What is the Role of Transfer in Interlanguage?

Sources:
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile33powell.pdf

1

In this paper I intend to consider the following question: to what extent is
transfer responsible for the form and function of a person’s interlanguage? In
order to answer this question, it will be necessary to examine what is meant
by a number of commonly used terms such as transfer, interlanguage and
interference. It will also be of use to review the history of interlanguage as a
concept in order to understand where it came from and where it may be
going.
There has been debate as to whether ‘transfer’ is a valid concept for use in
discussing language acquisition at all. Extremes range from Lado (1957) who
proposed that second language learners rely almost entirely on their native
language in the process of learning the target language, to Dulay and Burt
(1974) who suggested that transfer was largely unimportant in the creation of
interlanguage. It may be useful to briefly consider the historical context of the
development of interlanguage.
Contrastive Analysis
Lado (1957) and Fries (1945) are the names most closely associated with the
CAi hypothesis. In a specific attempt to rationalise and order language
teaching materials, Fries wrote:
The most effective materials are those that are based upon a scientific
description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a
parallel description of the native language of the learner. (1945: 9)
The basic concept behind CA was that a structural ‘picture’ of any one
language could be constructed which might then be used in direct comparison
with the structural ‘picture’ of another language. Through a process of
‘mapping’ one system onto another, similarities and differences could be
i For Abbreviations please see Appendix 1
2
identified. Identifying the differences would lead to a better understanding of
the potential problems that a learner of the particular L2 would face.
Structurally different areas of the two languages involved would result in
interference. This term was used to describe any influence from the L1 which
would have an effect on the acquisition of the L2. This was the origin of the
term transfer, and a distinction was made between positive and negative
transfer. Positive transfer occurred where there was concordance between
the L1 and L2. In such a situation, acquisition would take place with little or
no difficulty. Negative transfer, on the other hand, occurred where there was
some sort of dissonance between the L1 and L2. In this case, acquisition of
the L2 would be more difficult and take longer because of the ‘newness’
(hence, difficulty) of the L2 structure.
These two concepts of transfer were central to CA and reflected an
essentially behaviourist model of language learning, which described the
acquisition of language in terms of habit formation. Reflecting Skinner’s
interpretation of laboratory experiments on rats (1957), where positive and
negative stimuli induced certain ‘learned’ behaviours, language acquisition
(certainly FLA) was described in the same way. The broad acceptance that
these views had in the 50s and 60s encouraged the Audiolingual Method of
teaching which focused on extensive drilling in order to form the required
‘habits’. Error was seen as an unwanted deviation from the norm and an
imperfect product of perfect input.
Challenging Skinner’s model of behaviourist learning, Chomsky (1959)
proposed a more cognitive approach to language learning which involved the
use of a LAD. This device, he argued, was reserved exclusively for
processing and producing language, and was separate from other cognitive
processes. Moreover, Chomsky posited that there are ‘language universals’
which all babies have access to and which are essentially innate in humans.
This idea of ‘innateness’ was particularly interesting and brought into question
the practices of Audiolingualism. Language, it was argued, was not simply a
matter of habit formation, but rather had its own natural agenda and its own
developmental course. Certain aspects of vocabulary learning may
3
follow behaviourist principles, but an important piece of counter-behaviourist
evidence is that children say things they could not possibly have heard from
those around them such as “runned” and “falled”. Chomsky argued that
children were perceiving regularities and forming rules for how the language
works rather than simply imitating other people. Importantly, language was
said to be rule-governed, structure-dependent and fundamentally generative.
Working with phonological and phonetic data in the early 1960s, Nemser
(1971) began talking about ‘deviant’ learner language. Many of his ideas
differed from essential concepts of IL. There were, however, certain points of
concordance. He wrote, for example:
Learner speech at a given time is the patterned product of a linguistic
system..distinct from [NL] and [TL] and internally structured (my emphasis)
(Nemser 1971: 116)
Nemser also identified the IL equivalent of fossilisation as a system of
“permanent intermediate systems and subsystems” (1971: 118). In his study
of the production and perception of interdental fricatives and stops (1971),
Nemser pointed out that productive and perceptive mechanisms were not
isomorphic, and that this was not taken fully into account in either CA or SLA.
He argued that in creating IL, learners sometimes made the L1 or L2
categories equivalent and sometimes they did not. Blends could also be
expected but not only from L1 and L2 material. Nemser provided evidence
for at least partial autonomy of an IL system: “The test data contain
numerous examples of elements which do not have their origin in either
phonemic system”. (Nemser, 1971: 134)
Brière (1968) and Selinker (1966) also provided results which supported
Nemser’s basic idea that language transfer does occur, but not in an ‘all or
nothing’ style, typical of the CA hypothesis.
The Birth of Interlanguage
Although Selinker (1972) coined the term “interlanguage”, it was Corder
(1967) who is considered responsible for raising issues which became central
to studies of IL. Building on ideas already explored by scholars such as
4
Nemser (ibid.) above, Corder suggested that there was structure in learner
language, and that certain inferences could be made about the learning
process by describing successive states of the learner language, noting the
changes and correlating this with the input. Moreover, Corder argued that the
appearance of error in a learner’s production was evidence that the learner
was organising the knowledge available to them at a particular point in time.
Errors, he stated, were the most important source of information, accounting
for the fact that learners have a ‘built in syllabus’ and that a process of
hypothesis formulation and reformulation was continuously occurring.
The value of error-making in language learning was consequently reassessed,
with a move away from seeing error as a purely negative phenomenon. Error
analysis became a valuable tool in the classroom for teachers and
researchers. Various taxonomies were devised to account for certain types of
error (e.g. Dulay and Burt 1974). It was suggested that spoken and written
texts produced different kinds of errors, that there were differences between
grammatical and lexical errors, that it was possible to construct a gradation of
serious and less serious errors.
In short, language learning began to be seen as a process which involved the
construction of an IL, a ‘transitional competence’ reflecting the dynamic nature
of the learner’s developing system. As a result of the variety of errors and the
difficulty associated with interpreting them, Corder proposed a ‘general law’
for EA and IL. He suggested that every learner sentence should be regarded
as idiosyncratic until shown to be otherwise (Corder, 1981). This is an
important concept to bear in mind since it emphasises the fact that IL is a
personal construct and process, and that while it may be true to say that
certain tendencies are typical of certain learners from the same linguistic
background, it cannot be true to say that all learners from that background will
have such tendencies. As Kohn (1986) notes:
for the analysis of (inter)language processes, group knowledge is of
absolutely no importance. It is the learner’s own autonomous and
functional knowledge and his own certainty or uncertainty which
determines his interlanguage behaviour. (1986:23)
5
Evaluating Acquisition
It is perhaps useful at this point to briefly focus on language learning and
consider the difficulties of defining terms such as ‘acquisition’. Sharwood
Smith (1986) claims that if a language item is used spontaneously by the
learner in ‘90% of obligatory contexts’, then it can be said to be acquired. But
what does this mean? If a learner’s production closely reflects L2 norms of
speaking, can it be assumed that the learner’s competence is also at a similar
level? Clark (1974) warns about the dangers of ‘performing without
competence’ where a student uses correct chunks of the language without
analysis, giving the impression that the norm has been attained. Conversely,
Sharwood Smith points out that it is equally possible that a learner may have
100% competence but 90% performance - ‘competence without performance’.
For example, a rule may be ‘acquired’ (competence) without showing itself
due to semantic redundancy or as a result of processing problems. A learner
may be able to hear the sound ÿØÿ very clearly and know that it is the correct
phonological representation of “th” in the word “think”, but nevertheless
produces the sound /ÿ/ instead. This clearly rejects the simplistic notion that
performance reflects competence. The relationship between performance
and competence is a complex one that is not fully understood, but I think it is
necessary to make the point that in trying to identify transfer in IL, there is a
danger of relying too closely on a product level analysis of data.
Natural Languages
In helping to define IL, it seems necessary to consider what is meant by
‘natural language’. Adjemian (1976) suggests it is:
any human language shared by a community of speakers and
developed over time by a general process of evolution
(1976: 298)
Arguing from the perspective of FLA, Wode (1984) links the idea of a natural
language with cognitive abilities. If general cognition determines structures of
learner language, then why, he asks, do children and adults produce similar
developmental structures? If cognitive deficits are used to explain children’s
language, then this is not applicable to adult language. While adults have a
6
developed and clear concept of negation, there is considerable evidence that
both adults and FLLs produce the same negative developmental structures
when learning English (Dulay and Burt 1974). Therefore, Wode argues, the
capacity to learn a ‘natural language’ is different from the ability to cognize
one’s environment. A Chomsky-like special type of cognition is implied, or as
Wode refers to it, a ‘linguo-cognition’ (Wode, 1981). It is these systems which
constrain and design the boundaries of ‘natural’ languages. Extending the
argument further, Bialystok (1984) specifically suggests that IL has many
properties of a ‘natural’ language because it is generated by the same
cognitive processes as those responsible for L1 acquisition.
A further characteristic of a ‘natural’ language is that it is adaptable to change.
This, Wode argues, is what makes it so useful as a means of communication.
There is a need for flexibility and a need to be able to transfer information
from one language into another:
Consequently, any linguistic theory that does not adequately provide for
transfer cannot possibly qualify as an adequate description of a language
or as a theoretical framework for describing natural languages. (1984:
182).
Universal Grammar in Interlanguage
In considering universals, there are perhaps two approaches worth
mentioning:
1. The Chomskyan approach
2. The Greenbergian approach
The Chomskyan approach would employ the notion of UG which could define
the classes of all possible human languages. Universal properties would be
argued to be innate which means, for example, that children can construct
grammars very quickly. A Greenbergian approach (1966), on the other hand,
would “search for regularities in the ways that languages vary, and on the
constraints and principles that underlie this variation” (Hawkins, 1983: 6).
Data showing surface feature language would need to be collected, and a
wide range of languages would need to be considered. Consequently, for
example, SOV languages are generally seen to have preposed rather than
7
postposed adjectives.
Selinker (1972) claims that ILs are systematic in the sense of a ‘natural
language’ and that ILs will not violate language universals. But what exactly is
meant be a ‘language universal’? What is the source of a universal, and do
all universals affect IL? Gass (1984) suggests five sources of a universal:
1. Physical basis (e.g. the physical shape of the vocal cords)
2. Human perception and processing devices
3. A LAD
4. Historical change
5. Interaction
These are the most common explanations given to the rationale behind
universals. Gass and Ard (1980) propose that universals stemming from
language/historical change are least likely to influence IL, whereas physical,
processing and cognitive universals are the most likely to have an effect on a
person’s IL.
Supporting a UG hypothesis in IL, Gass (1984) points to the hierarchy of
structures in a language, for example the hierarchy of relative clause types
which a language can relativise (Keenan and Comrie, 1977). Higher
hierarchical positions are easier to relativise than lower ones (Tarallo and
Myhill, 1983). Further evidence is provided by Kumpf (1982) in a study of
untutored learners whose tense and aspect systems did not correspond to the
L1 or L2. It was argued that the learners created unique form, meaning and
function relationships which corresponded to universal principles of natural
languages.
While there seems to be a certain amount of evidence that ILs are consistent
in that they do not violate constraints of UG, the question still remains as to
what in fact they are or more precisely, what they are constructed from. As
noted here by Kumpf (ibid.) and elsewhere by Corder (1967), IL is not a
hybrid of the L1 and L2 although certain elements of one or the other or
indeed both may be present. Much research suggests that transfer is an
important element in the construction of an IL although this assertion raises
8
several questions, namely: What is, or is not transferable between
languages, and why should this be so?
Transfer
Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) suggest that there are two possible ways of
describing the term ‘interference’. One is from a psychological perspective,
which suggests that there is influence from old habits when new ones are
being learned. The second is from a sociolinguistic perspective which
describes the language interactions which occur when two language
communities are in contact. Three such examples are borrowing, codeswitching
and fossilisation.
Borrowing essentially means the incorporation of linguistic material from one
language into another, for example, the borrowing of thousands of words from
old French into Anglo-Saxon after the Norman conquest of 1066. Such words
maintain their general sound pattern but alter the phonetic and phonological
system of the new language. ‘Integrated borrowing’, according to Dulay and
Burt (1974b), occurs when the new word in question is fully incorporated into
the learner’s IL. Selinker (1992) argues that this is in fact transfer.
‘Communicative borrowing’ on the other hand, reflects a communicative
strategy which helps to get over the deficiencies of the L2. The learner falls
back on structures or patterns from the L1 in order to get a message across.
Selinker (1992) notes that if communication is successful, then transfer will (or
may) happen. The danger is that successful communication does not depend
entirely on formal correction. Persistent errors (e.g. wrongly incorporated
errors, covert errors) could lead to fossilisation where a learner, uncorrected
for the reasons mentioned above, but still able to successfully get their
message understood, has no sociofunctional need to alter their IL and so it
fossilises in that state.
Code switching describes the use of two language systems for
communication, usually evidenced by a sudden, brief shift from one to
another. This phenomenon is not an indication of a lack of competence, but
rather tends to obey strict structural rules. Certain structural combinations, for
example, are not possible, e.g. switching before relative clause
9
boundaries or before adverbial clauses is ‘illegal’.
A more behaviourist interpretation of interference was mentioned earlier; two
types were suggested:
1. Positive transfer
2. Negative transfer
Both of these types refer to the automatic and subconscious use of old
behaviour in new learning situations. Specifically, semantic and syntactic
transfer of this nature reflects the most commonly understood uses of the
term.
Corder (1983) suggested the need for a word other than ‘transfer’ which he
claimed belonged to the school of behaviourist learning theory. He suggested
the term ‘Mother Tongue Influence’. Sharwood Smith (1986) refined the idea
still further by suggesting ‘Cross Linguistic Influence’, which would take into
account the potential influence of L3 on L2 where another learned language,
but not the L1 might have an effect on the learning of the L2. Also
encompassed within the meaning of CLI is the notion of possible L2 influence
on L1.
‘Transfer’ is also used by educational psychologists to refer to the use of past
knowledge and experience in a new situation, e.g. a literate SLL does not
have to learn that written symbols represent the spoken form of the new
language. Similarly, concepts such as deixis are already acquired when a
learner comes to learn a second language.
For many people, the proof of the pudding is seen in transfer errors which
reflect the equivalent structures of the L1. Thus, for example, if a Japanese
learner consistently omitted the indefinite articles of a sentence, then negative
transfer could be claimed. Conversely, if a French learner regularly included
the correct definite or indefinite articles in a sentence, then positive transfer
could be cited. The ‘proof’ would be in the fact that in Japanese the article
system does not exist, while French has a similar article system to English.
Generally speaking, in terms of article use, Japanese and French learners of
English do tend to follow the pattern suggested above. Is the case therefore
10
closed? Certain evidence suggests that the situation is somewhat more
complex.
Felix (1980) describes an English boy learning German who used the word
“warum” to mean both “why” and “because”. Felix points out that in, say,
Spanish or Greek, this one equivalent word does carry these two meanings.
So had the boy been Spanish, his error would almost certainly have been
identified as interference. Errors, Felix suggests, will always correspond to
structures in some language.
Butterworth (1978) noticed that Ricardo, a 13 year old Spanish boy learning
English, often used subjectless sentences. He therefore attributed this to
interference since it is perfectly acceptable to omit the subject in Spanish.
Felix, however, points out that it is also common in FLA to miss out the
subject of a sentence. Dulay and Burt (1974), after studying 513 errors
produced by Spanish children learning English, concluded that overall, less
than 5% of the total errors were exclusively attributable to interference. Felix
(1980) is clear that in certain circumstances interference does occur.
Nevertheless he concludes:
our data on L2 acquisition of syntactic structures in a natural environment
suggest that interference does not constitute a major strategy in this area.
(1980: 107).
There is also the perhaps surprising phenomenon of a lack of positive transfer
where learners make mistakes that they should not have made given the
similarity of their L1 background to the L2 in question (Richards, 1971).
LoCoco (1975) in a study of learner error suggested that 5% to 18% of the
errors observed should not have been made if positive transfer was in fact at
work in the learner’s IL. Coulter (1968) noted how CA predictions were
specifically falsified in an experiment on Russian learners of English. In
Russian, there are five forms of the plural which contrast clearly with singular
items in the language. Interference theory would suggest therefore that there
would be no difficulty in acquiring the s-morpheme of English plurals. If
anything there would be a positive transfer of complexity to simplicity since
English has just the one plural form. Extended observation of the Russian
11
subjects showed that this was not the case. In tests of production they failed
to consistently produce the required plural forms.
All of this suggests that while transfer seems to be a reasonable and logical
explanation for some part of the nature and form of ILs, there are certain
reservations that should be born in mind. Only certain structures or forms
seem to be transferable from the L1 and the identification of these items is
further complicated by the variables of context and the individual in question.
A question worth asking would be: Are there specific linguistic areas where
the L1 influences the L2?
Markedness
Kean (1986), in his paper ‘Core issues in transfer’, divides language into two
areas:
1. Core
2. Periphery
Core areas of the language obey highly restricted, invariant principles of UG.
Periphery areas of the language reflect language particular phenomena - not
defining properties of the grammars of natural languages. Kean argues that if
an IL has a ‘well-formed’ grammar, then ‘core’ universals must be
components of all such ILs. If such ‘core’ universals are not present, then the
ILs in question cannot be described as ‘normal’ grammars. Therefore, for
example, one should not find structure independent rules in a language.
Kean also discusses the pro-drop parameter. In Italian, for example:
1. The subject is not required
2. There is free inversion of overt subjects in simple sentences
3. Violations of the that-trace filter are admitted
(e.g. “Who do you think that will come?”)
He points out that if only one of these is missing then all of them will be
missing from a language. The suggestion is that the learner need only notice
one of the three items listed above in order to know what kind of a language
Italian is. Therefore a pro-drop parameter can be postulated, an either/or
12
situation, where a person’s learning system acts as a ‘scanning device’ only
picking up the marked values of a language.
Mazurkewich (1984a) adopts the core/periphery distinction outlined above
where unmarked properties of language are identified with core grammar and
marked properties with the periphery. Not being concerned with parameters
as such, she argues that if a learner is acquiring a language with a marked
structure, they will go through a stage of using the unmarked equivalent
before the marked one is acquired. In other words, A strong UG hypothesis is
maintained where in L2 acquisition, UG reverts back to its preset options,
taking no account of the learner’s prior learning experience with the L1. The
prediction is that all L2 learners will show the same developmental sequence
of unmarked before marked, regardless of their L1.
This suggests a superficial resemblance to the ‘natural order hypothesis’
proposed by Krashen (1981) which tries to explain certain morpheme
acquisition sequences by claiming they are part of a natural order. The
crucial difference here is that specific predictions are made in advance of the
data, based on the identification of structures as marked or unmarked. The
subjects of Mazurkewich’s study (ibid.) were 45 French, and 38 Inuktitutspeaking
high school students. Results from the study showed that the
French speakers produced more unmarked questions than marked ones, but
that conversely, the Inuktitut speakers produced more marked questions than
unmarked. Mazurkewich argued that these results support her hypothesis
that L2 learners will learn unmarked before marked language items. White
(1989), however, disagrees, pointing out that the behaviour of the native
speakers of French is equally consistent with their carrying over the unmarked
structures from their L1. Consequently it is impossible to tell whether the L2
learners had reverted to core grammar or not. It seems that the pure UG
hypothesis claiming that there will be an acquisition sequence of unmarked
before marked cannot be maintained on the basis of Mazurkewich’s results (at
least not for SLA). In the case of the French speakers it was impossible to
identify the cause of their preference for unmarked structures. Was it due to
the influence of the L1 or to the emergence of a core grammar? The fact that
13
the Inuktitut speakers behaved differently seems to suggest that the L1 was
indeed having an influence on the French speakers.
The Influence of L1 in IL - More Studies
There appear to be a range of studies which both support and question the
influence of L1 in IL. A question that needs to be asked is: what constitutes
L1 influence? Are there features that can be observed at a competence or
production level which can categorically be said to arise from the L1? In other
words, does the appearance of L1-like features in IL represent proof of L1
influence?
Lexis:
There seems to be considerable evidence for the influence of L1 lexis on
IL/L2. Ringbom (1978), for example, studying Swedish and Finnish learners
of English, suggested that the results from his study showed clear and
unambiguous evidence of CLI.
Negation:
Hyltenstam’s study (1977) showed that learners from a variety of L1
backgrounds go through the same stages of development in the acquisition of
the negative particle in Swedish. Wode’s research (1981) was aimed at
finding a universal sequence, true in essentials of all learners of all languages.
He suggested that learners go through five distinct stages of development:
1. Anaphoric sentence external: “No”
2. Non-anaphoric sentence external: “No finish”
3. Copula ‘be’: “That’s no good”
4. Full verbs and imperatives with “don’t”: “You have a not fish” or “Don’t say
something”
5. “Do” forms: “You didn’t can throw it”
(Taken from Cook 1991: 19)
Studies suggest that learners from different L1 backgrounds do in fact follow
the developmental order suggested by Wode.
14
Word Order
Once again, there is evidence and counter evidence of transfer in studies
related to word order. Studies have focused on whether, for example, SVO
L1s carry this pattern over into the L2. Rutherford (1983) suggested that
Japanese learners did not use their L1 SOV in learning English. McNeill
(1979) in fact argues for the SOV pattern as being the basic, universal word
order in L1 acquisition.
Subject Pronoun Drop:
The role of CLI in Subject Pronoun Drop (SPD) is not clear. There seems to
be much evidence that such deletion takes place in the L2 of Romance
language speakers, but it is also argued that such deletion is not restricted to
speakers whose L1 has SPD. Meisel (1980) found that Romance speakers in
their L2 dropped pronouns more in the third than first person. This,
seemingly, cannot be explained by transfer.
Semantic Differences:
In a study of Dutch learners, Bongaerts (1983) found that few of them had
problems with the semantic distinction between:
1. “Easy to see” and
2. “Eager to see”
Bongaerts argued that this was because of a similar semantic distinction in
Dutch which facilitated positive CLI. In another study, Bongaerts found that
French, Hebrew and Arabic L1 learners had considerably greater difficulties
understanding and acquiring the same semantic distinctions.
Relative Clauses:
Schachter (1974) conducted a study involving four groups of students with
different L1 backgrounds - Arabs, Persians, Japanese and Chinese. In a
quantitative study which involved counting the number of relative clauses
produced spontaneously in a classroom situation, he found that the students
could be divided into two distinct groups. Results showed that the Arab and
Persian learners made the most mistakes when using relative
15
clauses. Significantly, however, this group of students used relative clauses
two or three times more than the Japanese and Chinese students. Schachter
suggested that right-branching relative clause structures in Arabic and
Persian, which is the same in English, were responsible for the relatively
greater use of the clauses in spontaneous speech. As for the Japanese and
Chinese students, Schachter attributes their limited use of relative structures
to avoidance strategies. This occurs where a learner, confronted by a form of
the L2 that they are unfamiliar with or they find difficult, will simply avoid using
that structure. Sometimes, this is very difficult to identify since relatively
proficient students will be able to bypass using, for example, a certain difficult
structure by using another similarly appropriate structure. Another effect of
avoidance strategy, as seen in the study mentioned above, is the possibility
that a certain structure (such as a relative clause) may hardly be used, or
used very occasionally in set phrases which the student knows to be correct.
Simply quantifying the errors made in relation to this structure will not give a
clear picture of an individual learner’s competence. This is one of the main
weaknesses of EA which can only assess what the learner chooses to show
in their production.
Kellerman (1984) reviewing several studies of the kind mentioned above,
cautiously suggests that CLI operates on the surface form of IL reflecting
such processes as transfer. He goes on to argue that CLI operates on IL at
smaller and larger levels than the sentence. Advanced learners, he claims,
are equally affected by CLI as are beginners. The only difference perhaps, is
that beginners tend to show CLI more overtly in their syntax whereas
advanced learners tend to show CLI in less obvious, more discreet ways. e.g.
through subtle semantic errors or through the use of avoidance strategies.
Conclusion
In conclusion it seems clear that there is considerable evidence to support the
role of CLI in the development of IL. Studies indicate that in certain situations
and under certain conditions, the influence of the L1 can be clearly
demonstrated. It is the nature of these situations and conditions that is not
always clear.
16
The effect of CLI on IL is not necessarily instant or predictable. This is
reflected in the development of IL which is non-linear - like a flower,
development takes place at many different points at the same time, resulting
in more of a spiral model of development.
While the predictions of a pure UG hypothesis are in doubt (at least in SLA),
several studies suggest that there are universal parameters which a natural
language will not violate.
The creation of IL can perhaps most importantly be seen as a process which
is internally consistent, has many qualities of a natural language, and which is
in direct opposition to a view of language learning as a system of habitformation.
I would suggest that three aspects of this process are continually
occurring:
1. The learner is constantly making hypotheses about the L2 input available
to them. There is much evidence to suggest that the hypotheses tested will
not contravene universal boundaries of natural language.
2. There will be a selective use of the L1 knowledge. The process of
selection, and the extent to which it is conscious or unconscious is unclear.
3. There may be influence from other ILs known to the learner.
There would seem to be a need for further investigation to determine precisely
the role of transfer in the development of IL and the acquisition of L2. In the
position we are at present, it can only be tentatively suggested that the three
aspects of the process mentioned above, must all interact in some as yet
unknown way.
Geraint Powell
17
Bibliography
Adjemian, C (1976). ‘On the nature of interlanguage systems’. Language
Learning 26. pp 297-320
Bialystok, E (1984). ‘Strategies in interlanguage learning and performance’.
In Davies, A., Criper, C., and Howatt, A.P.R. (eds)
Bongaerts, T. (1983). ‘ The comprehension of three complex structures by
Dutch learners’. Language Learning 33. pp 159-82
Brière, E.J. (1968). ‘A psycholinguistic study of phonological interference’.
Cited in Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York.
Longman.
Butterworth, G. (1978). ‘A Spanish-speaking adolescent’s acquistion of
English syntax’. Cited in Felix, S.W. (1980). Second Language
Developmental Trends and Issues. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B.F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Cited in J.A.
Fodor. and J.J.Katz. (1968). The Structure of Language. Englewood
Cliffs. Prentice Hall.
Clark, R. (1974). ‘Performing without competence’. Journal of Child
Language 1. pp 1-10
Cook, V. (1991). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching.
London. Arnold.
Corder, S.P. (1967). ‘ The significance of learners’ errors’. International
Review of Applied Linguistics 5/4. pp 161-170
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford. Oxford
University Press
Corder, S.P. (1983). ‘A role for the mother tongue’. In Gass, S. and
Selinker, L. (eds).
Coulter, K. (1968). ‘Linguistic error analysis of the spoken English of two
native Russians’. Unpublished thesis. Cited in Selinker, L. (1992).
Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York. Longman.
Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R. (1984). Interlanguage. (eds).
Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). ‘Natural sequences in child second
language acquisition’. Language Learning 24 pp 37-53.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford. Oxford
University Press.
Felix, S.W. (1980). Second Language Developmental Trends and Issues.
Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.
Fries, C.C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English - As a Foreign Language.
Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S. and Ard, J. (1980). ‘L2 data, their relevance for language
universals’TESOL Quarterly 14 pp 443-452
Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (1983). Language Transfer in Language Learning.
(eds). Rowley, Mass. Newbury House.
Gass, S. (1984). ‘Language transfer and language universals’. Language
Learning 34/2 pp 115-131
Gass, S. (1984). ‘The empirical basis for the universal hypothesis of inter18
language studies’. In Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R.(eds)
Greenberg, J.H. (1996). ‘Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful elements’. Cited in Gass, S.
(1984). ‘The empirical basis for the universal hypothesis of interlanguage
studies’. In Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R (eds)
Hawkins, J (1983).Word Order Universals. New York. Academic Press.
Hyltenstam, K. (1997). ‘Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax
variation’. Language Learning 27/2 pp 383-411
Kean, M.L. (1986). ‘Core issues in transfer’. In Kellerman, E and Sharwood
Smith, M (eds)
Keenan, E. and Comrie, B. (1977). ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal
grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry 8 pp 63-99
Kellerman, E (1984). ‘The empirical evidence for the influence of the L1 in
interlanguage’. In Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R. (eds).
Kellerman, E. and Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Crosslinguistic Influence in
Second Language Acquisition. (eds) New York. Pergamon.
Kohn, K. (1986) ‘The analysis of transfer’. In Kellerman, E and Sharwood
Smith, M. (eds)
Krashen, S.D (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning. Oxford. Pergamon Press.
Kumpf, L (1982) ‘An analysis of tense, aspect and modality in interlanguage’
Paper presented at TESOL. Honolulu.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Applied Linguistics for
Language Teachers. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
LoCoco, V. (1975). ‘An analysis of Spanish and German learners’ errors’.
Working Papers on Bilingualism 7 pp 96-124
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). ‘The acquisition of the dative alternation by second
language learners and linguistic theory’. Cited in White, L (1989).
Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Philadelphia.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
McNeill, D. (1979). The conceptual Basis of Language. Hillsdale. Erlbaum.
Miesel, J. (1980). ‘Strategies of second language acquisition: more than one
kind of simplification’. In Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R.
(eds). 1984).
Nemser, W. (1971). ‘Approximate systems of foreign language learners’.
IRAL 9/2 pp 115-123
Richards, J.C. (1971). ‘A non-contrastive approach to error analysis’
English Language Teaching 25 pp 204-219
Ringbom, H (1978). ‘The influence of the mother tongue on the translation of
lexical items’. Cited in Kellerman, E. ‘The empirical evidence for the
influence of the L1 in interlanguage’ (1984). In Davies, A., Criper, C.
and Howatt, A.P.R. (eds).
Rutherford, W. (1983). ‘Description and explanation in interlanguage
syntax’. In Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A.P.R. (eds). (1984).
Schachter, J. (1974). ‘An error in error analysis’. Language Learning 24
pp 205-214.
Selinker, L. (1966). ‘A psycholinguistic study of language transfer’.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Cited in Selinker, L. (1992).
Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York. Longman.
19
Selinker, L. (1972). ‘Interlanguage’. IRAL 10/3 pp 209-231.
Selinker, L (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York. Longman.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). ‘The competence/control model, crosslinguistic
influence and the creation of new grammars’. In Kellerman, E. and
Sharwood Smith, M. (eds).
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Tarallo, F. and Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language
processing in second language acquisition’. Language Learning 33pp
55-76.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition.
Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wode, H. (1981). ‘Learning a second language 1. An integrated view of
language acquisition’. Tübingen Gunter Narr.
Wode, H. (1986). ‘Language transfer: a cognitive, functional and
developmental view’. In Kellerman, E. and Sharwood Smith, M (eds)
Wode, H (1984). ‘Some theoretical implication of L2 acquisition research and
the grammar of interlanguages’. In Davies, A., Criper, C and
Howatt, A.P.R. (eds).
Appendix 1
Abbreviations
L1 - Native or first language
L2 - Target or second language
L3 - A third or other learned language
FLA - First language acquisition
SLA - Second language acquisition
FLL - First language learner
SLL - Second language learner
IL - Interlanguage
CA - Contrastive analysis
EA - Error analysis
SOV - Subject-Object-Verb language
SVO - Subject-Verb-Object language
CLI - Cross Linguistic Influence
1
20