Finnish students’ omission of the English expletive it and there subjects

There were, altogether, 93 omissions of the expletive subjects in the corpus (9.6 instances / 10,000 words); 31 of these were concerned with it in extraposition constructions and 62 involved there in existential constructions. Together, the omission of these expletive subjects constituted 13.9 % of all syntactic transfer observed in the corpus.

The students’ omission of the expletive it of extraposition constructions seemed primarily to have two sources: the transfer of Finnish clause patterns which involved either the Finnish genitive subject (n = 6) or the clausal subject (n = 24). One instance was also detected where the Finnish clause pattern being transferred was a copular SVX clause denoting time. The omission of the expletive there, on the other hand, seemed to reflect three different non-canonical clause types in Finnish: the existential sentence (n = 47), the manifestation sentence (n = 5) and the quantifier clause (n = 10). Table 6.4 below shows the distribution of these features.

Table 6.4. The extraposition and existential constructions

1990 2000 2005 Total

The extraposition construction

93 (100 %)

The genitive subject 3 2 1 6

(6.45 %)

The clausal subject 5 9 10 24

(25.8 %) Copula clause denoting

time

- - 1 1

(1.08 %) The existential construction

Existential sentence 16 9 22 47

(50.54 %)

Manifestation sentence 2 1 2 5

(5.38 %)

Quantifier clause 6 2 2 10

(10.75 %)

Out of the 31 instances involving the omission of the expletive it, 6 reflected Finnish clauses with a genitive subject. These are illustrated in the following.

(6.25) a. After many years I have possible to learn what I want (pro it is possible for me, cf. Fi. minun on mahdollista ‘I-GEN be-3SG possible-ELA’) (G, 1990, 6)

b. People who need support and love would be better find a life-long partner (pro it would be better for people who need support and love to find a life-long partner, cf. Fi. ihmisten jotka tarvitsevat tukea ja rakkautta olisi parempi löytää elinikäinen kumppani ‘people-GEN who need-3PL support-PAR and love-PAR be-CON better find life-long partner’) (G, 2000, 4)

As discussed in the previous section, the genitive subject is sometimes used in necessive constructions, such as the ones the students had transferred in (6.25) above. They follow the formula ‘genitive subject + verb + complement’. The above examples directly reflect this constituent order. The expletive it has been omitted, as has the ‘for + NP’ complement (e.g., for me, for people), which semantically corresponds to the genitive subject of the Finnish clauses. It seems that in the interlanguage grammar of these students, the initial nominative NP (I, people) is intended as the subject of the clause, which renders both the expletive it subject and the ‘for + NP’ complement unnecessary.

The omission of the expletive it more often resulted from the transfer of Finnish sentence patterns with a clausal subject (n = 24). As described in the preceding section, in Finnish, a subject can have the form of a clause, and this is often placed in sentence-final position. As Finnish tolerates late subject placement, there is no syntactic need for expletive pronoun constructions, such as those in English. This explains why Finnish learners of English perceive the English expletive subject as redundant and often omit it.

The examples found in the corpus represented two different types of clausal subjects:

whole clauses and infinitive constructions. The following examples (6.26) reflect Finnish sentences with a whole clause as a subject. In (a – b) we have a clause beginning with the conjunction if, and (c – d) illustrate a that –clause as a subject.

(6.26) a. In our culture is unusual if some twenty years old women is married (pro it is unusual, cf. Fi. on epätavallista ‘be-3SG unusual-ELA’) (G, 2000, 4)

b. Here in Finland in some programme has been discussed if the grade of PE is really needed (pro it has been discussed, cf. Fi. on keskusteltu ‘be-3SG discuss-PAS-PST’) (G, 2005, 3)

c. I think that is possible that next war is war of the water or food (pro it is possible, cf. Fi. on mahdollista ‘be-3SG possible-ELA) (B, 2000, 6)

d. Already then could be seen that man was able to make and break (pro it could be seen, cf. Fi. voitiin nähdä ‘can-COND-PAS-PST see-INF’) (B, 1990, 4)

An infinitive construction can also function as a clausal subject. The following examples display how the students had used the structure ‘verb + to-infinitive’ in English without the expletive it subject:

(6.27) a. Nowdays every person telling mi how important is to get good education and good grades (pro how important it is, cf. Fi. kuinka tärkeää on.. ‘how important-PAR be-3SG’) (B, 2000, 5)

b. Nowadays are only a few place where is possible to swim (pro it is possible, cf. Fi. on mahdollista ‘be-3SG possible-ELA’) (G, 1990, 6)

c. These kind of things is hard to believe the main problem in economic of the world (pro it is hard to believe that these kinds of things are the main problem<

cf. Fi. tällaisia asioita on vaikea uskoa suurimmaksi ongelmaksi< ‘this kind-PL-PAR thing-PL-kind-PL-PAR be-3SG hard believe-INF main-TRANS problem-TRANS’) (B, 2005, 5)

As can be seen in the examples (6.26) and (6.27) above, the omission of the expletive it in connection with clausal subjects only occurred when the initial position in the sentence was already occupied by another element: in (6.26 a, b, d) and (6.27 b) we have an adverbial, in (6.26 c) a main clause, and in (6.27 c) an object has been moved to initial position for focusing reasons. In Finnish, sentences with a clausal subject can have the verb as an initial element, such as in oli mukavaa, että tulitte ’was nice that come-2PL-PST’

(It was nice that you came) (see examples 6.16 in section 6.2.1). However, the students investigated here had not produced such verb-initial structures in English. This could mean that they master the usage of the expletive it better in contexts where it occurs sentence-initially than in contexts where it is preceded by another element (e.g., adverbial).

There was also one instance which involved the transfer of a Finnish copular SVX clause denoting time. While English uses the dummy it in expressions of time, Finnish uses the basic SVX clause with the copula olla ‘to be’, as in kello on neljä (clock is four, ‘it is four o’clock’). The following example is a direct rendering of this expression:

(6.28) It isn't work, where you can go back to home when clock is four (pro it is four o’clock, cf. Fi. kello on neljä ‘clock is four’) (B, 2005, 3)

This example is particularly interesting because expressions for time, as in It is four o’clock, are included in the first-year English curriculum in Finnish elementary school. By the last year of Upper Secondary School, after ten years of English instruction, this structure should be deeply ingrained in the students’ memory. Examples such as these indicate how difficult it is for learners whose L1 does not have expletive subjects to internalise L2 expletive subject constructions.

The omission of the expletive subject was even more frequent in connection with the existential construction (n = 62). These deviant patterns reflected three different non-canonical clause types in Finnish: the existential sentence, the manifestation sentence and the quantifier clause. The great majority of these involved the existential sentence (n = 47).

The transfer of this clause type resulted in very distinctive, deviant word order patterns in the corpus. As described in the preceding section, the Finnish existential sentence begins with an introductory adverbial which is followed by a verb and the subject is placed sentence-finally. The examples in (6.29 a – f) below directly reflect this constituent order.

(6.29) a. Almost every home is pet (pro there is a pet in almost every home, cf. Fi.

melkein joka kodissa on lemmikki ‘almost every home-INE is pet’) (G, 1990, 6)

b. In the world are too much wars (pro there are too much wars in the world, cf.

Fi. maailmassa on liian paljon sotia ‘world-INE be-3SG too much war-PL-PAR’) (B, 2000, 4)

c. In Finland are too lazy and fat teenagers (pro there are too lazy and fat teenagers in Finland, cf. Fi. Suomessa on liian laiskoja ja lihavia teini-ikäisiä

‘Finland-INE is too lazy-PL-PAR and fat-PL-PAR teenager-PL-PAR’) (B, 2005, 5)

d. In my neightbour life a one old man (pro there lives an old man next door, cf.

Fi. naapurissani asuu yksi vanha mies ‘next door-INE-1SG live-3SG one old man’) (G, 1990, 6)

e. In big cities have several factories, which produce us many luxuries (pro in big cities there are several factories.., cf. Fi. suurissa kaupungeissa on useita tehtaita ‘big-PL-INE city-PL-INE is several-PL-PAR factory-PL-PAR’) (G, 1990, 2)

f. But always is somebody who isn’t agree (pro there is always somebody<, cf.

Fi. aina on joku< ‘always be-3SG somebody’) (G, 1990, 6)

These clause patterns formed a very homogenous category. The initial element was nearly always an adverbial of place, as in (6.29 a – e) above, but an adverbial of time also sometimes occurred in this position (6.29 f). The verb element was mostly realised by to be (Fi. olla), which is the most typical verb in existential sentences both in Finnish and in English, but in a couple of occasions the verb was live (as in 6.29 d) or happen. As example (6.29 e) demonstrates, the students had sometimes used the verb have instead of be. As discussed in connection with the patterns of lexical transfer observed in the corpus (section 5.2.3), confusion between be and have is common for Finnish learners of English because Finnish only has one translation equivalent, olla, for these two verbs.

There were 5 instances in the corpus in which the deviant existential sentences reflected the Finnish manifestation sentence, which, as discussed in the preceding section, is a subtype of the existential sentence. The difference between these two clause types is that the manifestation sentence does not contain an initial adverbial element, as we saw in example (6.20): On toinenkin vaihtoehto (is another-CL alternative, ‘There is also another alternative’). Although the manifestation sentence is verb-initial, the students had never produced verb-initial constructions in the corpus. The syntactic patterns reflecting the manifestation sentence only occurred within sentences where the initial position was already occupied by another element. This can be seen in examples (6.30 a – b) below. In (6.30 a), the VS order is preceded by the conjunction but, and in (6.30 b) by the conjunction if and the subject horses, which has been moved to sentence-initial position for contextual and focusing reasons.

(6.30) a. But are people, who don’t care nothing about animals (pro there are people<cf. Fi. on ihmisiä< ‘be-3SG people-PAR’) (G, 1990, 6)

b. If horses hadn’t farmworks would be very hard for people (pro if there weren’t any horses, cf. Fi. jos hevosia ei olisi… ‘if horse-PL-PAR not be-CON-3PL’) (G, 1990, 5)

The third non-canonical clause type which was found to be the cause for the students’

omission of the expletive there was the quantifier clause (n = 10). The instances found in the corpus all represented the ordering pattern ‘subject + verb + expression of quantity’.

These are illustrated in the following.

(6.31) a. Pets are various animal species (pro there are various species of pets, cf. Fi.

lemmikkejä on useita eläinlajeja ‘pet-PAR-PL be-3SG various-PAR-PL animal species-PAR-PL’) (B, 1990, 5)

b. The reasons why people want to buy pets are many (pro there are many reasons for why people want to buy pets, cf. Fi. syitä miksi ihmiset haluavat ostaa lemmikkejä on monia ‘reason-PAR-PL why people want-3PL buy pet-PAR-PL be-3SG many-PAR-pet-PAR-PL’) (B, 1990, 6)

c. But in these days that kind of people are only a few (pro but these days there are only a few people of that kind, cf. Fi. mutta nykyisin sellaisia ihmisiä on vain vähän ’but these days that kind-PAR-PL people-PAR be-3SG only a few’) (G, 1990, 5)

The subject element in Finnish quantifier clauses is realised by a partitive inflected NP (e.g., lemmikkejä ‘pet-PL-PAR’, syitä ‘reason-PL-PAR’, ihmisiä ‘people-PAR’). Since the partitive case has no counterpart in English, the students had used a nominative NP instead. As discussed in the preceding section, the Finnish existential sentence and the quantifier clause are, in some contexts, very similar. As we saw in examples (6.21 c – d), some existential sentences, as in Siellä oli paljon väkeä (there was a lot of people-PAR,

‘There were a lot of people’) may be transformed into a quantifier clause if the subject is topicalised and moved to sentence-initial position, as in Väkeä oli paljon (people-PAR was a lot, ‘There were a lot of people’) (see Hakulinen et al. 2005: 859). Hence, the above examples can also be interpreted as existential sentences in which the sentence-final subject element has been moved to sentence-initial position for contextual reasons.

As the examples presented above show, even Finnish students who are at more advanced levels of learning sometimes tend to omit the existential there in English sentences. From a pedagogical perspective, it is useful to consider possible reasons that make this structure so difficult for them to learn. The semantic correspondence between Finnish and English existential sentences is relatively close and Finnish uses the existential sentence in much the same contexts as English does. Moreover, the existential sentence, in the form of ‚there is/are –construction‛, is introduced at the very initial stages

of the English language teaching syllabus in Finland. The students investigated in this study, having studied English as their first foreign language, were taught this construction in the fourth grade of elementary school, which is the second year of their English studies. This means that they would have been exposed to this construction for the past 9 years. According to my teaching experience, Finnish students do learn fast how to use this construction and they can produce it correctly when they are reminded to do so. The problem is that they seem to forget it when they are producing their own text.

The reason for this behaviour may be the following. The Finnish existential sentence is not as salient as the English one; there is no clear indicator like the expletive there –subject and, since its basic ordering pattern can be altered as well, the only way to reliably distinguish a Finnish e-sentence from other clause types is by interpreting its meaning.

The fact that the Finnish e-sentence is such a fuzzy and variant category makes one speculate if Finns even always recognise an existential sentence in Finnish and, consequently, manage to successfully make interlingual identifications between the Finnish existential sentence and the English existential construction.

The omission of anaphoric it and existential there was also observed by Lauttamus et al. (2007) in the English of Finnish Australians. They found patterns such as summer time when is a people (pro when there are people), which they interpreted as Finnish substratum influence (Lauttamus et al. 2007: 295). The omission of the expletive it and there is a feature that also occurs in the English production of other learner groups. This has been found to be common for learners whose L1 has a pragmatic word order as opposed to grammatical word order. Rutherford (1989) discovered that VS order, including the omission of expletive subjects, was common for L1 Spanish and L1 Arabic (both with a pragmatic word order) learners of English. Examples (6.32 a – b) from the Spanish-speakers’ data from Rutherford (1989: 178-179) illustrate this. As we can see, these examples are very similar to the ones discovered in my corpus; these learners have omitted the expletive it (as in b) or there (as in a), and produced a VS order preceded by a sentence-initial adverbial element.

(6.32) a. <but now are a many telephones in each department<

b. In my country is very easy to choose a husband or wife because the fathers of the man or woman not participate in this choose

(Rutherford 1989: 178-179)

The omission of expletive subjects in L2 English has also been investigated by a number of other researchers (e.g., Phinney 1987, White 1986, Oshita 2004) within the Universal Grammar framework under the ‘pro-drop parameter’ (i.e., a number of related features which include, e.g., the absence of pronominal subjects and SV inversion). A general conclusion of these studies is that speakers of pro-drop languages (i.e., languages that allow the omission of pronouns, such as Spanish or partially Finnish) tend to omit these in non-pro-drop L2 (e.g., English). To my knowledge, Finnish ESL learners’ omission of expletive pronouns has not been investigated within the UG framework. This might be a

fruitful area of future investigation, which could deepen our understanding of the depth and scope of this feature of syntactic transfer.

In document Language Transfer in the Written English of Finnish Students (sivua 151-157)