Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

T-Unit Analysis in Second Language Research: Applications, Problems and Limitations Author(s): Stephen J. Gaies Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Mar., 1980), pp. 53-60 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586808 . Accessed: 10/09/2013 15:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 14, No. 1 March1980

in Second T-UnitAnalysis LanguageResearch: and Limitations* Problems Applications,

Stephen J. Gaies has been widelyappliedto measure theoverallsyntactic T-unitanalysis of speech and writing samples.It has been used both in crosscomplexity studiesand in experimental studies sectional to measure the effect descriptive of sentence-combining as a curricular designedto enhancenormal activity trends in syntactic The claimthatmeanT-unit length maturity. developmental is a valid measure is well supported. of overallsyntactic complexity In recentyears,T-unitanalysis has been applied in studiesof second to characterize the syntactic natureof linguistic languagelearning inputand In all studies, of learners' to assessthe syntactic written maturity production. was seen to providean objective and reliablemethod T-unitanalysis of detheoverallsyntactic of languagesamples.Nevertheless, termining complexity thevalidity as a measure and thesignificance of theT-unit ofoverall syntactic as a variablehave been questioned. complexity The presentpaper is a critical reviewof arguments for and against T-unitanalysis in secondlanguageresearch; are made aboutthe suggestions and limitations of this and othermeasuresof overall usefulness, validity, syntactic complexity. Since its developmentby Hunt (1965) as an index of the growthin syntactic maturity of schoolchildren's T-unit analysishas been widely used writing, to measure the overall syntactic of speech and writing complexity samples,both for first for researchin second language language research and, more recently,

Since references to thisbody of research are readily availlearning/teaching.' able elsewhere, I will not in this paper attempt a systematic reviewof the I will simply research. of T-unit made forthe validity repeatthe argument

analysis in first language researchand the rationalefor the T-unit as an index of overall developmentin second language acquisition. In firstlanguage acquisition,the developmentof syntacticmaturity--that is, of the abilityto compressan increasingly large number of ideas, or chunks * This is a revised of a paperreadat the Second version Annual Los Angeles Second
Language ResearchForum,October6-8, 1978. On TESOL '77.

and second languageacquisition, T-unitanalysis has been applied in a largenumber of other researchareas: linguistic input and teachers'classroom language (Gaies 1977 a, b; Steyaert 1977; Chaudron 1978); readability(Street 1971, Gaies 1979); the influence of mode on and speakingstyle (San Jose 1972, Pope 1974); the relationship betweenethnicor writing socioeconomic and oral speech (Pope 1971); and mostsignificantly, at least from background of sentence-combining as a quantitative pointof view, the development, use, and assessment a curricular designedto acceleratesyntactic activity (consultany recentvolumeof maturity Researchin the Teachingof English). 53

Mr.Gaies,Assistant Professor at theUniversity of Northern in Iowa,has alsopublished 1Besidesits use in the investigation of the development of syntactic in first maturity

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

54

TESOL Quarterly

into fewer words-is reflectedby the longitudinalgrowth of of information, T-unit length-a T-unit being defined as "a main clause plus all subordinate attachedto or embedded in it" (Hunt 1970:4). clauses and nonclausal structures since children'sspeech and writingcontain This growthis linear and uniform, than at an earlier age, and syntactic T-units at maturitylonger any given age language development,if you will-thus parallels otherdevelopmentalpatterns and in the child. T-unit length,then,seems to provide an intuitively satisfying stable index of first language development. There are many who feel that,while second language acquisitionby adults does not parallel other developmentalprocesses as in the case of first language in a second language noneacquisition,the developmentof syntacticmaturity thelessproceeds much along the same lines as in first language acquisition.What has been needed is a yardstick by which to characterizegrowthin second language acquisition. Obviously, chronologicalage is of no value here, nor are of the second like grade level normsavailable, given the heterogeneity anything of an index like mean T-unit language learner population. The attractiveness it would be a global measure of linguisticdevelopment lengthis two-fold:first, externalto any particularset of data and second, it would allow formeaningful numericalcomparisonsbetween first and second language acquisition. In the last few years T-unitanalysishas been applied in a varietyof second language acquisitionstudiesinvolvinga numberof languages. Many researchers have expressedrelative satisfaction with T-unit lengthand related measures as indices of second language development.At the same time, however, certain problems in T-unit analysis have been pointed out, in some cases definitional and in othersprocedural.Some relate to T-unitanalysisin general,while others are related specifically to the application of T-unit analysis to second langauge data. Other criticism has been of a more sweeping nature,questioningthe very use of measures derived fromT-unit analysis as indices of overall development or proficiency in a first or second language. The purpose of this paper is to review these criticisms and reservations in order to set recentfindings and claims about T-unit analysisinto a properperspective by addressingthe followingquestions: 1) What are the main problems encounteredin T-unit analysis in general and in its application to second language data in particular?2) Is the T-unita valid measure of language development?3) Finally,even if mean T-unitlengthis a valid index,is it a particularly useful one? To begin with, there are a number of researcherswho continue to be bothered by an index of syntacticcomplexity-forin fact syntacticmaturity has always been intendedto mean the ability to generate sentencesof greater and greater complexity-based solely on an analysis of what can be loosely termed "surface structure." This criticismpersistsdespite evidence that mean T-unit lengthreflects to a very great degree the transformational of complexity sentences (at least insofaras we are willingto equate the numberof sentenceinvolved in producing a surface structure with the combiningtransformations

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

T-Unit Analysis

55

and despitethe factthata comparison notion of complexity) of T-unit length withsubsequent measures of led one syntactic complexity empirically-derived to conclude researcher thatT-unit remained on an overall basis"themost length usefuland usable indexof syntactic development" (O'Donnell 1976:38).Representative ofthislineofcriticism is Ney1966, that whoargues whileT-unit length of senreflects be the better coordination term) excessive (adjusts formight a sentence. within His argucoordination tences,(it failsto deal withexcessive ment of whichis illustrated the sentences: following pair by
and spring comes. Thentherainfalls (2 T-units) thewoodsand pulledthefeather So he wentthrough outof hishatfrom the and put a flower in his hat and walked on through thewoods. partridges (1 T-unit)

is thatit is essentially and coordinato viewcoordination ofsentences arbitrary tionof nounphrases as beingqualitatively or verbphrases different (Ney 1966: in Ney'scriticism is an issue to whichI will return later:thatis, Implicit an indexbased on syntactic whether divorced from consideraalone, complexity tionsof appropriateness and stylistic measure can be a of valid effectiveness, overalllanguageproficiency. A definitional criticism of a very different nature has led to themodification of meanT-unit as theprimary indexof secondlanguagedevelopment. A length number ofresearchers and Tucker Gaies Larsen-Freeman and 1974; 1976; (Scott Strom1977; Larsen-Freeman that errors, 1978; Vann 1978) have recognized whilenot characteristic of first do occur in languagedata, relatively frequently adult second languagedata, and that an indexof languagegrowth oughtin someway to reflect the incidence of developmental The result has been errors. a modification of the basic index;the length of error-free T-units is now consideredto be a more valid measureof growth in a second language.Vann foundthatwhilemean T-unitlength does not correlate (1978), forexample, withTOEFL scores, boththe mean length of error-free and the ratio T-units of error-free T-units to totalT-units correlate with TOEFL scores. significantly Certain the first of which is reach to remain, however, problems agreement on what constitutes an error. The mostunambiguous not position, although the mostfruitful and Strom one, is thattakenby Larsen-Freeman necessarily thata T-unit be perfect in all respects, (1977), who required including spelling and punctuation, forit to be counted as error-free. On theother hand,Scottand: Tucker(1974) considered freeofmorphological and syntactic errors anyT-unit to be error-free. An intermediate is Vann position represented by (1978), who requiredthat a T-unitmake sense in the givencontext and be freeboth of

234-5).

and lexical errors. morphosyntactic I will simplyargue that,if the criteriaof correctspelling and punctuation must be satisfiedfor a writtenT-unit to be classifiedas error-free, it would necessarily follow (for purposes of comparability) that the correct use of

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

56

TESOL Quarterly

for example, should be a criterion for a spoken T-unit to be suprasegmentals, this error-free. would of be While interest, it would also comjudged certainly the it and is the plicate analyticalprocess immeasurably, very ease and alleged of T-unit objectivity segmentationthat are repeatedly cited as being among the chief strengths or advantages of T-unit analysis. To go one step further: even if consistencyamong researcherscould be obtained regardingthe definition of an error-free T-unit,there would still remain the question of whether or not it would be worthwhile to establish a hierarchyof errors, since clearly different errorshave different effects. The fact that errorshave to be accounted for by a modifiedindex of lanimguage developmentin adult second language acquisition has an important in plication. It amounts to a concession that there is a qualitative difference the developmentalprocesses of first and second language acquisition. A far more sweeping criticism of T-unit analysis-one which goes beyond definitional and proceduralweaknessesand which also pertainsto othermeasures of syntacticcomplexity-concernsthe validityof the T-unit as index of overall language development.The motivationfor this criticismis perhaps best illustratedby the followingpair of sentencesfromMoffett (1968:174):
I don't like what is leftin the cup afteryou finish drinking. (3 T-units) I don'tlike the dregs.(1 T-unit)

Of the two T-units, the firstis, superficially anyway, syntacticallymore far. It contains almost two a and half times as many words as the complex by second one and threetimes as many clauses. Should the writerof the first T-unit thereforebe regarded as more proficient in English than the writer of the second? Or, alternatively, should the circumlocution in the firstT-unit be regarded as evidence of restrictedvocabulary development on the part of the writerof the first sentence? In other words, how should communicativestrategiessuch as circumlocution be evaluated in our assessmentof an individual'soverallproficiency? Critics that the weakness of T-unit in lies its treatment of argue analysis syntaxalone as the and -and, example indicates,syntax vocabularyare closely related:
One can only regardskeptically to measuresentencematurity any efforts by sentence to evolvea theory complexity. Indeed, [this]castsdoubton the wholeeffort of complexity in isolationfromsemantics and word concepts.Or at any rate a

so derived seemsdoomed to superficiality. theory (Moffett 1968:174)

This criticism properlyunderscoresthe fact that thereis no necessarycorrelation between syntacticcomplexityand quality or effectiveness-in other words, communicativecompetence-in speech or writing.On the other hand, the criticismsets up a straw-man for it suggeststhat those who use argument, T-unit analysis regard syntactic as being absolutelygood, as a virtue complexity in itself.This is not the case. Attempts to validate mean error-free T-unitlength have used eitherstandardizedlanguage proficiency testscores or language course level as criterion measures. To the degree that these are accepted as valid in-

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

T-UnitAnalysis

57

dicators of language proficiency, concurrent validitycan be established.All that is claimed by T-unit analysis-basedresearchis that learnersconsideredto be at an advanced level by eitherof these othercriteriatend to produce longererrorfree T-units and a higher ratio of error-free T-units to total T-units. In other studies claim that the these words, simply abilityto subordinateand to reduce clauses to non-clauseembeddingsis a characteristic of proficiency, and that the in this an of in the index development growth targetlanguage. abilityprovides In the Appendix are written fivealternative ways of sayingthe same thing. Some of the rewritings are clearly more syntactically complex than others.No one, however, would claim that any of the five is absolutely better than the others. They representa range of stylisticoptions,some more appropriatefor certain contextsthan for others.The index of developmentunder scrutiny here reflects not whethera learnerwill use one stylein preference to othersin given nor whetherthe appropriatestylistic choice will be made for a given contexts, for context-although these are importantdimensionsof language proficiency which there unfortunately exists no single measuring instrument-but only whetherthe learner is capable of using not only the simple style of the first sentencebut also the more complex stylistic devices of the others. This very point, however,does suggest a problem with rewriting exercises which have been used (Monroe 1975, Gaies 1976) to collect data. A rewriting exercise consistsof a series of shortsentencesin connected discourse. Subjects are told to rewritethe passage in a betterway by combiningsentences, changing the order of words, and omitting words that are repeated too often.They are also cautioned not to leave out any information. The purpose of the exercise, of course, is to afford to subordinatesentences subjects abundant opportunities and to reduce sentences to non-clauses-in other words, to demonstratetheir ability to write syntactically complex prose. The problemhere is that the word better allows for a great deal of latitude in stylistic options,and two subjects who are equally adept at sentence-combining the task differently may interpret and produce rewritings of different This has been noted problem complexity.' by Monroe (1975), and it is implicitly recognizedby the need cited by LarsenFreeman (1978) to compare free-writing and controlledrewriting samples from the same subjects. Given the problem, it would seem reasonable to demand that more than a single sample of speech or writingfromeach subject be used in further T-unit length or related measures as attemptsto validate error-free indices of development. Finally, the usefulnessof T-unit analysis must be considered. To do this, we must first First,it does not appear to be particupoint out two limitations. larly appropriate for the analysis of data from subjects with relativelylow In the data of these subjects, grammaticaland lexical errorsare proficiency. so frequentand of such a nature that they tend to interfere not only with the reader's or listener'sunderstanding, but also with the researcher'sability to
2A similarproblemcan occur if in a cross-sectional or longitudinal study,mode of which has been identified as a variable affecting discourse, syntactic complexity (San Jose 1972), is not controlled.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

58

TESOL Quarterly

tabulate T-units (Larsen-Freemanand Strom1977,Vann 1978). In otherwords, whereas an index like the mean number of morphemesper utterance (MLU) seems to be usefulonly below a certainlevel (approximately fivemorphemes per T-unit seems of development 1976), analysis (Schumann utterance) language to be useful only beyond a certainlevel of developmentin the targetlanguage. The second limitationhas to do with the discriminating power of the T-unit (and related measures) will distinguish T-unit. Length of error-free but learnerswith low proficiency fromthose with a high degree of proficiency, as it is not as sensitivean indicatorof second language development mightbe desired. In a number of studies (Monroe 1975, Cooper 1976; Larsen-Freeman and Strom 1977, Larsen-Freeman 1978), considerable overlapping between adjacent groups was noted. This is not the case with data in firstlanguage development.The difference may be due to the fact that while the ability to subordinate and embed sentences develops gradually over a number of years in first language acquisition,the process is by comparisonfar more compressed in adult second language acquisition (Cooper 1976). With these limitationsin mind, we might now evaluate the usefulness of T-unit analysis. What insightdoes T-unit analysis provide about the nature of second language acquisition and its relationship to first language acquisition? that in it reflects the fact both First, cases, language developmentinvolves an into a single increasingabilityto incorporateand consolidatemore information in a senunit-to more of information interrelated chunks put grammatically tence. In addition,evidence has been provided (Monroe 1975) to suggest that but also the stages in that process, not only the process of T-unit lengthening, and second language acquisition.In both cases, sentences are consistent in first tend to be combined firstprimarilyby coordination.Subordinationis more sentence-embedding heavily used at the next stage of development;and finally, and structurand clause reductionbecome the principalmeans of consolidating information. ing At the same time, however, T-unit analysis also reflects the fact that, as already mentioned,the duration of the process is far shorterin adult second is generlanguage acquisition than in first language acquisition.This difference the to that the second attributed the fact definition, adult, by approaches ally in the whereas as a mature task individual, language acquisition cognitively case of first language acquisition,language developmentparallels cognitiveand other developmentalpatterns. However satisfactory this explanationmay be, it does not account for another difference-thisone qualitative-which is reflectedby T-unit analysis. Errors occur in second language data that eitherdo not occur in first language As mentioned data, as is usually the case, or that occur far less frequently. above, the very developmentof a modifiedindex-the mean length of errorfree T-units (along with the ratio of error-free T-unitsto total T-units)--underscores this difference. These are not new insights,and no one would claim that T-unit analysis

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

T-UnitAnalysis

59

issues such as the relationship between provides a means by which longstanding firstand second language acquisition can be resolved. But at the very least, it provides anotherlens, so to speak, throughwhich relevantempiricaldata can be usefully viewed. While it is a tool of which second language researchers should be aware, it should nonethelessbe the object neitherof unreasonable expectationsnor of exaggeratedclaims. REFERENCES in ESL classes: An 1978. as Chaudron,Craig. English the mediumof instruction initial of a pilotstudyof the complexity of teachers' report speech. Unpublished of Curriculum, OntarioInstitute paper, Modem Language Centre,Department forStudiesin Education. written of secondlanguage Cooper,Thomas C. 1976. Measuring syntactic patterns of German.Journal Research 69:176-83. learners of Educational A. L. 1973. A proposedscale forsyntactic in the TeachEndicott, density.Research ing of English7:5-12. A techniquefor assessing Gaies, StephenJ. 1976. Sentence-combining: proficiency in a secondlanguage.Paperread at theConference on Perspectives on Language, of Louisville, Louisville, University Kentucky, May 6-8. (ERIC ED 130 512) 1977a. A comparison of the classroom and their languageof ESL teachers Ph.D. thesis, speechamongpeers:An exploratory syntactic analysis.Unpublished Indiana University. 1977b. The natureof linguistic second languagelearning: inputin formal in ESL teachers' and communicative classroom Linguistic strategies language. In On TESOL '77: Teachingand learning Englishas a second language. (Brown, and C. A. Yorio,Eds.) Washington, H. D., R. H. Crymes, D.C.: Teachersof to Speakers of OtherLanguages,204-12. English 1 1979. Linguistic second languagelearning:The issues of inputin formal and readability in ESL materials.TESOL Quarterly syntactic gradation 13, 1: 41-50. and thecomputer. ElemenGolub,Lesterand CaroleKidder. 1974. Syntactic density 51:1128-31. taryEnglish written at threegrade levels. Restructures Hunt,KelloggW. 1965. Grammatical searchReportNo. 3. Urbana,Illinois:NationalCouncilof Teachersof English. 1970. Syntactic in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs maturity of the in ChildDevelopment forResearch Society 53, 1 (SerialNo. 134). of a second Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and VirginiaStrom. 1977. The construction indexof development. languageacquisition LanguageLearning27:123-34. Diane. 1978. An ESL index of development. Larsen-Freeman, Paper read at the Twelfth AnnualTESOL Convention, Mexico (D.F.), April4-9. Loban, Walter. 1976. Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Research Report No. 18. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Moffett, Mifflin James. 1968. Teachingthe universe of discourse.Boston:Houghton Company. H. 1975. Measuring and enhancing in French. The Monroe, James syntactic fluency FrenchReview48:1023-31. W. 1966. Reviewof Grammatical structures written at three Ney,James gradeslevels 16:230-5. (Hunt, K. W.). Language Learning of someindicesof syntactic Research O'Donnell,Roy C. 1976. A critique maturity. in the Teaching of English10:31-8. and W. J. Griffin. 1967. Syntax and elementary of kindergarten , R. C. Norris school children: A transformational analysis. ResearchReportNo. 8. Urbana, Illinois:NationalCouncilofTeachersof English. of black and white fourth Pope, Mike. 1971. Syntactic maturity graders'speech. Research in the Teachingof English5:202-18.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

60

TESOL Quarterly search in the Teaching ? of English8:219-27.

1974. The syntaxof fourthgraders' narrative and explanatoryspeech. Re-

San Jose, Christine. 1972. Grammaticalstructures in four modes of writingat fourthSyracuse University. grade level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Schumann, John. 1976. Second language acquisition research: Getting a more global look at the learner. Language Learning (Special Issue No. 4: Papers in Second Language Acquisition), 15-28. Scott, M., and G. R. Tucker. 1974. Error analysis and English-languagestrategiesof Steyaert,Marcia. 1977. A comparisonof the speech of ESL teachers to native speakers and non-nativelearners of English. Paper read at the Winter Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, Illinois. Street,John H. 1971. Readability of UCLA materialsused by foreignstudents. Unof California,Los Angeles. published M.A. thesis, University Vann, Roberta J. 1978. A study of the oral and written English of adult Arabic Indiana University. speakers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, APPENDIX ALTERNATIVE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. T-Units w/T c/T 1.00 1.33 1.33 2.00 3.00 w/c 6.25 6.00 6.50 6.25 8.00

24:69-97. Arabstudents. LanguageLearning

4 I've knownthis woman for a long time.We can 6.25 of that. She'll get rely on her. I am confident the job done. This womanwill get the job done. I've knownher 3 8.00 fora long time,so I am confident we can rely on her. This man-and I've knownhim for a long time, 3 8.67 so I'm confident that we can rely on himwill get the job done. This man will get the job done. I am confident 2 12.50 that we can rely on him, because I've known him fora long time. This woman,whom I've knownfor a long time 1 24.00 and whom I feel confident we can relyupon, will get the job done. w/T = mean numberof wordsper T-unit c/T - ratio of total clauses to main clauses = mean numberof wordsper clause Nw/c

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:49:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions