AnnaLi’s rule for “了(LE)”

1.

1	A	有一天，嗯(…)妈妈发现了(c)有一个人吃(b)她的蛋糕，她问她的女儿(…)
2		嗯，是女儿做的，女儿吃(b)她的蛋糕吗？女儿说是猫吃的，(…)她不吃
3		了(c)，可是她的脸上有蛋糕的东西，(…)所以可能是女儿吃的。
4	I	嗯(…)可以，你可以自己
5	A	好，她的妈妈知道是女儿吃的，所以她告诉女儿，她应该待在，嗯，家
6		里，(…)她不会去她(…)嗯，她的朋友家，不会去玩儿，嗯，然后她妈
7		妈去买别的蛋糕(…)嗯，然后猫也出去(b)，猫，嗯，去别的地方，去隔壁
8		的家，用窗户(laugh)。好。(…)那个女孩子很生气，她想跟她的朋友玩
9		儿，可是她没有办法去她们的家，(…)然后她看到她的猫，她的猫去(b)
10		(…)女儿的朋友的家，所以她也要用猫的办，办法，去隔壁的家。嗯
11		(…)也有一个女，女人，在一个楼上，下，在下楼(laugh)，嗯，给花
12		水，(…)所以女孩子出窗户，(laugh)嗯，然后因为她们住在十素，四
13		楼，嗯，让那个女孩很怕，她，嗯(…)对，(laugh)下楼的人告诉女儿别
14		动，因为很不安全，她的朋友也很紧张。嗯，一个男人给警察打电话，
15		希望警察来帮那个女孩。(…)警察来了(a)，嗯(…)一个警察抱别的警察，
16		嗯，因为，嗯，很不安全，嗯，然后别的警察，嗯，试试(…)嗯，帮女
17		人，那个女孩子，可是女孩子不告诉他们，嗯, 不，不认识他们，所以
18		很紧张，很不好意思，不愿意跟他们去。(…)后来，她的妈妈回来了(a)。
19		发生了(a)什么，发生了(a) (…)嗯(…)女人，女孩子在哭了(c)，可是没有问题，
20		都好了(a) (laugh)
21	I	好的，讲完了吗？
22	A	讲完了(a)。

2. An utterance containing “了(LE)”  may have multiple interpretations, given that the speaker’s intended meaning is unknown. The table below necessarily shows only the researcher’s interpretation; your interpretation may differ. We categorized the occurrence and absence of “了(LE)” in AnnaLi’s Retell task into the three types mentioned in 1) and demonstrated in the table below.

Case a Correct suppliance	Case b Under-suppliance	Case c Over-suppliance
来了(L15) 回来了(L18) 发生了(L19) 都好了(L20) 讲完了(L22)	吃（了）(L1) 出去（了）(L7) 去（了）(L9)	发现了(L1) 不吃了(L2-3) 在哭了(L19)

In general, AnnaLi’s  use of  “了(LE)” is variable; she correctly supplies it in some cases (e.g. in line 15 and 19) and under- or over-supplies it in others (e.g. in line 1, 7, and 9). Variability in AnnaLi’s use of “了(LE)” may be due to the fact that her linguistic “rules” for “了(LE)”  are still in the process of evolving; it is difficult with so few examples to come up with definitive interlanguage ‘rules’ in the way a researcher could, particularly when those rules are likely to be variable.

But we do see some interesting patterns in the table above that a teacher could follow up on in the classroom. For example, it appears that when AnnaLi correctly uses “了(LE)” it is in combination with resultative compounds such as “回来了(come back LE)” , “讲完了(tell finish LE)”, and change of state, such as “都好了(All good LE)”. She may also tend to oversupply “了(LE)” in negation, as in “不吃了(not eat LE)”, or progressives, as in “在哭了(ZAI cry LE)”.  A teacher could watch for these possible patterns in AnnaLi’s future samples of unplanned speech.

Of course it is possible that some correct uses of “了(LE)” occur because AnnaLi has memorized chunks, such as “都好了(All good LE)”, “讲完了(tell finish LE),” which are common classroom expressions. In other cases, resultative compounds such as “回来了(come back LE)” , “讲完了(tell finish LE)” may serve as cues for AnnaLi that trigger “了(LE)” marking. In general, AnnaLi’s over- and under-generalization of  “了(LE)” could be the result of transfer of past tense marking from English, where “了(LE)”  is interlingually identified with “-ED”, and where tense and aspect are conflated in the mind of the learner. As a perfective aspect , the Chinese “了(LE)” marker overlaps or co-occurs with English past tense in many cases, and previous studies have found that English speaking learners often associate “了(LE)” with past tense (Duff & Li, 2002).

3. AnnaLi’s variable use of “了(LE)” leads us to think explicit instructions on multiple uses of “了(LE)” and alerting her to the differences between Chinese and English could be effective teaching strategies. Also, because “了(LE)” in Chinese is highly dependent on discourse context and speakers’ perception or construal of event, contextualized instruction is important for the successful acquisition of “了(LE)”.