

UNDERNEATH 18.0 18.3 17.5

BENEATH 10.8 11.0 10.5

BEHIND 14.7 16.3 16.0

IN FRONT OF 9.8 10.8 12.1

AMONG 12.8 13.7 12.6

The table above displays the actual group performance of the

prepositions under study at three different levels of learning.

Analysis of each preposition performance was done in relation to

variability of the semantic functions. A comparison of the

prepositions was then made as observed at different levels of

learning.

Variability of preposition meaning and acquisition

Table 9: The Preposition ‘IN’

Group score

LEVEL 1 73.5

LEVEL 2 74.7

LEVEL 3 71.5

102

Table 9 above shows that the learners at level 2 performed better

in the use of the preposition IN. The higher the score the

increasing ease of use in the preposition. This was followed by

Level 2 and then Level 3.On average, the group scores indicate

that the preposition IN was easily learned and used by the learners.

The results indicate that learners at level 1 used the preposition

IN, in relation to space as a POINT and not DIMENSION. The

examples identified in the learners’ work include the following:-

1. The children are playing on the field.

2. The children are playing at the field.

It was observed that most of the learners at level 1 used the

preposition ON for two-dimensional objects and not IN. This was

an indicator that the learners perceived space as a surface or a

dimensional object. In sentence 2, above, the learners perceived

space as a POINT and not AREA. This is evident in the use of AT

and not IN.

In comparison to Level 2 and Level 3, the learners used the

preposition IN, in relation to DIMENSION and POINT as well.

This was an indicator that as learning progressed, the learners

could semantic functions. At all the three levels of learning, the use

of the preposition IN to show meanings of DIRECTION,

DESTINATION and POSITION was appropriate. The use of

TIME relations was also correct. As per Selinker’s (1972) third

103

strategy in the interlanguage theory, this shows that transfer of

training had taken place.

However, it was observed that the metaphorical use of the

preposition IN was the lowest at Level 1 and 2.The following

examples were identified in the learners’ work.

3. Our friends are at a hot soup.

4. Our friends are on a hot soup.

5. Our friends are in a hot soup.

In relation to the above sentences, the learners at level 1 mostly

used sentence (3) Level 2, sentence (4) and Level 3; sentence

(5).This indicated that the abstract use of the preposition IN had

only been acquired by the Level 3 learners. This was attributed to

transfer of training. As learning progressed the learners were able

to use the preposition IN metaphorically.

The use of the preposition ON and AT in the above sentences was

an indicator that the learners had acquired such prepositions in

relation to POINT and POSITION.

In relation to acquisition order, the Level 2 learners displayed early

acquisition in the use of the preposition IN followed by Level 1

and 3.This was again attributed to transfer of training.

104

The following was the observed performance of the preposition

ON as at Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 of learning. This was also

done in relation to variability of meaning in the semantic functions.

TABLE 10: The Preposition ‘ON’

Group score

LEVEL 1 72.3

LEVEL 2 75.7

LEVEL 3 72.6

Table 10 above shows how the preposition ON was performed by

the learners at different levels of instruction. A higher group score

was an indicator of increasing case in the use of the preposition.

Using the group scores, the preposition ON was performed well at

Level 2 followed by Level 3 and then Level 1.On average, the

preposition ON was used with ease by the learners. The fact that

the preposition ON was best performed at Level 2 can be attributed

to transfer of training as per Selinker (1972) key process in the

interlanguage. It was one of the common prepositions covered in

the teaching materials like English text books

Through frequency of training, the learners may have internalized

the use of the preposition ON, hence the high group scores

observed at the three levels. As learning progressed, the learner is

able to use the preposition ON, with other variables of meaning.

105

This explains why Level 2 learners showed a slightly higher

mastery of the preposition ON than Level 1.The low group score at

Level 3 can be attributed to factors of language learner strategies

towards instruction and materials.

In terms of spatial meanings, the preposition ON was used

correctly in relation to space as a SURFACE ,DIRECTION, and

POSITION.

Most of the learners at the three levels of learning, for example,

used the preposition ON in relation to PASSGE as a SURFACE.

The following is a learners’ example.

6. The sponge floated on water.

75 percent of the learners used the preposition ON in the context

of perceiving water as a SURFACE on a one or two dimensional

area . Learners used the same preposition ON to express an idea of

PASSAGE (that is, movement towards, then away from a

place).The use of the preposition OVER in sentence (6) above by

the learners was an indicator that the learners had acquired both

the use of PASSAGE in relation to MOVEMENT and POSITION.

Learners at Level 1 used different prepositions in relation to space

as a DESTINATION, ORIENTATION, PURPOSE and

POSITION and not as a DIMENSION. The prepositions that the

learners used in relation to such meanings were TO, IN FRONT

106

OF, FOR and OVER. This was illustrated in the learners’ work as

shown in the following examples;

7. Put a new roof to the house

8. Put a new roof in front of a roof.

9. Put a new roof for the house.

10. Put a new roof over the house.

In sentence (7) the preposition TO was used with the meaning of

INTENDED DESTINATION while in (8) IN FRONT OF is used

to show orientation; in (9) FOR is used with an INTENDED

PURPOSE and in sentence (10) OVER is used as a POSITION.

At Level 2 and Level 3, the learners used the preposition ON in

relation to space as a dimension. This was in contrast to the use of

the same preposition with the same meaning by learners at Level 1

and 2.

11. Put a new roof on the house

In sentence (11) above, ON is used to show space in relation to

area as a DIMENSION.

In this case, the house was perceived as a two-dimensional object.

It was therefore observed that as instruction progresses, the

learners can now use the preposition ON with otherwise complex

variables in meaning like DIMENSION.

It was also observed that the use of the meaning of RECIPIENT

was internalized by the learners at all the three levels of learning.

107

The meaning of SUBJECT MATTER was also used correctly in

relation to the preposition ON.

The metaphorical use of the preposition ON again was problematic

for the learners. In the item given, majority of the learners could

not use the preposition ON metaphorically.

Consequently, the use of TIME relations was also well internalized

by the learners. It was observed that relations of POSITION,

REASON, RESULTATIVE and SURFACE meanings were

internalized by the learners at the three levels of learning. This was

also attributed to instruction.

Table 11: The Preposition ‘AT’

Group score

LEVEL 1 42.4

LEVEL 2 45.7

LEVEL3 40.8

The table above shows that the preposition AT had the highest

group score at Level 2 than Level 1 and 3. A high score is an

indicator of increasing ease and a low score indicates increasing

difficulty. The learners at Level 2 will internalize the use of the

preposition AT before learners at Level 1 then at Level 3.This was

108

also attributed to transfer of training. At Level 3, there was no

instruction on prepositional meanings as at Level 1 and 2.

The preposition AT conveyed nine different semantic functions

in relation to variability of meaning. The learners at Level 1 used

the preposition AT in relation to space as a POINT and others as

two-dimensional objects.50 percent of the learners at Level 1 used

AT as a DIMENSION. The following sentences from the

learners’ work illustrated this.

12. My car is at school. -Point

13. My car is in school. -Dimension

In sentence (12) ,the use of preposition AT indicated a mere point

in relation to the car’s position. Whereas in (13), the use of IN

indicated a two-dimensional object. A learner’s selection of a

given structure is an indicator of his linguistic experience at that

time. Chomsky (1981).This showed that the learners at Level 1 had

mastered the use of the preposition IN, in relation to DIMENSION

than AT .Consequently they had also internalized the use of the

preposition AT in relation to space as a POINT..A similar

acquisition of the use of the preposition AT, at Level 2 and 3 was

also observed.

Between the notions of simple POSITION (or static location) and

DIRECTION a cause and effect relationship may be realized. This

could lead to the learner’s use of the preposition TO or AT in the

given test items. In this study, it was observed that a few learners

109

at Level 1 used the preposition AT in relation to SPACE as

POSITION. Only 10 percent of the learners at this level used the

preposition AT in the sense of space as a POSITION. This was an

indicator that most of the learners at this level had not acquired the

sense of POSITION in relation to the preposition AT. However,

the linguistic input predisposed by the learners at this level showed

that they were able to use other prepositions in the same context to

show relations of RELATIVE POSITION as in: Sentence (14)

below.

14. The teacher is standing behind the door.

The use of the preposition BEHIND in the above sentence

indicated space as a RELATIVE POSITION. 40 percent of the

learners at this level perceived space as a relative position. More

so, 50 percent of the learners used the preposition IN FRONT OF

in the context of sentence (14 ) above. This showed that the

learners had internalized the use of relative position horizontally.

At Level 3, the learners used the preposition AT in relation to

space a RELATIVE POSITION similar to Level 1.At Level 2, 80

percent of the learners used the preposition AT in relation to space

as POSITIVE POSITION. It was thus observed that at Level 2,the

learners presented the highest level of internalization of variability

of meaning of semantic functions. The use of the preposition AT to

show relations of TIME had been internalized by most learners at

the three levels of learning. The preposition AT was used to show

110

a POINT of TIME chiefly clock-time.40 percent of the learners

used other prepositions in the time context to refer to DURATION

to indicate a period of time. This is illustrated in the learners’

example below.

15. The matron left since noon.

16. The matron left from noon.

The use of SINCE and FROM in sentence (15) and (16)

respectively is an indicator that the learners had acquired the use of

relation of time as a DURATION. This was evidenced mainly by

the learners at Level 2 and 3. This shows that as instruction

progresses, the learners could use different prepositions with other

variables in meaning. The learners had acquired the use of TIME

and also acquired the meaning of TIME as DURATION.

The preposition AT, in combinations with a word such as ‘aim at

’expresses intended GOAL or TARGET . At Level 1 of learning,

80 percent of the learners used the preposition TO in the same

context to show the RECIPIENT of the message and not as a

TARGET. This was exemplified in the learners example below:

17) The robbers aimed the gun at him

18.) The robbers aimed the gun to him

19.) The robbers aimed the gun from him

In sentence (18) TO is used to imply a RECIPIENT, while in (19),

FROM is used with the meaning of SOURCE. As mentioned

111

earlier, most of the learners at Level 1 used the meanings of

RECIPIENT and source in the same context as above, whereas

over 70 percent of the learners at Level 2 and 3 used the

preposition AT in relation to transformational relationship with the

indirect object construction to show meanings of TARGET or

GOAL. Chomsky (1981) says that a learner selects an item

depending on her linguistic experience at that point in time. This

shows that the learners at Level 1 have internalized the

contingency relations as a RECIPIENT and SOURCE and not as a

TARGET or GOAL. As learning progresses, the learners

internalize the rules in the use of other semantic functions (

Selinker 1972) as shown by the Level 1, 2 and 3 learners.

It was also observed that the acquisition of METAPHORICAL or

ABSTRACT use of prepositions was problematic to learners at all

levels in relation to the use of the preposition AT. Only 10 percent

of the learners used the preposition AT metaphorically in the

sentence below to show LEVEL OF ABILITY.

20. She is bad at remembering facts.

Most of the learners used misinformed prepositions that did not

correspond to the contextual meaning of the test item provided.

This was an indicator that METAPHORICAL use of prepositions

had not been internalized in the language learner data.

112

It was observed that the learners used space in relation to

DIMENSION, DIRECTION and POSITIVE POSITION. This was

illustrated in learners’ examples below

21. The teacher is at school.

22. The teacher is from school.

23. The teacher is in school.

24. The teacher is to school.

In sentence (21), the learners used the preposition AT to indicate

space as a POSITION. Most of the learners used AT in this sense.

In sentence (22), reference is being used in terms of DIRECTION

(that is, away)-in respect to movement from a destination. With the

use of IN , in the same context (23), ‘school’ becomes a three-

dimensional object . 30 percent of the learners at Level 3 used such

a sense. In sentence (24), TO shows space in relation to movement

to a DESTINATION. It was thus observed that learners at Level 1

had acquired the meanings of space as a POSITION and

DIRECTION. As instruction progresses, the learners’ could now

use other prepositions with other variables of meaning for

example three-dimensional objects.

The learners showed that they had internalised the use of the

preposition AT in relation to RESULTATIVE meaning. This

indicated the state of having reached the destination. This was

illustrated in the learners’ example below:

25. Though it rained heavily, we arrived at last.

113

The use of the preposition AT was signaled by the adverb ‘last

’.Over 75 per cent of the learners at all the three levels of learning

did not show knowledge of having internalised the semantic

meaning of STIMULUS in relation to REACTION. The learners

could not show the relation between an emotion and its stimulus by

use of the preposition AT. This was exemplified in the learners’

examples below:

26. The poor mother was surprised at her son’s behavior.

With the use of AT in sentence (26) above, the relation between an

emotion and stimulus is expressed. Most learners in the study used

the context in the sentence above with prepositions like WITH and

TO. When sentence (26) is used with the preposition WITH, the

meaning expressed is that of a ‘quasi-agent’. In addition, the use of

the preposition TO in the context above indicated the person

reacting and in this case ``the son’s behaviour ” which sounds

rather ambiguous.

It was thus established that the acquisition of the preposition AT

by the learners at the three levels of learning was largely

influenced by the variability of the semantic function of that

preposition.

TABLE 12: The Preposition ‘TO’

Group score

LEVEL 1 48.6

LEVEL 2 50.2

LEVEL 3 40.9

114

The above table shows that the preposition TO had the highest

score at Level 2 followed by Level 1 and then Level 3. As

observed earlier, learners at Level 2 showed the highest acquisition

rate for the preposition IN, ON and AT. This was attributed to the

transfer of training as per Selinker(1972). The acquisition of the

preposition TO was the lowest at Level 3. In the literature review

on the syllabus coverage at Level 3 of learning, It was observed

that no reference was made to learning of prepositions and the

meanings they encoded. The focus at this level was on

differentiating between a connector and a preposition.

The preposition TO was used in various contexts to indicate

variability of meaning in its semantic functions .In relation to

space, the learners used the preposition TO as a DIRECTION,

POSITION, MOVEMENT and DESTINATION (as in completion

of an action).The Level 1 learners used the preposition TO, to

show direction as in movement towards a certain destination. This

was illustrated in the use of the preposition ‘TO’ in the learners’

example below:

27. Tom went to the door

However, 50 percent of the learners used a different preposition

other than TO, to indicate POSITION and DESTINATION. For

example the use of BEHIND in the same context as in (27) above

indicated relative position.25 percent of the learners used the

115

preposition AT in context (27) which expressed space as a relative

position.

In expressing temporal relations, the learners showed that they had

internalized the use of the preposition TO, to indicate end of a

PERIOD.A small percentage of learners at Level 1 used the

context in (27) above with the preposition WITH (as in Tom went

with the door).The use of WITH in this context expresses the

relation of accompaniment (that is, in company with). When

WITH is used in this sense, it should be followed by an animate

complement which was not in context (27) above. In reference to

Selinker’s (1972) Interlanguage theory, this type of acquisition can

be attributed to language transfer as in strategy one. Such

constructions were not observed at Level 2 and 3 with the same

context. This shows that, as learning progressed the learner

acquired the correct use of the preposition TO and WITH.

It was observed that the acquisition of the preposition TO in

relation to REACTION was problematic to the learners at the three

levels of learning.90 percent of the learners could not use the

preposition TO, to show a reaction .TO can be used to identify the

person reacting. Instead of using TO, to show REACTION in the

following test item(28),the learners used the preposition IN SPITE

OF.

28. TO my annoyance, they rejected the offer.

116

The use of the preposition TO in the above sentence was to show

the PERSON REACTING .However, as pointed out earlier, most

of the learners could not use the preposition TO in this sense. They

used the preposition IN SPITE OF. The use of IN SPITE OF

indicated relations of CONCESSION. This showed that the

learners had internalized the meaning of concession and not

REACTION in relation to the use of the preposition IN SPITE

OF.

In showing COMPARISON in terms of RATIO, the learners at the

three levels used the preposition TO, correctly in the context (28).

This indicated that they had mastered the variable of

COMPARISON in terms of RATIO.

The METAPHIORICAL use of the preposition TO was not

internalized by the learners. This was illustrated in the learners’

example below:

29. I may be his daughter, but not to his manners.

The use of the preposition TO in the above sentence showed its

metaphorical sense to mean DIFFERENT. However, most of the

learners used the same context with preposition IN ,ON which

indicated space relations in terms of VOLUME and SURFACE. A

conclusion was therefore drawn that the learners had not acquired

the METAPHIORICAL use of prepositions.

117

The GOAL relation was internalized by the learners in relation to

the preposition TO . Most of the learners used the preposition TO

,to show a GOAL in the following test item.

30. Nyakundi lent the book to me.

This indicated that the use of TO, to express GOAL relations had

been mastered by the learners.

In terms of variability of meaning of semantic functions encoded

by the preposition TO; eleven such functions were tested in the

learners test item. It was observed that as learners learned the use

of the preposition TO, they found some semantic functions to be

easy to acquire and others difficult. The learners acquired the use

of relations of DIRECTION, POSITION DESTINATION, GOAL,

TIME, MOVEMENT earlier than those of REACTION,

PERCEPTION and METAPHORICAL .However, as instruction

progressed, the use of prepositions with other variable meanings

was observed.

Table 13:The Preposition ‘FOR’

Group score

LEVEL 1 44.3

LEVEL 2 47.0

118

LEVEL 3 49.5

The group scores above shows that the performance of the

preposition FOR was highest at Level 3 than at Level 2 and 1.The

group scores show that the use of the preposition FOR was not

easy for the learners at all the three levels.

The learners used the preposition FOR in relation to TIME as a

point, period or duration .It was observed that at Level 1, 60

percent of the preposition FOR was used to indicate TIME as

DURATION. At the same level, 30 percent of the learners used the

preposition SINCE and FROM to show a PERIOD of time. At

Level 2 of learning, 85% learners used the preposition FOR in

reference to DURATION. Whereas some used the preposition IN

to indicate a PERIOD of TIME. At Level 3 of learning.90 percent

of the preposition FOR was used to indicate TIME as DURATION

and only 10 percent as a PERIOD in time.

The observation made is that as learning progresses, the learners

were able to use relation of TIME as DURATION without any

problems.

The contingency relation of the preposition FOR was used in

relation to PURPOSE and INTENDED DESTINATION. It was

observed that 70 percent of the learners at Level 1 used the

119

preposition TO in the same context to express relations of

TARGET or PURPOSE; rather than FOR to indicate the same.

This is exemplified in the learners’ example below.

31. The children ran for shelter

32. The children ran to shelter

In sentence (31) above, FOR is used to express INTENDED

PURPOSE while sentence (32), TO is used to show INTENDED

GOAL/TARGET. This indicated that the learners at Level 1 had

internalized the use of space relations as a TARGET or GOAL and

not a PURPOSE. This perception however, changed as learning

progressed. At Level 2 and Level 3, the learners showed familiarity

in the use of the preposition FOR to express relations of

PURPOSE as well as INTENDED DESTINATION. This was

attributed to the factor of instruction as per Selinker (1972).

The preposition FOR was also used to indicate INTENDED

RECIPIENT. When so used, the recipient may or may not receive

the object. It was observed that the learners at all the three levels

used the preposition FOR to express relations of intended recipient.

When the preposition TO is used in the same context, it shows the

ACTUAL RECIPIENT.30 percent of the learners at Level 3 used

this sense. This is illustrated in the learners’ item below:

33.He made a doll to his daughter.

34. He made a doll for his daughter.

120

Sentence (33) above was common with the learners at Level

1.Which indicated actual recipient while in sentence (34) FOR was

used to show intended recipient.

Most of the learners showed familiarity in the use of the

preposition FOR to show the idea of SUPPORT. The construction

below illustrates the learners’ use of the preposition FOR to

indicate relations of SUPPORT.

35. I can see that you are for the plan.

36. I can see that you are with the plan.

In sentence (35) above, FOR is used to express relations of

SUPPORT. While in sentence (36), the learners used the

preposition WITH in the same context which implies a different

meaning. This was observed from learners at Level 2 and 3, WITH

in this case is used with the idea of SOLIDARITY. The

implication here is that at initial stages of learning, the learners

have internalized the notion of SUPPORT with the use of FOR and

not SOLIDARITY , which has been internalized by the learners at

a later stage of learning. Therefore, learners can use prepositions

with other variables in meaning as instruction progressed, as per

Selinker (1972).

It was observed that in the acquisition of the preposition FOR,

some semantic functions like DURATION, RECIPIENT, RATIO,

PURPOSE, REASON and SUPPORT were acquired at an earlier

stage in relation to use of the preposition FOR. On the other hand,

121

relations of ACTUAL RECIPIENT, INTENDED DESTINATION,

STANDARD RESPECT were acquired later by the same learners

in relation to use of FOR as a preposition.

TABLE 14: The Preposition ‘FROM’

Group score

LEVEL 1 42.3

LEVEL 2 44.0

LEVEL 3 58.4

Learners at Level 3 expressed the best familiarity in the use of the

preposition FROM as compared to Level 1 and Level 2.Again this

is attributed to transfer of training as per Selinker (1972)

interlanguage principles. What can be observed is that on average,

the preposition FROM was acquired with difficulty as illustrated

by the low group scores.

While expressing PROCESS relations, notions of SOURCE and

ORIGIN were considered in the test items. It was observed that the

learners used the preposition FOR to express the idea of

POSSESSION; only a low percentage of learners used the

preposition FROM in the same context to indicate relation of

SOURCE OR ORIGIN. This showed that the learners had

mastered the relations of POSSESSION earlier than that of

SOURCE. This can be explained by the linguistic experience that

the learners had in their language data at that point in time.

122

TIME relations were used with the preposition FROM to indicate

starting POINT. Most of the learners had internalized this notion of

TIME.

37. The boy came in the village just like other days.

38. The boy came from the village just like other days.

With the use of the preposition IN, in sentence (37) above, space is

viewed as an AREA where ‘village’ is being perceived as a

volume where someone can enter.

However, with the use of the preposition FROM as in sentence

(38) ,space is viewed as MOVEMENT in terms of location. Very

few learners perceived space in the sense of (38).This indicated

that the learners had acquired the relation of space as a VOLUME

or AREA than as MOVEMENT to location.

Another observation made is that the learners could not distinguish

between the use of the preposition FROM and FOR to indicate

notions of CAUSE and PURPOSE. The learners’ use of such

notions was seen in the following test item.

39. The refugees died from lack of food.

40. The refugees died for lack of food.

In the same syntactical context as above, the learners’ either used

FROM or FOR. With the use of FROM as in context show

MATERIAL CAUSE .Consequently, the use of FOR as (40)

123

expressed PURPOSE. Most of the learners approached the context

with the sense of PURPOSE by using FOR and few used the one

of MATERIAL CAUSE with FROM. The use of relations of

PERCEPTION with the preposition FROM was well internalized

by the learners, as well as relations of

SEPERATION/DESTINATION.

The METAPHORICAL use of the preposition FROM proved to be

problematic for the learners at the three levels of learning. It was

observed that the meaning of the preposition FROM, through

metaphorical connection, to its locative use was not internalized by

the learners. This was established in the test item below.

41. His changing jobs was like moving from the frying pan

into the fire

The test item (41) above necessitated the use of the preposition

FROM to indicate a metaphorical use for the idiomatic expression

in context .However, it was observed that most of the learners

instead used other prepositions like WITH, TO and ON. This was a

clear indication that such learners had not acquired the

metaphorical use of the preposition FROM .It was therefore

observed that the acquisition of the preposition FROM was largely

influenced by variability of meaning in the semantic functions I

conveyed. Earlier on, from the group scores for each level of

learning, it was evident that the scores were low. Considering the

acquisition of the semantic functions of FROM, a conclusion can

124

be drawn that the learners were less conversant with such semantic

functions in use. This can be used to explain the low group scores

for the preposition FROM.

Table 15:The Preposition ‘WITH’

Group score

LEVEL: 1 41.8

LEVEL: 2 42.0

LEVEL: 3 45.2

Table 15 above shows that the preposition with was best learned at

Level 3 than at Level 2 and 1. This can be attributed to transfer of

instruction as per Selinker (1972). Conceptualization of an item

increases with the period of instruction. Since the learners at Level

3 had a longer period of instruction on the use prepositions could

be a reason why their language learner data shows some

improvement in the use of the preposition WITH.

The preposition WITH was mainly used in relation to PROCESS

meanings. Most learners were able to use the preposition WITH in

relation to process relations of MANNER, INSTRUMENT and

POSSESSION.

It was however observed that the learners had problems in the use

of this preposition with SUPPORT / OPINION meaning. Most of

the learners used locative prepositions like TO, ON, which mainly

125

expressed spatial relations. Others used FOR and WITH

alternatively to indicate the notion of SUPPORT. This was shown

in the test item below.

42. Go with public trend for safety.

43. Go for public trend for safety.

44. Go to public trend for safety.

The use of the preposition WITH as in context (42) indicates the

idea of SOLIDARITY whereas the use of FOR in context (43)

conveys that one of SUPPORT. In the test item the learners mainly

used context (44). That is, they used the preposition TO yet the

context did not necessitate the use of such a preposition. This

shows that the learner had acquired the DIRECTION relations and

not those of SUPPORT and SOLIDARITY.

When followed by an animate complement WITH has the

meaning “in company with” or “together with.” A low percentage

of learners used the preposition WITH to show relations of

ACCOMPANIMENT in the test item below.

45 Please do come with me

46 Please do come for me

47 Please do come to me

A few learners used the preposition WITH in the context of (45)

above which expressed relations of COMPANY. This shows that

the use of WITH to show COMPANY relations had not been

126

internalized. Most of the learners used the preposition FOR and

TO in the same context.

The use of the preposition FOR expressed relations of ACTUAL

RECEPIENT or PURPOSE. Earlier on, it was observed that while

using the preposition FOR, the learners displayed a higher level of

mastery in the use of relations of PURPOSE and ACTUAL

RECIPIENT. This may explain why in context (46) above, the

learners used FOR and not WITH. This was characterized by the

learners linguistic data at that particular time. In context (47) the

use of the preposition TO expresses MOVEMENT toward a

DESTINATION. A good number of learners used context (46 and

47). It was thus observed that the learners had mastered the use of

the preposition TO than WITH.

Table 16: The Preposition ‘BESIDE’

Group score

LEVEL 1 9. 6

LEVEL 2 11. 0

LEVEL 3 11. 2

The table above shows that the performance of the preposition

BESIDE was low as indicated in the group scores above. This is an

indicator that the preposition BESIDE has not been internalized by

the learners .In terms of variability of meaning, the preposition

127

BESIDE conveyed very few semantic functions; mainly

POSITION, ORIENTATION and METAPHORICAL.

The learners used the preposition BESIDE in relation to space as a

position. However, very few learners used the preposition in this

sense. Most of them viewed space as RELATIVE POSITION not

in relation with BESIDE but IN FRONT OF. Other learners used

the preposition WITH to show COMPANY. It was established that

only 10 per cent of the learners used the preposition BESIDE in

this sense. Chomsky (1981) says that a learner selects a certain

item depending on his linguistic experience. Therefore, it was

established that the learners had not acquired the preposition

BESIDE in relation to space as a POSITION.

It was observed that only 30 per cent of the learners used the

preposition BESIDE to show the notion of ORIENTATION.

Instead they used BEHIND, ON and OVER. This shows that in the

language learner data, there was no preposition BESIDE in

reference to a point of orientation. Consequently, there was no

learner who used the preposition BESIDE with the

METAPHORICAL relation.

It was thus observed that the learners at all the three levels showed

very limited mastery in the use of the preposition BESIDE in

relation to its few semantic functions. Despite the preposition

128

having very few semantic functions; the learners could not use the

preposition in the test items provided appropriately.

Table 17: The Preposition ‘OVER’

Group score

LEVEL 1 27.0

LEVEL 2 28.0

LEVEL 3 31.2

It can be observed that the preposition OVER was not easily used

by the learners at all the three levels. The group score for the

preposition OVER at each level of learning was very low. This was

an indicator of difficulty in use.

The learners used the preposition OVER in relation to different

semantic functions. Over 50 per cent of the learners used the

preposition OVER in relation to space as a POSITION. This was

seen in the test item below.

48. The keys hung over the door.

49. The keys hung on the door.

50. The keys hung at the door.

In sentence (49) above, place is viewed as a surface while in (50),

space is viewed as a positive position. The learners at level 1 used

the meaning of POSITION in reference to OVER . In the same

context ,learners at Level 2and 3used the preposition ON and AT

129

respectively which expressed space as a SURFACE and

RELATIVE POSITION .This indicates that as learning progresses,

the learners acquire use of other prepositions irrespective of the

context in use. The failure to use OVER in showing POSITION

showed that the learners had acquired the preposition ON and AT

earlier than OVER.

Apart from viewing space as a POSITION, the preposition OVER

was also used to show the idea of DESTINATION as in the test

item below.

51. The blanket was drawn over him.

OVER in the above sentence indicates the relative

DESTINATION. In this context, most of the learners used the

preposition ON, and TO, AT and not OVER. This indicated that

the learners had acquired the use of the preposition ON, To and AT

in expressing spatial relations and not OVER.

The sense of PASSAGE/MOVEMENT is used with verbs of

motion together with the preposition OVER.

In this study, it was observed that learners were conversant with

the use of the preposition OVER to express

PASSAGE/MOVEMENT. This was illustrated in the test item

below.

52. The student jumped over the wall.

130

In the same context, 10 per cent of the learners used the

preposition ON instead of OVER. This showed that the learners

perceived ‘the wall’ as a surface or a two – dimensional object.

The preposition OVER was also used to indicate a relation of

ORIENTATION, where two things are being spatially related viz a

‘POINT OF ORIENTATION. This sense was used in the test item

below but with very few learners.

53. The old man lives over the hill.

In the above illustration, OVER shows the notion of BEYOND (=

on the far side of) in relation to the point where the speaker is

standing. Another observation made in relation to context (53) is

that most of the learners used the preposition ON and BEHIND.

The use of ON expressed the idea of space in relation to

SURFACE. While the use of BEHIND also indicated a point of

orientation. The implication here is that the preposition ON was

earlier acquired compared to OVER. Also the use of BEHIND to

indicate point of orientation that OVER shows that most of the

learners had not internalized the use of OVER to show

ORIENTATION.

The preposition OVER was also used in relation to static

resultative meaning indicating the state of having reached the

131

destination. Few learners used the preposition OVER in the test

item below:

54. At last we are over the hill.

The preposition OVER in this case means that ‘they are now

beyond’. Most learners used the preposition ON and AT in the

above context which expressed the meaning of SURFACE and

POSITION respectively.

OVER (dimension type 1/2) especially when preceded by all, have

pervasive meaning which is either static or motional. The

following test items illustrate this statement.

55. The leaves lay thick over the ground.

56. The children splashed water over me.

It was observed that most learners used the preposition ON in both

context (55) and (56). The use of ON expressed the meaning of

TARGET in (56) and SURFACE in (55). The failure of the

learners to use the preposition OVER in any of the sentences above

was an indicator that the preposition OVER was difficult to master.

TABLE 18: The Preposition ‘DESPITE’

132

Group score

LEVEL 1 10.5

LEVEL 2 11.5

LEVEL 3 12.7

The scores above shows that the preposition DESPITE was used

with difficulties. This is indicated in the low group scores. This

showed that most learners could not use this preposition to show

relations of concession. This is illustrated below.

57. I like him despite his faults.

In the above sentence, DESPITE is used to show concession which

means that for all his faults, he likes him. Most learners used

preposition IN SPITE OF and with the same context. In using IN

SPITE OF, the same relation of concession is achieved. However,

this showed that learners had internalized the use of IN SPITE OF

and not DESPITE for similar semantic function. The use of WITH

in the same context implied that the learners perceived the object

in terms of possession. This indicated that even though the use of

WITH was misinformed in the above context, nevertheless, the

learners had acquired the use of the preposition and its semantic

function.

133

It was observed that despite the preposition DESPITE conveying

few semantic functions, most of the learners were not conversant

with those few semantic functions it conveyed.

TABLE 19: The Preposition ‘IN SPITE OF’

Group score

LEVER 1 7.8

LEVEL 2 8.3

LEVEL 3 9.0

The table above shows that the preposition IN SPITE OF was

problematic for the learners at all the three levels of learning. This

is indicated in the low scores obtained in the use of the same

preposition.

The preposition IN SPITE OF had similar semantic functions to

those of the preposition DESPITE. It is mainly used to show

CONCESSION just like DESPITE. In the test items provided to

the learners, only a few of them used this preposition correctly to

show the meaning of “for all”. It was also observed that despite

this preposition conveying very few meanings, the learners could

not use it correctly. This means that it was rare in the language data

of the learners.

134

TABLE 20: The Preposition ‘UNDERNEATH’

Group score

LEVEL 1 18. 0

LEVEL 2 18. 3

LEVEL 3 17. 5

The table above shows that the preposition UNDERNEATH was

used to show RELATIVE POSITION in relation to two objects. It

was observed that few learners used this preposition to show

relative position. This was illustrated in the test item below.

58. The coin is underneath the tin.

The use of the preposition UNDERNEATH in the above context

shows that the learner has used it to show a direct vertical

relationship or spatial proximity. However, few learners used this

preposition but instead made use of the preposition IN and ON to

indicate relationship of space as a VOLUME or a SURFACE.

It was also observed that the learners used the preposition

UNDERNEATH in relation to space as a DIRECTION and

SURFACE.

135

It was also observed that the learners used the preposition

UNDERNEATH in relation to space as a DIRECTION and

SURFACE than a PASSAGE. This was observed in the use of the

preposition TO, ON and OVER in the same contextual test item

with the Level 1 learners. However, as instruction progresses, the

same preposition was used in relation to PASSAGE especially

with the meaning of ‘destination’ by a few learners.

It was also observed that a small fraction of the learners used the

preposition UNDERNEATH to show the notion of being covered

completely. Instead most of the learners used the preposition IN to

indicate such a meaning. An example from the learners’ work

includes:

59. The victims are underneath the rubble.

60. The victims are in the rubble.

In sentence (59), the use of UNDERNEATH indicates an idea of

being covered completely. However, in (60), the use of IN shows

that the learner viewed space as a VOLUME. This shows that

again most of the learners had internalized the use of the

preposition IN than UNDERNEATH in relation to SPACE.

The use of METHAPHORICAL meaning of the preposition

UNDERNEATH was the most difficult for the learners at all the

three levels. Only 10 per cent of the learners used the preposition

136

UNDERNEATH metaphorically to show vertical direction in

abstract scale.

TABLE 21: The Preposition ‘BENEATH’

Group score

LEVEL 1 10. 8

LEVER 2 11. 0

LEVEL 3 10. 5

It can be observed that the preposition BENEATH had very low

scores. This was an indication that the learners experienced

problems in using this preposition. The low score was an indicator

pf difficulty in the use of the preposition.

The learners did not use the preposition BENEATH in showing

relationship of space. They did not use this preposition in relation

to space as ORIENTATION, RELATIVE POSITION and

VERTICAL DIRECTION in relation to abstract scale. Instead the

learners used this preposition in relation to SPACE as PASSAGE

and DESTINATION. In the learners construction that required the

use of learners used UNDERNEATH in expressing space in terms

of relative position. The learners substituted UNDENEATH for

BENEATH in showing relative position vertically. This shows that

137

the learners had acquired UNDERNEATH earlier than

BENEATH.

The METAPHORICAL use of BENEATH in relation to abstract

scale was very difficult for the learners. In the learners’

construction below, the preposition BENEATH was rarely used.

61. Such manners are beneath him.

The use of BENEATH in the above sentence shows abstract scale

in relation to direction. It was observed that most learners used

prepositions like FOR, WITH and IN, in the same construction.

This was an indication that the learners had acquired the

preposition FOR, WITH and IN earlier than BENEATH.

TABLE 22: The Preposition ‘BEHIND’

Group score

LEVEL 1 14. 7

LEVEL 2 16. 3

LEVEL 3 16. 0

The above display shows that the preposition BEHIND was

problematic for the learners. The low scores is an indicator of

difficulty in the use of the preposition.

138

The learners used the preposition BEHIND in relation to SPACE

as a RELATIVE POSITION as in “The teacher is standing behind

the door”. They also used it in relation to space as a

DESTINATION, as in “I dashed behind the bush to hide. ” A few

learners perceived the preposition BEHIND in relation to space as

a POINT of ORIENTATION.

As observed earlier, the METAPHORICAL use of the preposition

BEHIND was difficult to express. Few learners used the

preposition BEHIND in a context that expressed metaphorical

relative support.

TABLE 23: The Preposition ‘IN FRONT OF’

Group score

LEVEL 1 9. 8

LEVEL 2 10. 8

LEVEL 3 12. 1

The low group scores in the table above is a clear indication that

the preposition IN FRONT OF was learned with difficulty by the

learners at all three levels.

The preposition IN FRONT OF is mainly a spatial preposition that

is used to INDICATE RELATIVE POSITION of two objects. 50

139

per cent of the learners used this preposition in relation to SPACE

as a relative position. However, the other 50 per cent used it in the

sense of a converse opposite with the preposition BEHIND .It was

observed that in a construction that necessitated the use of IN

FRONT OF or BEHIND to show relative position, the learners

used BEHIND. This was similar to the use of IN FRONT OF to

show orientation. This indicated that the learners had acquired the

use of BEHIND earlier than IN FRONT OF. It was also observed

that despite this preposition conveying a few semantic functions;

the learners had problems in using it in sentences. This can be

attributed to transfer of instruction in formal learning. Selinker

(1972)

TABLE 24: The Preposition ‘AMONG’

Group score

LEVEL 1 12.8

LEVEL 2 13.7

LEVEL 3 12.6

The low group score is an indication that this preposition was used

with difficulties by the learners at the three levels. This preposition

was used in the metaphorical sense to show relative position as in

the construction “He is standing among friends”. However, in this

study, it was observed that few learners used this preposition in

this sense of relative preposition. Most of the learners used the

140

preposition AMONG in relation to the meaning of ADDITION or

BELONGING. Despite this preposition conveying few meanings,

the learner could not use it correctly.

Up to this level, the researcher had analyzed the use of the

prepositions in relation to variability of semantic functions.

Summary

The above section was a detailed description in establishing

whether there is a relationship between semantic functions and the

acquisition of prepositions. It was observed that as learning

progresses, the learners can use prepositions with other variables in

meaning. It was also observed that the learners at Level 1 were

conversant with prepositions in expressing TIME relations, like

point of time, period of time and duration. A few of them used the

various prepositions in showing SPACE in relation to position and

direction. However, most of them could not use the prepositions to

express relations of CONTINGENCY and PROCESS as purpose,

concession, target, recipient, quasi – agent, source and agentive.

The metaphorical use of prepositions was the hardest for the

learners at this level.

However, as time progressed, it was observed that the learners at

Level 2 and Level 3 used the prepositions with other semantic

functions comfortably compared to learners at level one. For

141

example, the use of SPACE in relation to PASSAGE,

DESTINATION, PERVASIVE, ORIENTATION, and

DIMENSION (three dimensional objects) improved. Also the

meanings of CONCESSION, RECIPIENT, GOAL, and

INSTRUMENT also improved at Level 2 and 3. It was also

observed that the METAPHORICAL use of the prepositions was

the most difficult for the learners at the three levels .It was

observed that not all the semantic functions of the prepositions

were used by the learners. The use of some semantic functions

increased the range of others.

Up to this point, the directional hypothesis ‘one’ in this research

was accepted and thus leading to the rejection of the null

hypothesis. A conclusion was therefore drawn that there was a

relationship between semantic functions and acquisition of

prepositions.

The following section is an attempt to ascertain whether

markedness/ unmarkedness determine the acquisition of English

prepositions.

Preposition acquisition and markedness

In section 4.2 of this thesis, it was established that a relationship

existed between semantic functions and acquisition of English

prepositions. The following data analysis is aimed at showing

142

whether the acquisition of prepositions is determined by

markedness issues.

The theory of markedness and Core Grammar Chomsky (1981),

Rutherford (1982) puts it that structures that are basic and core are

unmarked hence easy to be acquired. While those structures that

are peripheral are marked hence considered difficult to acquire

.These structures are also peripheral as opposed to core. Also Zobl

(1983) puts it hat the core grammar of the language is viewed as

unmarked; and those that are not taken to be part of the core

grammar are marked grammar of the language and will be learnt

later.

In this thesis, the term marked was used to refer to prepositions

that conveyed few meanings. Such prepositions are semantically

less loaded and therefore not frequent in the data of learners thus

peripheral. However, the term unmarked was used to refer to

prepositions that are basic and core in use. Such prepositions are

semantically more loaded, thus frequent. Marked prepositions were

expected to be difficult while the unmarked ones are expected to

be easy. Lehrer (1985: 399) and Waugh (1982:302): say that the

unmarked member may occur in a wider range of contexts and will

be more frequent.

143

The following procedure was used as a binary distribution of

prepositional meanings and allocation of scores to the prepositions

under study.

TABLE 25: Unmarkedness / Markedness Ranking

From the actual findings, some prepositions were learned with ease

while others were learned with difficulties; in relation to the

semantic functions they convey.

With regard to Rutherford’s (ibid) and Chomsky’s (ibid)

Greenberg (1966), Croft (1966) definition of markedness; the

observation that can be made from the actual results is that the

learners are progressing from unmarked options to marked ones.

Prepositions which encoded more than eight meanings were

considered to be unmarked due to their many meanings while those

with less than seven meanings were considered marked.

Setting Percentage score

Very marked 0 – 19 %

Marked 20 – 39 %

Unmarked 40 – 59 %

Relatively unmarked 60 – 79 %

Very unmarked ≥ 80 %

144

The prepositions FOR, TO, ON, IN, AT, FROM, WITH encode

more than eight semantic functions. The preposition IN was the

highest with sixteen meanings followed by ON with fifteen

meanings. Among this group, the prepositions ON and IN had the

highest percentage score that is over 70 percent. They were

therefore among the best performed prepositions. Prepositions like

FOR, WITH, FROM, AT also were heavily loaded in terms of

semantic functions but had an average score.

In this research, an increase in percentage score indicated ease in

the use of the preposition. This equally translates into easy/first

acquisition of such prepositions. (Rutherford 1982). The secondary

school learners therefore found such prepositions to be easy to use.

According to the definition of unmarkedness, in this research, such

prepositions were expected to be easy to use due to their many

semantic functions.

The learners found them (FOR, IN, TO, ON, WITH, FROM, AT)

to be relatively easy. The prepositions BEHIND, BENEATH,

BESIDE, UNDERNEATH, IN FRONT OF, OVER, IN SPITE OF,

DESPITE, and AMONG encoded less than seven semantic

functions. Prepositions like BESIDE, DESPITE, BENEATH, IN

FRONT OF, AMONG encoded only three semantic functions

while IN SPITE OF had two functions. The results indicate that

despite these prepositions having few meanings; learners had

145

difficulties in their use. Such prepositions had the lowest

percentage score; as less as 7 percent. The low scores were an

indication of difficulty in the use of the preposition. This was in

line with the application of the term markedness in this research.

Rutherford (ibid), Chomsky (ibid) and Zobl (1983) say that forms

that are grammatically simple or basic will be learned with ease.

Despite these prepositions encoding very few semantic roles; the

results showed that the learners found them difficult to use, which

indicated late learning/acquisition.

Therefore, considering the results as in section 4.2 of this thesis, it

is quite evident that the secondary school learners are progressing

from un marked to marked options. The learners acquired the

prepositions that were semantically more loaded first than those

that are less loaded.61.9 percent of the marked prepositions turned

up to be difficult while only 38.1 percent of the unmarked

preposition turned up to be easy. This is captured in the figure

below.

146

The figure above shows that the difficulty in the use of

prepositions is due to markedness.

Up to this point, the researcher found that the difficulty in the use

of prepositions was due to the markedness factor. Therefore, the

directional hypothesis 2 in this study is accepted and the null

hypothesis rejected. This automatically paved way into the

investigation whether frequency(as a markedness factor) of forms

was also the determining issue in the acquisition of the

prepositions. This is discussed in the next sub-section.

Prepositional acquisition and frequency of semantic functions

61.9

Marked and difficult

unmarked and easy

FIG 1: Preposition markedness degree

147

Greenberg (1966) says that frequency of use is a property of

parole/ performance not of language structure or competence.

Frequency explains structure in terms of use. Lexical markedness

can be explained by frequency of use. Radford (1988) puts it

that structures that are frequent or regular or common are

unmarked hence easy to be acquired. While those forms that are

infrequent, irregular or uncommon are considered to be marked

hence difficult to acquire. The statistical evidence in section 4.1.3

of this thesis shows that the secondary school learners found the

prepositions which were semantically more loaded like IN, ON,

AT, TO, FOR, WITH and FROM to be relatively easy to acquire

while those that were semantically less loaded to be difficult to

learn; like BENEATH, AMONT, IN SPITE OF, IN FRONT OF,

UNDERNEATH and OVER.

Generally, it has been assumed that the more a learner hears a

structure, the sooner it will be acquired (as per Larsen – Freemen,

1976). The prepositions like IN, ON, AT, TO ,FOR and FROM

could have been acquired easily because they are common in the

language data of the learners. The various semantic functions they

convey may have increased their occurrence in the language

learner. However, prepositions which were acquired late like

BENEATH, OVER, IN FRONT OF, DEPSITE, AMONT,

BESIDE, BEHIND and IN SPITE OF could have been due to their

infrequency in use. The few semantic functions such prepositions

148

conveyed may have reduced their occurrence in the language

learner data. Larsen – Freeman (ibid) says that frequently

occurring forms will somehow be represented in the child’s

performance.

The literature review (see chapter 2) carried out on these

prepositions showed that most of them expressed as less as two to

three possible meanings. According to Waugh (1982) such

prepositions are a case of textual markedness because they are rare

and uncommon in the data the learner is exposed to. The

prepositions have a very low semantic flexibility/frequency, which

reduces their chances of occurrence in the language data making

them to be uncommon. For example, the learners showed the

highest level of unfamiliarity in the use of the preposition

BENEATH which expresses only three possible meanings. Despite

having such few meanings, it scored less that 12 percent. These

prepositions may have few meanings but they are grammatically

infrequent, rare and uncommon. This could be the reason why

learners found them to be very difficult to learn. Givon (1991) also

says that structures that are processed with more difficulty and are

acquired later by children is probably due to their lower

frequency.

Rutherford (1982), Gass (1989) and Wode (1984) say that the

development sequences seem to reflect the internal complexity of

structure system to be learned, hence the degree of markedness.

149

The above scholars asserted that the unmarked or less marked

structures are learned early while the more marked ones later.

From the findings of this study the unmarked prepositions were

learned early as compared to the marked ones. The unmarked

prepositions (high semantic functions) will be acquired early

because they appear to be frequent in the language data of the

secondary school learners.

Another observation from the findings is that the prepositions that

expressed many

(> eight) possible meanings had high score in the actual

performance. The higher scores, is in indication of increasing ease

in the use of the prepositions. This prepositions re IN, ON, AT,

FOR, FROM, TO and WITH. These prepositions were learned

with ease due to their common occurrence in the language data.

Greenberg (ibid) says that the unmarked categories are more

frequent than the marked ones which are less frequent. Greenberg

(ibid) also says that the unmarked categories will be more easily

remembered because they occur often.

The high frequency of these prepositions in the language data was

attributed to their high semantic frequency. A preposition like IN,

for example, expressed sixteen possible meanings and it

consequently scored a high percentage of 74.7 percent in the actual

performance. Similarly, the preposition ON expressed fifteen

150

possible meanings and it also scored 75.7 percent. This is an

indicator that these prepositions were common in the learner

language data and that is why they were performed with ease. As

Gass (1989) puts it, such prepositions will be learned early because

they are available in the data a learner is exposed to. Similarly,

Fenk – Oczlon (ibid) says that a category that is used more

frequently will be easier to process in a number of ways than a

rarely used category.

Up to this point, the researcher can confidently assert in relation to

markedness that the difficult in the use of prepositions is due to

frequency as a markedness factor. Thus the frequency of

prepositional semantic functions influence the acquisition of

prepositions by the secondary school learners.Therefore the lower

the frequency of the prepositional semantic functions, the more

difficult the use of such a preposition and the vice versa is true. An

assertion was therefore made that a preposition with many

semantic functions may be frequent in use and thus common in

the language data of learners than the one with very few semantic

functions.

Summary

The statistical evidence adduced in section 4.3 and 4.3 (i) provide

ground evidence in accepting the directional hypothesis 2 in this

thesis. It was thus established that markedness determines the

151

acquisition of the English prepositions. The null hypothesis was

thus rejected. Unmarked prepositions were acquired first and with

ease than the marked ones.

The following section is an attempt to investigate the continuum in

the acquisition of the English prepositions.

Preposition Continuum

The following is a description of the preposition order at the three

levels of learning.

The following figure displays the group performance of the

prepositions.

Figure 2: Summary of preposition performance

(0-19%)

(20-39%)

(40-59%)

(60-79%)

152

The above figure presents the group performance of the

preposition continuum below.

..

GROUP I

ON, IN

GROUP II

AT, TO, FOR,

FROM , WITH

GROUP III

OVER

GROUP IV

BESIDE, DESPITE, IN SPITE OF,

BENEATH, IN FRONT OF, BEHIND,

AMONG, UNDERNEATH

153

Figure 3: Preposition acquisition order observed

Figure 3 above shows that GROUP I structures are acquired before

the structures in GROUP II, III and IV. One can also observe from

the findings that the acquisition of Group IV structures implies

that GROUP III, II and I structures have been acquired and the

acquisition of GROUP II structures implies that GROUP I

structures have been acquired.

The GROUP III structure is only acquired before the GROUP IV

structures only.

The Group I prepositions (IN, ON) were thus easy; GROUP II

prepositions (AT, TO, FOR, FROM, WITH) were relatively easy;

GROUP III preposition (OVER) was difficult and GROUP IV

prepositions (BESIDE, DESPITE, IN SPITE OF, BENEATH,

BEHIND, AMONG, UNDERNEATH) were the most difficult.

It was thus observed that no preposition was very easy(that is

scored above 80 percent) for the learners. This implies that learners

generally find prepositions to be difficult to master.

154

The above preposition order shows that easy prepositions are first

acquired followed by the difficult ones. Jakobson (1941, 1963),

says that structures that are acquired early are usually simple in

their abstract structure and also more easy for language users.

The prepositions in GROUP I and II were acquired first because of

some factors. Fenk- Oczlon (1991: 373 – 381) says that a category

that is used more frequently will be easy to process in a number of

ways than a rarely used category. The prepositions IN, ON, AT,

TO, FOR, FROM and WITH conveys many semantic functions

that may have increased their occurrence in the learners language

data. Such prepositions were unmarked/easy.

Many prepositions in GROUP III and IV were difficult to be

performed by the learners. These were, BENEATH,

UNDERNEATH, DESPITE, BESIDE, OVER, IN FRONT OF, IN

SPITE OF and AMONG. These prepositions had very low scores

which implied an increase in the level of difficulty. Wurzel (1998)

pointed out that certain language structures are less preferred than

others because they “strain the human language capacity”.

Mayerthaler (1981:4-5) supported Wurzel (ibid) by saying that the

marked structures would be acquired late, processed with difficult,

not widely used linguistically and less frequent. It was observed

155

that these prepositions were uncommon in the language learner

data.

Lehrer (1985:399) and Waugh (1982:302) said that “… the

unmarked member may occur in a wide range of contexts and will

be more frequent” Thus the prepositions with very few semantic

functions were difficult to use. This was due to their rarity in the

learner’s language data.

Radford (1988) says that when learning a second language,

learners select from a range of “possible” Core rules on the basis of

their linguistic experience. Such experience would lead them to

discard some possible core rules as incompatible with the evidence

that they are confronted with; and select instead other rules

compatible with the evidence. This possibly explains why the

language learner data was characterised with simple prepositions

first and the difficult ones later.

Up to this point, the researcher has established that the acquisition

of the English prepositions follow a defined continuum. This

consequently leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis three and

acceptance of the directional one.

The following is a brief analysis of the preposition performance

across the three levels of learning.

156

The above figure shows that the learners’ performance in the

prepositions improved with time. As instruction progressed, the

learners improved in the use of the prepositions. This was

attributed to Selinker’s (1972) Interlanguage third strategy. That is,

a rule enters the learner’s system as a result of instruction. This

shows that the learners at all the three levels of learning needed

instruction in order to learn the use of prepositions in relation to

variability of meaning. The preposition performance was best at

Level 3 of learning than Level 2 and 1. As learning progresses, the

learners learn how to use prepositions with other variables of

meaning.

Figure 4: Summary of preposition performance

across the three levels of learning.

Level 3

level 2

Level 1

KEY

157

Summary

The discussion and statistical evidence adduced in section 4.2, 4.3

and 4.4 provide ground evidence in accepting all the three

directional hypotheses stated in Chapter 1 of this thesis and

rejecting all the other three null hypotheses.

It was established that there was a relationship between semantic

functions and acquisition of English prepositions. Prepositions that

conveyed many semantic functions were performed with ease

than those with a few meanings. It was also established that in

English language markedness /unmarkedness relations determined

the acquisition of prepositions. Unmarked prepositions were

acquired first and with ease than the marked ones. Last but not

least, it was ascertained that the acquisition of English prepositions

followed a defined continuum. That is easy prepositions appeared

first in the learner’s interlanguage than the difficult prepositions

which were acquired later. The prepositions IN, ON, AT, FOR,

TO, FROM and WITH were first learned than BENEATH, IN

FRONT OF, BEHIND, UNDERNEATH, BESIDE, OVER,

AMONG, IN SPITE OF and DESPITE.

The following section presents the findings, conclusions and

recommendations arising from the data presented in chapter 4.

158

CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

In chapter four, the data analysis presented performance of

prepositions by learners in secondary schools. In this chapter, the

findings were discussed and from which recommendations were

made.

Findings

A keen study of the group scores reflected difficulty in the use the

prepositions. A few prepositions turned out to be easy. It was

established that there is a relationship between semantic functions

and the acquisition of prepositions. It was also observed that as

instruction progressed, the learners were able to use a given

preposition with other variables of meaning. This explains why the

learners at Level 3 performed the best in the prepositions than

learners at Level 2 and 1.

It was also found out that in the English Language ,markedness/

unmarkedness relations determined the acquisition of prepositions,

unmarked prepositions appeared first in the learners’ interlanguage

as opposed to marked prepositions which appeared later.

159

Another observation made was that the acquisition of prepositions

followed a defined continuum. That is, easy prepositions were

learned first than difficult ones which were learned late.

From the findings it was quite evident that the secondary school

learners had difficulties in the use the English prepositions. It

could be observed that the learners found the same prepositions to

be difficult and the same to be easy, irrespective of the different

level of learning they were in. This was an indication that the

acquisition of the prepositions by secondary school learners was

relatively the same .

The prepositions that were difficult to be used by the learners had

similar grammatical characteristics. That is, all of them had few

semantic functions. These prepositions were BEHIND,

BENEATH, BESIDE, UNDERNEATH, IN FRONT OF, OVER,

DESPITE, IN SPITE OF, and AMONG.

On the other hand it was observed that the prepositions that were

performed with ease had a very wide range of meanings. The

highest having sixteen possible meanings . These prepositions

appeared familiar to the learners. They were FOR, FROM, WITH,

AT, TO, ON and IN. Thus the unmarked preposition order was

found out to be prepositions with many semantic functions and the

marked one, prepositions with basic/few functions

160

The research findings on the preposition performance showed that

the difficulty in the use of the English prepositions was due to

markedness relations.

Since the content coverage of the prepositions is distributed

differently in the syllabus, the research findings indicated that the

prepositions were best performed at Level 3 than Level 2 and 1

.This was attributed to transfer of instruction.

Conclusion

There was enough evidence from the statistical score performance

in chapter 4 which showed that secondary school learners found

the English prepositions to be difficult to learn. Out of the sixteen

prepositions under study most of them were difficulty while only a

few were learned with ease.

The semantically more loaded prepositions were found to be easy

to learn. These prepositions were FOR, FROM, AT, WITH, TO,

ON and IN. These prepositions were performed with ease because

the learners used them correctly in the sentences given. These

prepositions were familiar to the learners since they performed

well in the sentences that required the use of such prepositions

.Such prepositions were learned first. Chomsky (1981), Rutherford

(1982) and Zobl (1983), pointed out that structures of a language

that were easy were acquired first by secondary school learners.

161

Consequently, Radford |(1988) states that structures that are

learned with ease are usually frequent, regular and common. It

cab therefore be concluded that the above prepositions were

learned easily because they were frequent, regular and common in

the language data of learners. According to the theory of

Markedness and Core Grammar, structures that are unmarked are

core and thus learned with a lot of ease. In this study, the

prepositions that were performed with ease had many meanings.

Similarly, the various possible meanings that they conveyed may

have increased their chances of occurrence in the learners

language data. This made such prepositions to be

common/frequent hence easy. Greenberg (1966) . In addition,

these prepositions were regular in the learners’ data due to their

wide semantic ranges. Thus the more the learners were exposed to

the use of these prepositions , the more they became familiar with

the various meanings such prepositions encoded.

On the other hand, most of the prepositions under study were

learned with a lot of difficulties .These were BENEATH ,BESIDE

BEHIND ,DESPITE ,UNDERNEATH ,IN SPITE OF, IN FRONT

OF, OVER and AMONG. White (1981), Wode (1976) predicted

that structures that are marked will be acquired late. In this study

the factor that made these prepositions to be difficult was the

unavailability of such forms in the language data of the learner.

162

This was because of the difficulty in the learning of such

structures.

The low scores indicated difficulty in the use of the prepositions.

Chomsky(1981) in the markedness theory, pointed out that

structures that are marked will tend to be difficult. From the test

results in this study the difficulty in the use of prepositions was due

to markedness . This explains the reason why these prepositions

were learned with a lot of difficulties by the secondary school

learners. Radford(ibid) also asserted that marked structures are

usually infrequent, irregular and rare or uncommon . Consequently

, these prepositions that were learned with difficulties can be said

to be infrequent and rare or uncommon in the language data of the

learner.

The marked prepositions appeared uncommon in use because of

their few meanings which may have reduced their occurrence in

the learners’ language data. Similarly, Gass (1984) pointed out

that the more marked items are learned late/acquired. These

prepositions appeared to be very unfamiliar to the learners and that

is why, they could not use them correctly in the questions provided

(see appendix (i)). Such prepositions were rarely used and the

statistical evidence in this research presented such prepositions as

appearing late in the preposition acquisition continuum which was

an indication of difficulty in their mastery. A conclusion could

163

therefore be made that the difficulty in the use of the English

prepositions was due to infrequency of such prepositions in the

language data of learners.

With reference to the preposition acquisition order at the three

levels of learning; it was concluded that the system was

characterised with easy prepositions first then difficult ones later.

That is the prepositions that were learned with difficulty or ease

were the same across the three groups.

Recommendations

Based on the theories of markedness, prepositions that are

unavailable/ uncommon should be concentrated on more by both

the teachers of English and learners. Gass (1984) says that

although it is not possible to change the order of difficulty, it may

be possible to ‘beat’ it. The researcher thus recommends that

prepositions which are difficult could be generalized to easy

options. This can be done by first: language teachers providing use

of these prepositions frequently in written essays, speech drills,

situational exercises, and frequent testing. This will ensure increase

in the occurrence of the marked prepositions. Secondly, language

teachers should also encourage school and inter-school debates

where deliberate use of prepositions like BESIDE ,BENEATH

BEHIND, AMONG, OVER ,IN SPITE OF, UNDERNEATH, IN

FRONT OF, and DESPITE should be over –emphasized. Such a

164

competitive situation will not only motivate learners in the use of

such prepositions but also will improve on their mastery of

prepositions. Thirdly, the English language teacher could consider

the aspect of frequency.

One suggestion is that prepositions which are uncommon should

occur as many times as possible over a specified period of time.

The teacher should also establish the specific number of times a

marked preposition should occur and at what length of time for it

to be mastered. Fourthly, language teachers should use marked

prepositions in varied syntactical units. This should be done in a to

avoid the cliché use of prepositions that may lay emphasis on one

or few meanings of a given preposition. In this case, collocation

distribution of prepositions should be considered . For example,

the collocation cliché in the use of the preposition OVER was seen

in the use of the verb ‘jump’. That is “Jump over---------------“

indicating the direction meaning. However, this preposition ‘ over’

can be used in other collocation distribution to show other

meanings. For example hang over(place position), draw over

(destination), live over ( orientation ). This will facilitate the

learning of prepositions.

Basing on the research findings in this study, it was established

that preposition mastery is poor across the three groups of learners.

Also from the literature review on the teaching and learning of

165

prepositions as provided in the secondary school curriculum ,

syllabus and the approved English text-books; preposition content

coverage was deficient. A recommendation is thus made to the

curriculum developers to restructure the English syllabus in the

teaching of prepositions. One suggestion is to teach from known to

unknown, and the difficult area to be given more time in the

syllabus.

Thus we can have the following re-organization;

Form 1: Distinguishing prepositions from Adverbs and

connectors.

Form 2 : Simple prepositions.

Form 3 : Simple and complex prepositions.

Form 4: Functions of prepositions.

The above structure will ensure that the use of prepositions and

their semantic distribution is given focus. Since this is the

backbone of the preposition content.

Similarly, the teaching materials especially the English language

textbooks should have exhaustive coverage of prepositional

meanings. A part from the common meanings of PLACE, TIME,

MOVEMENT, DIRECTION, other important prepositional

meanings should be covered. This should especially include the

meanings of ORIENTATION, REACTION, SUPPORT,

PERVASION (static and dynamic), PASSAGE, SUBJECT

166

MATTER, GOAL, SOURCE, AGENT, RECIPIENT,

ACCOMPANIMENT, AREA, CONTRAST and RELATIVE

POSITION. This will ensure that there are no semantic restrictions

in the use of the prepositions. This will lead to an improved

mastery of the prepositions.

Summary

In chapter one of this thesis, three major objectives of the research

were outlined. The results of the data analysis prove that these

objectives have been achieved. The statistical findings in chapter

four reveal that if specific prepositional structures are selected and

focused upon during teaching, learning and testing, their

acquisition will be highlighted. The learner will soon register them

and use them as required . The claims by Fenk- Oczlon(1991) that

a category that is used more frequently will be easier to process in

a number of ways than a rarely used category is in this context

acceptable as supported by empirical evidence in chapter 4. As

Waugh (1982) posits, the unmarked member may occur in a wider,

range of contexts; and it will be more frequent . In chapter 4, the

results indicated that prepositions that conveyed several semantic

functions which were acquired late and with difficult. Therefore it

was observed that frequency of the semantic of prepositions played

a role in the learners’ acquisition of the prepositions . As Dulay

167

and Burt (1982) says, if teachers knew the order in which students

naturally tend to learn language structures, they could work with

the process rather than against it .

Further research

Further research should be carried out to investigate the difficulty

in the use of the English prepositions using other theories apart

from the Theory of Markedness and Core Grammar used in this

research.

Further research should also be done on the acquisition of

prepositions using a larger number of both simple and complex

prepositions using the same Theory of Markedness and Core

Grammar.

REFERENCES

Andersen, H (2001), Markedness and the theory of linguistic

Change. Amsterdam.

Benjamins.

Archangeli ,D (1992), “ Markedness” In Bright W. ( ed)

International Encyclopaedia of linguistics , New York . Oxford

University Press.

Baayen, H, (1997), Effects of semantic Markedness in the

processing of regular nominal singulars and plurals in Italian Italy

168

Battistella, E, L, (1990), “ Markedness The evaluative

Superstructure of Language” New York. Oxford university Press.

Battistella, E, L, (1996) The Logic of Markedness, New York

Oxford University Press .

Bukenya , A Kioko, A, Njengere D, Mutei V, Headstart Secondary

English Form 1, Nairobi . Oxford University Press.

Bukenya A ,et, al (2003) ,Headstart Secondary English Form 2,

Nairobi. Oxford University Press

Bukenya A, et ,al (2004), Headstart Secondary English Form

3,Nairobi. Oxford University Press

Chomsky ,N, A (1981), Lecturers on government and binding .

Dorrecht: Foris

Clark, R (1980), ‘Errors in talking to learn’- First language 1:7-32.

Closs, R, A (1975), A reference Grammar for students of English,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Corder, S (1974) , Error Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press

.

169

Corder , S(1981) Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford ,

Oxford University Press.

Croft, W (1990), Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Croft ,W (1996), ‘Markedness’ and ‘Universals’: from the Prague

school to typology :Nodus.

Croft W,(2003), Typology and Universals. 2nd edition.

Cambridge. Cambridge University Press .

Crystal, D (1987), Cambridge Encycopaedia of language,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press .

Dulay, H and Burt M (1997), Remarks on creativity in language

acquisition. Dulay, Burt and Finochiaro(EDS) (1977). Viewpoints

on English as second Language. Regents Publishing New York.

Dulay H, Burt ,M, Krashen ,S (1982),Language Two. New York.

Oxford University Press

170

Eckman ,F,(1977), “ Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis”. Language Learning 27:2:313. New York, plenum

Press.

Elaine, C (1990), Toward Second Language: A study of Null-

Preposition, New York, Cambridge University Press .

Ellis ,R (1985), Understanding Second Language Acquisition, New

York, Cambridge University Press .

Fenk-Oczlon, G (1991), “Frequenz Und Kognition-Frequenz Und

Markiertheit.”.Folia linguistica 25:3-4

Fitikides ,J (1988),Common Mistakes in English ,London,

Longman Group

Fletcher,D and Garman, M, (1996) Language Acquisition,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Freeman ,D and Long ,M (1991) An Introduction To Second

Language Acquisition Research ,New York, Longman Group.

Gass, M, and Schachter, J ,(1989) Linguistic Perspective on

Second Language Acquisition ,U.S.A, Cambridge University

Press.

171

Gathumbi, A, Kilimaro, E, Mugambi, H,(2003) New Integrated

English Form1, Nairobi, Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.

Gathumbi, A, et al,(2004) New Integrated English Form 2,Nairobi,

JKF

Gathumbi A, et al,(2004) New Integrated English,Form

3,Nairobi,JKF

Givon, T,(1991) Markedness in grammar

:Distributional,Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of

syntactic Structure. Studies in Language 15:2:335-370

Greenberg, J ,(1966), Language Universals with special reference

to feature hierarchies.(Janua Linguarum ,Series Minor59). The

Hague :Mouton

Hayes B ,(2004), Introduction :the phonetic bases of phonological

markedness. Cambridge, C.U.P.

Haspelmath, M, ( 2005), Against Markedness (and what to replace

it with) paper represented at the Max Planck Institute for

evolutionary of Berlin . Berlin.

172

Hume, E,(2004), “ Deconstructing Markedness.” Berkeley

Linguistics Society 30.

Jakobson, R, (1941), [1971], “ Zur Struktur des russichen

Verbums.”, Prague (74-84 ) ( also in : selected writings , vol, 1 )

Jakobson ,R (1941) [1962], “ Kindersprache, Aphasie Und

allgemeine Lautgesetze.

Upsala: (also in : selected writings ,Vol, 1 )

Jakobson , R, (1963), “ Implications of language universals for

linguistics .In Greenberg ,Joseph (ed) 1963.Universals of language

.Cambridge ,MA:MI T Press .”

Kathuri N, and Pals (1993) , Introduction to Educational Research

Egerton Educational Media Centre .

Kiai ,A ,Oduor , B, Owuor, E, (2003) , New Horizons in English

Book 2 , Nairobi, East Africa Educational Publishers .

Kenya Institute of Education (1987), A Handbook for Teachers of

English in Secondary Schools in Kenya ,Nairobi, Jomo Kenyatta

Foundation.

173

Kenya Institute of Education (1989) , Integrated English Book 2 ,

Nairobi, Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.

Kenya Institute of Education (2002), Secondary Education

Syllabus. Volume One: Nairobi, K.I.E.

Kenya National Examination Council(1999) , The year 1989

K.C.S.E Examination Candidates Performance Report .K.N.E.C,

Nairobi.

Kenya National Examination Council (2004), The year 2003

K.C.S.E Examination Candidates Performance Report. K.N.E.C,

Nairobi.

Klein , W (1986) , Second Language Acquisition. UK, Cambridge

University press

Larsen-Freeman,D, (1975) An explanation for the morpheme

acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning

25:125-34.

Leech, G( 1975) , A communicative Grammar of English ,

London, Longman Group.

174

Leech , G, et al (2001) , Word frequencies in written and spoken

English based on the British National Corpus..Herlow, England:

Longman.

Lehrer , A (1985) . “Markedness and Antonymy .” Journal of

Linguistics 21:397

Lyons , J (1981) , Language and linguistics , Cambridge,

Cambridge University press .

Mathews, P(1974), Morphology, New York, Cambridge University

press.

Mayerthaler, W, (1981), “ Morphologische Naturrlichkeit .”

Wiesbaden: Athenaion.

( English translation: Mayerthaler 1988).

Ministry of Education and Kenya National Examination Council,

(1980-93), Handbook, Teaching English in Kenya secondary

Schools ,Nairobi, Jomo Kenyatta Foundation .

Mutiti K, J(2000), “ The parameters of syntactic information

Packing in the Second Language Acquistion of English by Gikuyu

First Language Speakers.” Thesis, Egerton

175

.Mwangi ,S (2004), Grammatical Variation in Second Language

Varieties of English. The case of Kenyan English.(Prepositions

Vanishing in Kenya).English Today, Volume 20 ,Issue 01,pp 27-

32.

Mwangi ,P, Indangasi, H, Gecaga C, (2005) , Excelling in English

Form 1 An Integrated Approach, Nairobi, Kenya Literature

Bureau.

Mwangi, P , et al (2004), Excelling in English Form 2 An

Integrated Approach, Nairobi, Kenya Literature Bureau.

Mwangi, P, et al (2004), Excelling in English Form 3 An

Integrated Approach, Nairobi, Kenya Literature Bureau.

Nasiuma ,D, Statistical Tables for Teaching and Exams , Ng’eti

publishers .

Nemser , W (1971) Approximate Systems of foreign language

learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9:115-23

Pemagbi, J (19910, The implications of the English in Sierra Leone

for the English Teacher . Educational Research in Africa 2 .

Quirk, R, Greenbaum, S, Leech ,G, (1972), A Grammar of

Contemporary English , London, Longman Group.

176

Quirk,R,and Greenbaum ,S,(1973), A University Grammar of

English London, Longman Group.

Radford,A (1988), Transformational Grammar. A first course.

New York, Cambridge University Press .

Rice ,K, (2003), “ Featural Markedness in Phonology: Variation.”:

Berlin .

Rutherford ,W(1987), Second Language Grammar, Learning and

Teaching. New York, Longman.

Rutherford ,W(1982), Functions of Grammar in a Language

Teaching Syllabus. Language Learning and Communication, New

York, Longman.

Rutherford ,W,(1982), ‘Markedness in Secondary Language

Acquisition’ Language Learning 32. 1:85-108

Seliger, H (1983) Classroom Oriented Research in Second

Language Acquisition , London, Rowley Mass,

Selinker, L (1972), Rediscovering Interlanguage Acquisition, New

York, Cambridge University press .

177

Slobin ,D, (1973), Cognitive Prerequisites for Development of

Grammar ,New York, Cambridge University Press.

Spolky ,B,(1989), Conditions for second Language Learning, New

York, Oxford University press.

Schmied , J, (1996), Second-Language Corpora.” Greenbaum,

Sidney ed. The International Corpus of English. Oxford . Oxford

University press.

Thomson ,A J and Martnet, A, (1986), The Oxford Library of

English Usage, New York,Oxford University press .

Tomlinson ,B, and Ellis R,(1980),Teaching Secondary School

English, London ,Longman Group

Trubetzkoy ,N, (1939), Grundzuge der phonologie: Gottingen:

Vanden hoeck &Ruprecht.

Vikiru, L ,Omwoyo H, Oburu ,H (2004) ,Advancing in English: A

New Intergrated Course for Secondary Schools Students Book 1 ,

Nairobi,Longman .

178

Vikiru ,L ,et al (2003).Advancing in English: A New Intergrated

Course for Secondary Schools Students Book 2 , Nairobi,

Longman .

Vikiru ,L, et al (2004) Advancing in English: A New Intergrated

Course for Secondary Schools Students Book 3 , Nairobi,

Longman .

Waugh, L ,R (1982), “ Marked and Unmarked : A choice between

unequals” Semiotica 38:299-318.

White, L (1977)Error Analysis and error correction in adult

learners of English as a second Language .New York .Cambridge

University Press.

Wode, H, (1976), Developmental Sequences in naturalistic L2

acquisition. In E. Hatch (ed) (1978) Second Language Acquisition.

Rowley; Newbury House.

Wurzel, W (1988), “ On Markedness” Theoretical Linguistics 24.

1:53-71.

Zobl, H(1983) , Markedness and the projection problem: Language

Learning (33). West Germany .

179

APPENDIX (i)

Questionnaire

Written test

Form.......................

Instructions

Answer all the questions in this test.

Please do not leave any question unattempted.

Use the words in the list provided below to fill in the blank spaces

from question 1 to 7 : - ON, AT, TO, IN, FROM, BESIDE,

UNDERNEATH, OVER,

IN SPITE OF, WITH, FOR, IN FRONT OF, BEHIND,

AMONG, BENEATH,

DESPITE, SINCE, AFTER, BETWEEN, APART FROM

1) Fill the blanks below using a suitable word from the list

above.

a) The sponge floated ........................... water.

b) He replied ..........................an offensive way.

c) My car is................................ school.

d) Tom went.................. the door.

e) The guests are here .............................. three weeks.

f) This book is............................................. Nandwa.

g) The guests were received .............................. a smile

180

h) Sit.........................him.

i) The keys hung ......................the door.

j) I like him ...........................................................his faults.

k) I admire him .....................................................his weaknesses.

1) The victims are ........................................the rubble.

m) The shop is .............................................the butchery.

n) I dashed ............................................the bush to hide.

o) Mwangi sits....................................... Kamau.

p) Njeri is dancing ...................................................the people.

2. Fill in the following blank spaces with a suitable word from

the list above.

a) He is standing .................................... friends.

b) The butchery is ............................................. the hotel.

c) John ran ................................................the bushes.

d) When the building collapsed, the people were buried

......................the rubble.

e) The coil rolled .........................the chairs.

f) I agree with him .........................................the quarrels.

g) We went home ................................................the rains.

h) The blanket was drawn............................................... him.

i) The house is ..........................the hill.

j) The screen was broken ...................... a stone.

k) This strange man comes .................................Rwanda.

181

1) This man does anything ...................a living.

m) He gave a beautiful doll .........................................his daughter.

n) The teacher is standing....................... ...the door.

o) He is like his sister………………………..one way.

p) The stone fell ................................the ground

3. Use a suitable word from the list provided {on the first page}

to fill in the

blank spaces below

a) Write .............................this page.

b) There is a bed ..................................the room.

c) The matron left........................................noon.

d) He leaned .....................................the wall.

e) The children ran ...........................................shelter.

f) The performance begins ..................................Monday to Friday.

g) Please do come ...................................me.

h) Go ahead I am .............................you.

i) The student jumped.................... the wall.

j) He is very weak ...............................eating good food.

k) This book is ..........................the table.

1) The coin is .......................the tin.

m) Such manners are ..........................him.

n) The servants live ........................the valley.

o) The teacher is ................................the class.

p) Nanjala was ...........those girls who misbehaved.

182

4. Use an appropriate word from the list provided {see first

page} to fill in the

blank spaces.

a) He was jailed ..................................defiling a minor.

b) ..........................my annoyance, they rejected the offer.

c) Go ahead with the plan I am ................................you.

d) She is bad ................................remembering facts.

e) When it started raining, they rushed ................................the

trees.

f) He went....................... ..the house.

g) The fruits are ............the trees.

h) The old man lives..........................................the hill.

i) The students completed their work ................................. a few

hours.

j) Go............................................public trend for safety.

k) The refugees died.....................................lack of food.

1) He made a doll ........................................his daughter.

m) Nyakundi lent the book ...............................me.

n) The robbers aimed the gun ...............................him.

o) The children are playing .........................................the field.

p) Put a new roof.........................................the house.

5. Fill in the following blank spaces with an appropriate word

from the list

183

provided on the first page.

a) The kiosk is closed ......................................Tuesdays.

b) Anne dived ........................the water.

c) The teacher is......................................school.

d) It looked .............................me like a vast chasms.

e) I can see that you are ..............................the plan.

f) Can you tell butter........................................ margarine?

g) I saw a man ....................................large ears.

h) .................................... his behaviour, one can tell he is a drug

addict.

i) At last we are .......................the hill.

j) I am sorry to say that I am disappointed ...............................you.

k) He gave a talk.............................abortion.

1) You are our leader we are...................................you.

m) Our friends are .............................. a hot soup.

n) The head girl is ...................................the strike.

o) He is pointing ..............................you.

p) Jane fell............................the floor.

6. Use a suitable word from the list provided {see the first

page} to fill in the

Blank spaces in the sentences below.

a) ...................reference to your letter dated 23rd.........

b) The boy came .........................the village just like other days.

c) He is not bad ................................. a youngster.

184

d) The show will start from Monday........................ Saturday.

e) The poor mother was surprised .........................her son's

behaviour.

f) Kemunto was born .........................Kenya.

g) The pen is ......................the table.

h) The leaves lay thick ........................the ground.

i) The children splashed water ......................me.

j) The food is filled .....................water.

k) His changing jobs was like moving …………………...the

frying pan into the fire.

1) The man is a bit too old .............................you.

m) We won by three goals.......................... nil.

n) Though it rained heavily, we arrived.....................last.

o) A face appeared ....................the window.

p) She went ........................the market.

7. Fill in the blank spaces in the sentences below using an

appropriate word from

The fist provided {see list on the first page}

a) The rains fell……………………………him.

b) The examination results will be out ....................four months.

c) Drive .......................the city.

d) The student was congratulated .................. his success.

e) ........................regard to your letter dated 2lst.................

f) I may be his daughter, but not......................his manners.

185

g) At last we were.........................the hill.

h) Moraa is interested ........................sports.

i) Mary passed her exams .....................the end.

j) His house is ......................the rough road.

k) Jennipher is good......................cooking.

1) I will be ...............you this week.

m) The boy went..........................company of two.

186

APPENDIX (ii)

Map of Gucha District

187

188