The field of error analysis in SLA was established in the 1970s by S. P. Corder and colleagues. A widely-available survey can be found in chapter 8 of Brown (2000). Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors, although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new language.
Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are not. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context, whereas covert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the classification according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst must examine, and extent, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed according to the degree to which they interfere with communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to understand, while local errors do not. In the above example, "I angry" would be a local error, since the meaning is apparent.
From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. In particular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also, error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with learner reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging approach to learner language, known as interlanguage.
Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interlanguage
2009年5月1日 星期五
Language Transfer
Positive and negative transfer
When the relevant unit or structure of both languages is the same, linguistic interference can result in correct language production called positive transfer — "correct" meaning in line with most native speakers' notions of acceptability. An example is the use of cognates. Note, however, that language interference is most often discussed as a source of errors known as negative transfer. Negative transfer occurs when speakers and writers transfer items and structures that are not the same in both languages. Within the theory of contrastive analysis (the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities), the greater the differences between the two languages, the more negative transfer can be expected.
The results of positive transfer go largely unnoticed, and thus are less often discussed. Nonetheless, such results can have a large effect. Generally speaking, the more similar the two languages are, the more the learner is aware of the relation between them, the more positive transfer will occur. For example, an Anglophone learner of German may correctly guess an item of German vocabulary from its English counterpart, but word order and collocation are more likely to differ, as will connotations. Such an approach has the disadvantage of making the learner more subject to the influence of "false friends" (false cognates).
Conscious and unconscious transfer
Transfer may be conscious or unconscious. Consciously, learners or unskilled translators may sometimes guess when producing speech or text in a second language because they have not learned or have forgotten its proper usage. Unconsciously, they may not realize that the structures and internal rules of the languages in question are different. Such users could also be aware of both the structures and internal rules, yet be insufficiently skilled to put them into practice, and consequently often fall back on their first language.
When the relevant unit or structure of both languages is the same, linguistic interference can result in correct language production called positive transfer — "correct" meaning in line with most native speakers' notions of acceptability. An example is the use of cognates. Note, however, that language interference is most often discussed as a source of errors known as negative transfer. Negative transfer occurs when speakers and writers transfer items and structures that are not the same in both languages. Within the theory of contrastive analysis (the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities), the greater the differences between the two languages, the more negative transfer can be expected.
The results of positive transfer go largely unnoticed, and thus are less often discussed. Nonetheless, such results can have a large effect. Generally speaking, the more similar the two languages are, the more the learner is aware of the relation between them, the more positive transfer will occur. For example, an Anglophone learner of German may correctly guess an item of German vocabulary from its English counterpart, but word order and collocation are more likely to differ, as will connotations. Such an approach has the disadvantage of making the learner more subject to the influence of "false friends" (false cognates).
Conscious and unconscious transfer
Transfer may be conscious or unconscious. Consciously, learners or unskilled translators may sometimes guess when producing speech or text in a second language because they have not learned or have forgotten its proper usage. Unconsciously, they may not realize that the structures and internal rules of the languages in question are different. Such users could also be aware of both the structures and internal rules, yet be insufficiently skilled to put them into practice, and consequently often fall back on their first language.
Interlanguage
An interlanguage is an emerging linguistic system that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) who has not become fully proficient yet but is only approximating the target language: preserving some features of their first language (or L1) in speaking or writing the target language and creating innovations. An interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can fossilize in any of its developmental stages. The interlanguage consists of: L1 transfer, transfer of training, strategies of L2 learning (e.g.simplification), strategies of L2 communication (e.g. do not think about grammar while talking), and overgeneralization of the target language patterns.
Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a "psychological structure latent in the brain" which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Larry Selinker proposed the theory of interlanguage in 1972, noting that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. This system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learners who attempt to produce a target language norm.
To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the interlanguage of the learner with two things:
Utterances in the native language to convey the same message made by the learner
Utterances in the target language to convey the same message made by the native speaker of that language.
Interlanguage yields new linguistic variety, as features from a group of speakers' L1 community may be integrated into a dialect of the speaker's L2 community. Interlanguage is in itself the basis for diversification of linguistic forms through an outside linguistic influence. Dialects formed by interlanguage are the product of a need to communicate between speakers with varying linguistic ability, and with increased interaction with a more standard dialect, are often marginalized or eliminated in favor of a standard dialect. In this way, interlanguage may be thought of as a temporary tool in language or dialect acquisition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguage
Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a "psychological structure latent in the brain" which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Larry Selinker proposed the theory of interlanguage in 1972, noting that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. This system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learners who attempt to produce a target language norm.
To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the interlanguage of the learner with two things:
Utterances in the native language to convey the same message made by the learner
Utterances in the target language to convey the same message made by the native speaker of that language.
Interlanguage yields new linguistic variety, as features from a group of speakers' L1 community may be integrated into a dialect of the speaker's L2 community. Interlanguage is in itself the basis for diversification of linguistic forms through an outside linguistic influence. Dialects formed by interlanguage are the product of a need to communicate between speakers with varying linguistic ability, and with increased interaction with a more standard dialect, are often marginalized or eliminated in favor of a standard dialect. In this way, interlanguage may be thought of as a temporary tool in language or dialect acquisition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguage
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
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
Interlanguage fossilization
In the process of mastering a target language (TL), second language learners (L2) develop a linguistic system that is self-contained and different from both the learner’s first language (L1) and the TL (Nemser, 1971). This linguistic system has been variously called interlanguage (IL) (Selinker, 1972), approximative system (Nemser, 1971), idiosyncratic dialects or transitional dialects (Corder, 1971), etc.
According to Corder (1981), this temporary and changing grammatical system, IL, which is constructed by the learner, approximates the grammatical system of the TL. In the process of L2 acquisition, IL continually evolves into an ever-closer approximation of the TL, and ideally, a learner’s IL should continue to advance gradually until it becomes equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to the TL. However, it has been observed that somewhere in the L2 learning process, such an IL may reach one or more temporary restricting phases during which the development of the IL appears to be detained (Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972; Schumann, 1975). A permanent cessation of progress toward the TL has been referred to as fossilization (Selinker, 1972). This linguistic phenomenon, IL fossilization, occurs when progress in the acquisition of L2 is arrested, despite all reasonable attempts at learning (Selinker, 1972). Fossilization includes those items, rules, and sub-systems that L2 learners tend to retain in their IL while in the process of acquiring a particular TL, i.e., fossilization encompasses those aspects of IL that become entrenched and permanent, and that will only be eliminated with considerable effort, for the majority of L2 learners, regardless of explanation or instruction (Omaggio, 2001). Moreover, it has also been noticed that adult L2 learners’ IL systems, in particular, have a tendency, or propensity, to become stagnated or solidified (Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972, Selinker & Lamendella, 1980.), i.e., the language learners make no further progress in IL development toward the TL, and become permanently fossilized, in spite of the amount of exposure to the L2.
Selinker (1972) suggests that the most important distinguishing factor related to L2 acquisition is the phenomenon of fossilization. However, both his explanation that “fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a particular native language will tend to keep in their interlanguage relative to a particular target language, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation or instruction he receives in the target language” (Selinker, 1972, p. 215) and his hypotheses on IL fossilization are fascinating in that they contradict our basic understanding of the human capacity to learn. How is it that some learners can overcome IL fossilization, even if they only constitute, according to Selinker, “a mere 5%” (1972, p. 212), while the majority of L2 learners cannot, ‘no matter what the age or amount of explanation or instruction’? Or is it perhaps not that they cannot overcome fossilization, but that they will not? Does complacency set in after L2 learners begin to communicate, as far as they are concerned, effectively enough, in the TL, and as a result does motivation to achieve native-like competence diminish?
The concept of fossilization in SLA research is so intrinsically related to IL that Selinker (1972) considers it to be a fundamental phenomenon of all SLA and not just to adult learners. Fossilization has received such wide recognition that it has been entered in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1987). Selinker’s concept of fossilization is similar to that of Tarone (1976), Nemser (1971), and Sridhar (1980), all of whom attempted to explore the causes of fossilization in L2 learners’ IL.
Fossilization has attracted considerable interest among researchers and has engendered significant differences of opinion. The term, borrowed from the field of paleontology, and actually a misnomer, is effective because it conjures up an image of dinosaurs being enclosed in residue and becoming a set of hardened remains encased in sediment. The metaphor, as used in SLA literature, is appropriate because it refers to earlier language forms that become encased in a learner’s IL and that, theoretically, cannot be changed by special attention or practice of the TL. Despite debate over the degree of permanence, fossilization is generally accepted as a fact of life in the process of SLA.
Much has been written about fossilization and many researchers have attempted to explain it (Adjemian, 1976; Corder, 1971, 1978; De Prada Creo, 1990; Nakuma, 1998; Selinker, 1972; Nemser, 1971; Schumann, 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1990). Others have attempted to discover: 1) why fossilization occurs (Adjemian, 1976, Naiman, et al., 1996; Schumann, 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1990; Seliger, 1978; Stern, 1975; Virgil & Oller, 1976); 2) the precipitating conditions (Schumann, 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1990; Virgil & Oller, 1976); 3) what kind of linguistic material is likely to be fossilized (Selinker & Lakshamanan 1992; Todeva, 1992); and 4) what type of learners are more prone to fossilize (Adjemian, 1976; Scovel, 1969, 1978, 1988, 2000; Selinker, Swain & Dumas, 1975; Virgil & Oller, 1976). However, there has been almost no investigation by SLA theorists regarding the possibilities of preventing or overcoming fossilization, and little explanation related to those adult L2 learners who do overcome one or more ‘areas of stability’ in IL, i.e., those learners whose IL does not fossilize in the early stages of the SLA process, and who do reach a high level of proficiency in the L2 (Acton, 1984; Birdsong, 1992; Bongaerts, et al., 1997; Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, & Mosell, 1994; Selinker, 1972).
One factor that has obvious relevance to fossilization is motivation and various studies have been conducted regarding motivation to learning L2 (Gardner, 1988; Gardner & Smythe, 1975; Schumann. 1976, 1978a, l978b), and the relationship of fossilization to the learner’s communicative needs (Corder, 1978; Nickel, 1998; Ushioda, 1993). Arguments have particularly emerged regarding adult learners’ general lack of empathy with TL native speakers and culture. According to Guiora et al. (1972), adults do not have the motivation to change their accent and to acquire native-like pronunciation. Unlike children, who are generally more open to TL culture, adults have more rigid language ego boundaries. It is hypothesized that adults may therefore be inclined to establishing their cultural and ethnic identity, and this they do by maintaining their stereotypical accent (Guiora et al., 1972). Notwithstanding this, there is a lack of needed research, particularly regarding achievement motivation, especially in view of the fact that fossilization can be considered the most distinctive characteristic of adult SLA. To date, fossilization continues to remain something of a mystery in SLA.
Taken from ‘The role of achievement motivation on the interlanguage fossilization of middle-aged English-as-a-second-language learners’ by Dr. Andrija (Zoran) Vujisić (2007).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguage_fossilization
According to Corder (1981), this temporary and changing grammatical system, IL, which is constructed by the learner, approximates the grammatical system of the TL. In the process of L2 acquisition, IL continually evolves into an ever-closer approximation of the TL, and ideally, a learner’s IL should continue to advance gradually until it becomes equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to the TL. However, it has been observed that somewhere in the L2 learning process, such an IL may reach one or more temporary restricting phases during which the development of the IL appears to be detained (Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972; Schumann, 1975). A permanent cessation of progress toward the TL has been referred to as fossilization (Selinker, 1972). This linguistic phenomenon, IL fossilization, occurs when progress in the acquisition of L2 is arrested, despite all reasonable attempts at learning (Selinker, 1972). Fossilization includes those items, rules, and sub-systems that L2 learners tend to retain in their IL while in the process of acquiring a particular TL, i.e., fossilization encompasses those aspects of IL that become entrenched and permanent, and that will only be eliminated with considerable effort, for the majority of L2 learners, regardless of explanation or instruction (Omaggio, 2001). Moreover, it has also been noticed that adult L2 learners’ IL systems, in particular, have a tendency, or propensity, to become stagnated or solidified (Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972, Selinker & Lamendella, 1980.), i.e., the language learners make no further progress in IL development toward the TL, and become permanently fossilized, in spite of the amount of exposure to the L2.
Selinker (1972) suggests that the most important distinguishing factor related to L2 acquisition is the phenomenon of fossilization. However, both his explanation that “fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a particular native language will tend to keep in their interlanguage relative to a particular target language, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation or instruction he receives in the target language” (Selinker, 1972, p. 215) and his hypotheses on IL fossilization are fascinating in that they contradict our basic understanding of the human capacity to learn. How is it that some learners can overcome IL fossilization, even if they only constitute, according to Selinker, “a mere 5%” (1972, p. 212), while the majority of L2 learners cannot, ‘no matter what the age or amount of explanation or instruction’? Or is it perhaps not that they cannot overcome fossilization, but that they will not? Does complacency set in after L2 learners begin to communicate, as far as they are concerned, effectively enough, in the TL, and as a result does motivation to achieve native-like competence diminish?
The concept of fossilization in SLA research is so intrinsically related to IL that Selinker (1972) considers it to be a fundamental phenomenon of all SLA and not just to adult learners. Fossilization has received such wide recognition that it has been entered in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1987). Selinker’s concept of fossilization is similar to that of Tarone (1976), Nemser (1971), and Sridhar (1980), all of whom attempted to explore the causes of fossilization in L2 learners’ IL.
Fossilization has attracted considerable interest among researchers and has engendered significant differences of opinion. The term, borrowed from the field of paleontology, and actually a misnomer, is effective because it conjures up an image of dinosaurs being enclosed in residue and becoming a set of hardened remains encased in sediment. The metaphor, as used in SLA literature, is appropriate because it refers to earlier language forms that become encased in a learner’s IL and that, theoretically, cannot be changed by special attention or practice of the TL. Despite debate over the degree of permanence, fossilization is generally accepted as a fact of life in the process of SLA.
Much has been written about fossilization and many researchers have attempted to explain it (Adjemian, 1976; Corder, 1971, 1978; De Prada Creo, 1990; Nakuma, 1998; Selinker, 1972; Nemser, 1971; Schumann, 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1990). Others have attempted to discover: 1) why fossilization occurs (Adjemian, 1976, Naiman, et al., 1996; Schumann, 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1990; Seliger, 1978; Stern, 1975; Virgil & Oller, 1976); 2) the precipitating conditions (Schumann, 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1990; Virgil & Oller, 1976); 3) what kind of linguistic material is likely to be fossilized (Selinker & Lakshamanan 1992; Todeva, 1992); and 4) what type of learners are more prone to fossilize (Adjemian, 1976; Scovel, 1969, 1978, 1988, 2000; Selinker, Swain & Dumas, 1975; Virgil & Oller, 1976). However, there has been almost no investigation by SLA theorists regarding the possibilities of preventing or overcoming fossilization, and little explanation related to those adult L2 learners who do overcome one or more ‘areas of stability’ in IL, i.e., those learners whose IL does not fossilize in the early stages of the SLA process, and who do reach a high level of proficiency in the L2 (Acton, 1984; Birdsong, 1992; Bongaerts, et al., 1997; Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, & Mosell, 1994; Selinker, 1972).
One factor that has obvious relevance to fossilization is motivation and various studies have been conducted regarding motivation to learning L2 (Gardner, 1988; Gardner & Smythe, 1975; Schumann. 1976, 1978a, l978b), and the relationship of fossilization to the learner’s communicative needs (Corder, 1978; Nickel, 1998; Ushioda, 1993). Arguments have particularly emerged regarding adult learners’ general lack of empathy with TL native speakers and culture. According to Guiora et al. (1972), adults do not have the motivation to change their accent and to acquire native-like pronunciation. Unlike children, who are generally more open to TL culture, adults have more rigid language ego boundaries. It is hypothesized that adults may therefore be inclined to establishing their cultural and ethnic identity, and this they do by maintaining their stereotypical accent (Guiora et al., 1972). Notwithstanding this, there is a lack of needed research, particularly regarding achievement motivation, especially in view of the fact that fossilization can be considered the most distinctive characteristic of adult SLA. To date, fossilization continues to remain something of a mystery in SLA.
Taken from ‘The role of achievement motivation on the interlanguage fossilization of middle-aged English-as-a-second-language learners’ by Dr. Andrija (Zoran) Vujisić (2007).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguage_fossilization
Interlanguage
The idea of interlanguage is founded upon the assumption that an L2 learner, at any particular moment in his learning sequence, is using a language system which is neither the L1, nor the L2. It is a third language, with its own grammar, its own lexicon and so on. The rules used by the learner are to be found in neither his own mother tongue, nor in the Target Language. Thus, Nemser cites Serbo-Croat learners of English who will produce "What does Pat doing now?", although this construction belongs neither in English, nor in Serbo-Croat. The lesson to be learned, suggest applied linguists such as Nemser, Pitt Corder and Selinker, is that we need to understand the learner's language as a system in its own right. This is both possible, and interesting because learners tend to go through a series of interlanguages in systematic and predictable ways.
How does the learner create her interlanguage? According to Selinker, there are a number of basic processes - but, particularly in his later work, he insists upon learning strategies - that is, activities that the learner adopts in order to help her acquire the language.
Language transfer - the learner uses her own L1 as a resource. This used to be looked upon as a mistake, but it is now recognised that all learners fall back on their mother tongues, particularly in the early stages of language acquisition, and that this is a necessary process
Overgeneralization - the learner uses an L2 rule in situations in which a native speaker would not. This can occur at a number of levels
- thus at the phonetic level, for example, learners of English, after having learnt to master the English 'r', may take to placing it at the end of words, whereas in RP it is not pronounced.
- at the grammatical level, a learner in the early stages may use nothing but the present tense. Later, there may be extensive, non-native use of 'be - ing' forms of the verb.
- at the lexical level - learners tend to use base terms and to stretch them - thus a 'goose' might be referred to as a 'chicken', or a teaspoon may be a 'little spoon'.
- at the level of discourse, lexical items and expressions may be used in inappropriate social contexts. Someone learning French as an L2, and who has been staying with a friendly family with teenagers may find themselves using the 'tu' form to strangers, members of the CRS and so on.
Simplification - both syntactic and semantic - the learner uses speech that resembles that of very young children or of pidgins. This may be either because they cannot, in fact, as yet produce the target forms, or because they do not feel sure of them.
Let us look more closely at transfer. It can have several different effects :
a) Negative transfer
Until the morpheme studies of Dulay and Burt, it was often assumed that most errors were derived from transfer of the L1 to the L2 - this was referred to as interference. It is now no longer clear where errors derive from. As we have seen, Dulay and Burt believe that the majority of errors are not based on transfer. However, it is not always a simple matter to decide whether an error is L1 based or not.
For example, when French speakers use 'have -en' forms in inappropriate settings, is it because of overgeneralization, a developmental error, or an interference error based on the Passé Composé?
Indeed, it is not always easy to decide whether an error has occurred at all. Take again the case of the 'have -en' forms. A French speaker learning English may use the form in the correct setting, but actually derive it from the French Passé Composé - he has done the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. Has an error actually occurred? How would we know?
Consider this dialogue, derived from :
A : I (look for) Bob. You (see?) him.
B : Yes, I (see) him half an hour ago
A French learner might produce
A : I'm looking for Bob. You have seen him?
B : Yes. I have seen him half an hour ago.
If speakers of different mother tongues do, in fact, make different mistakes, and if these mistakes do appear to be related to structures in the mother tongue, then it would seem reasonable to speak of 'interference errors
At the level of phonology, this certainly appears to be the case
- there are typical accents, and it is comparatively easy to distinguish between the English pronunciation of, say, a German L1 speaker, a French L1 speaker or a Japanese.
However, even here, there appear to be rules that are target language specific - progress through to full acquisition of the 'th' appears to follow a fairly regular pattern, which is similar to that of an English child learning her L1.
b) Positive transfer
Not all effects of language transfer are negative - indeed, we may consider that without some language transfer, there would be no second language learning. We have seen that, in the cases of Genie and Chelsea, it is very difficult to master a language after the age of 11 or 12 years of age, unless one already has a mother-tongue to fall back on. It may be that younger children are able to pick up an L2 without reference to their L1, but for adolescents and adults, the mother tongue is a major resource for language learning.
Where languages are historically and linguistically related to each other, the positive effects of transfer may be obvious. French-speaking learners of English and English speaking learners of French quickly come to realise that they share an enormous amount of vocabulary, for example - there are far more 'Vrais Amis' than there are 'Faux amis', and it makes sense to take advantage of this.
For Japanese speakers learning Chinese, there is a great advantage when it comes to studying the written language in the fact that the Japanese ideographs are based upon the Chinese. This saves considerable time.
However, the Chomskian perspective has lead specialists in SLA to believe that there are deeper levels at which the L1 may aid in language learning. If all languages are fundamentally the same, then it makes a lot of sense to use the rules of the mother-tongue as initial hypotheses about the rules of the L2. We will come back to this point in a later lecture, when considering implicational hierarchies.
We must conclude that - The teacher who tries to forbid his students from having recourse to their L1 may be doing them a disservice, for L1 can, in fact be extremely helpful.
c) Avoidance
Where certain structures are very different from L1, students may simply avoid using them. Schachter (1974) found that Chinese and Japanese learners of L2 English made less errors in the use of relative clauses than did Persian or Arabic learners - but this was because they tried to use them less often. This is because Persian and Arabic relative clauses are structured in a similar way to English ones, while the two Oriental languages treat them in a very different way.
It is difficult to know when a student is using avoidance as a strategy - he must show some evidence that he knows of the structure that he is avoiding, and it must also be so that a normal speaker of the target language would have used the structure in that situation.
Kellerman distinguishes 3 types of avoidance :
1. Learner can anticipate that there is a problem, and has some idea of what the correct form is like.
2. Learner knows the target form well, but believes that it would be too difficult to use in the circumstances in which he finds himself - free-flowing conversation, for example.
3. Learner knows how to use the target form, but will not do so because it breaks a personal rule of behaviour - ready use of 'tu' form by person coming from a culture where formality is highly valued.
d) Overuse
This may be a concomitant of avoidance. Students will use the forms that they know rather than try out the ones that they are not sure of. It may also reflect cultural differences - thus Olshtain (1983) found that American college students, learning Hebrew in Israel, were much more likely to use direct expressions of apology than were native speakers. This also seems to be true of English speakers of French.
How do teachers actually treat errors? In fact, there is considerable variation from one teacher to another, and also the treatment of error by any one teacher may vary from one moment to the next.
Studies of what teachers do have shown that very often they are inconsistent. Also, some errors are more likely to be treated than others - discourse, content and lexical errors receive more attention than phonological or grammatical errors - and here there is variation between native and non-native-speaker teachers. Many errors are not treated at all. Further, the more a particular kind of error is made, the less likely the teacher is to treat it. Moreover, teachers sometimes correct errors that have not taken place.
Another question is 'Who does the repairing?'. In natural settings, there is a preference for self-initiated and self-completed repair. However, in the classroom, it is the teacher who initiates repair - at least during the language-centred phase - while he expects the student or one of his peers to produce the correct form.
Error treatment seems to have little immediate effect upon student production - thus the teacher may correct an error made by student A to have student B make exactly the same error five minutes later - and hear student A do it again before the end of the lesson!
Some experts - Krashen among them - have deduced that this suggests that correction is a pointless exercise. However, we should be aware that there are no studies as yet of the long-term effects of error correction.
What about students' attitudes to error correction? In the main they say that they want to be corrected, both in the classroom, and in conversation with native speakers. However, when they are taken at their word, they feel uncomfortable with the resulting style of discourse.
Our recommendations for action can only be very tentative, and lack empirical backing. However, it would appear that the following rules are accepted by most members of the profession now - which does not mean that they are right!
1. Teachers should respect student errors - they are a part of the learning process. Respecting does not mean taking no notice of them, but it does mean that they are not to be treated as necessarily being evidence of stupidity, idleness or evil intent on the part of the learner.
2. Only treat those errors that students are capable of correcting, according to the state of their interlanguage at the time of the error. Written scripts should not be returned with simply everything underlined in red ink.
3. Self-repair is preferable to other-repair, as the student feels better about it. Being corrected by the teacher, or by other students, may be humiliating.
4. Teachers need to develop strategies for overcoming avoidance. The student needs to be put in a situation where he or she is forced to use the unassimilated structure and to think about the problems that this poses. However, this needs to be treated as a process of discovery rather than as a minefield.
Most important, remember that the students errors are a precious resource for the teacher, which inform her about the state of her pupils' interlanguage. This is why it so important to avoid negative marking, where the student simply learns that if he makes an error he will lose points.
Resources: http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L7_Interlanguage.htm
How does the learner create her interlanguage? According to Selinker, there are a number of basic processes - but, particularly in his later work, he insists upon learning strategies - that is, activities that the learner adopts in order to help her acquire the language.
Language transfer - the learner uses her own L1 as a resource. This used to be looked upon as a mistake, but it is now recognised that all learners fall back on their mother tongues, particularly in the early stages of language acquisition, and that this is a necessary process
Overgeneralization - the learner uses an L2 rule in situations in which a native speaker would not. This can occur at a number of levels
- thus at the phonetic level, for example, learners of English, after having learnt to master the English 'r', may take to placing it at the end of words, whereas in RP it is not pronounced.
- at the grammatical level, a learner in the early stages may use nothing but the present tense. Later, there may be extensive, non-native use of 'be - ing' forms of the verb.
- at the lexical level - learners tend to use base terms and to stretch them - thus a 'goose' might be referred to as a 'chicken', or a teaspoon may be a 'little spoon'.
- at the level of discourse, lexical items and expressions may be used in inappropriate social contexts. Someone learning French as an L2, and who has been staying with a friendly family with teenagers may find themselves using the 'tu' form to strangers, members of the CRS and so on.
Simplification - both syntactic and semantic - the learner uses speech that resembles that of very young children or of pidgins. This may be either because they cannot, in fact, as yet produce the target forms, or because they do not feel sure of them.
Let us look more closely at transfer. It can have several different effects :
a) Negative transfer
Until the morpheme studies of Dulay and Burt, it was often assumed that most errors were derived from transfer of the L1 to the L2 - this was referred to as interference. It is now no longer clear where errors derive from. As we have seen, Dulay and Burt believe that the majority of errors are not based on transfer. However, it is not always a simple matter to decide whether an error is L1 based or not.
For example, when French speakers use 'have -en' forms in inappropriate settings, is it because of overgeneralization, a developmental error, or an interference error based on the Passé Composé?
Indeed, it is not always easy to decide whether an error has occurred at all. Take again the case of the 'have -en' forms. A French speaker learning English may use the form in the correct setting, but actually derive it from the French Passé Composé - he has done the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. Has an error actually occurred? How would we know?
Consider this dialogue, derived from :
A : I (look for) Bob. You (see?) him.
B : Yes, I (see) him half an hour ago
A French learner might produce
A : I'm looking for Bob. You have seen him?
B : Yes. I have seen him half an hour ago.
If speakers of different mother tongues do, in fact, make different mistakes, and if these mistakes do appear to be related to structures in the mother tongue, then it would seem reasonable to speak of 'interference errors
At the level of phonology, this certainly appears to be the case
- there are typical accents, and it is comparatively easy to distinguish between the English pronunciation of, say, a German L1 speaker, a French L1 speaker or a Japanese.
However, even here, there appear to be rules that are target language specific - progress through to full acquisition of the 'th' appears to follow a fairly regular pattern, which is similar to that of an English child learning her L1.
b) Positive transfer
Not all effects of language transfer are negative - indeed, we may consider that without some language transfer, there would be no second language learning. We have seen that, in the cases of Genie and Chelsea, it is very difficult to master a language after the age of 11 or 12 years of age, unless one already has a mother-tongue to fall back on. It may be that younger children are able to pick up an L2 without reference to their L1, but for adolescents and adults, the mother tongue is a major resource for language learning.
Where languages are historically and linguistically related to each other, the positive effects of transfer may be obvious. French-speaking learners of English and English speaking learners of French quickly come to realise that they share an enormous amount of vocabulary, for example - there are far more 'Vrais Amis' than there are 'Faux amis', and it makes sense to take advantage of this.
For Japanese speakers learning Chinese, there is a great advantage when it comes to studying the written language in the fact that the Japanese ideographs are based upon the Chinese. This saves considerable time.
However, the Chomskian perspective has lead specialists in SLA to believe that there are deeper levels at which the L1 may aid in language learning. If all languages are fundamentally the same, then it makes a lot of sense to use the rules of the mother-tongue as initial hypotheses about the rules of the L2. We will come back to this point in a later lecture, when considering implicational hierarchies.
We must conclude that - The teacher who tries to forbid his students from having recourse to their L1 may be doing them a disservice, for L1 can, in fact be extremely helpful.
c) Avoidance
Where certain structures are very different from L1, students may simply avoid using them. Schachter (1974) found that Chinese and Japanese learners of L2 English made less errors in the use of relative clauses than did Persian or Arabic learners - but this was because they tried to use them less often. This is because Persian and Arabic relative clauses are structured in a similar way to English ones, while the two Oriental languages treat them in a very different way.
It is difficult to know when a student is using avoidance as a strategy - he must show some evidence that he knows of the structure that he is avoiding, and it must also be so that a normal speaker of the target language would have used the structure in that situation.
Kellerman distinguishes 3 types of avoidance :
1. Learner can anticipate that there is a problem, and has some idea of what the correct form is like.
2. Learner knows the target form well, but believes that it would be too difficult to use in the circumstances in which he finds himself - free-flowing conversation, for example.
3. Learner knows how to use the target form, but will not do so because it breaks a personal rule of behaviour - ready use of 'tu' form by person coming from a culture where formality is highly valued.
d) Overuse
This may be a concomitant of avoidance. Students will use the forms that they know rather than try out the ones that they are not sure of. It may also reflect cultural differences - thus Olshtain (1983) found that American college students, learning Hebrew in Israel, were much more likely to use direct expressions of apology than were native speakers. This also seems to be true of English speakers of French.
How do teachers actually treat errors? In fact, there is considerable variation from one teacher to another, and also the treatment of error by any one teacher may vary from one moment to the next.
Studies of what teachers do have shown that very often they are inconsistent. Also, some errors are more likely to be treated than others - discourse, content and lexical errors receive more attention than phonological or grammatical errors - and here there is variation between native and non-native-speaker teachers. Many errors are not treated at all. Further, the more a particular kind of error is made, the less likely the teacher is to treat it. Moreover, teachers sometimes correct errors that have not taken place.
Another question is 'Who does the repairing?'. In natural settings, there is a preference for self-initiated and self-completed repair. However, in the classroom, it is the teacher who initiates repair - at least during the language-centred phase - while he expects the student or one of his peers to produce the correct form.
Error treatment seems to have little immediate effect upon student production - thus the teacher may correct an error made by student A to have student B make exactly the same error five minutes later - and hear student A do it again before the end of the lesson!
Some experts - Krashen among them - have deduced that this suggests that correction is a pointless exercise. However, we should be aware that there are no studies as yet of the long-term effects of error correction.
What about students' attitudes to error correction? In the main they say that they want to be corrected, both in the classroom, and in conversation with native speakers. However, when they are taken at their word, they feel uncomfortable with the resulting style of discourse.
Our recommendations for action can only be very tentative, and lack empirical backing. However, it would appear that the following rules are accepted by most members of the profession now - which does not mean that they are right!
1. Teachers should respect student errors - they are a part of the learning process. Respecting does not mean taking no notice of them, but it does mean that they are not to be treated as necessarily being evidence of stupidity, idleness or evil intent on the part of the learner.
2. Only treat those errors that students are capable of correcting, according to the state of their interlanguage at the time of the error. Written scripts should not be returned with simply everything underlined in red ink.
3. Self-repair is preferable to other-repair, as the student feels better about it. Being corrected by the teacher, or by other students, may be humiliating.
4. Teachers need to develop strategies for overcoming avoidance. The student needs to be put in a situation where he or she is forced to use the unassimilated structure and to think about the problems that this poses. However, this needs to be treated as a process of discovery rather than as a minefield.
Most important, remember that the students errors are a precious resource for the teacher, which inform her about the state of her pupils' interlanguage. This is why it so important to avoid negative marking, where the student simply learns that if he makes an error he will lose points.
Resources: http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L7_Interlanguage.htm
What is a story? What is narrative meaning? Definitions
A narrative or story in its broadest sense is anything told or recounted; more narrowly, and more usually, something told or recounted in the form of a causally-linked set of events; account; tale,: the telling of a happening or connected series of happenings, whether true or fictitious.
Narrative meaning is created by establishing that something is a part of a whole and usually that something is the cause of something else. It is usually combined with human actions or events that affect human beings. The meaning of each event is produced by the part it plays in the whole episode.
To say what something means is to say how it is related or connected to something else. To ask the meaning of an event is to ask how it contributed to the story in which it occurs. It is the connections or relations between events.
Meaning is a social phenomenon. Meaning is produced not only by individuals but by groups, communities, societies and cultures which maintain - through language and agreed understandings - knowledge of the connections between signifying sounds and signifying events.
Groups, communities, societies and cultures also preserve collections of typical narrative meanings in their myths, fairy tales, legends, histories and stories. To participate in a group, community, society or culture requires a general knowledge of these accumulated narrative meanings. The cultural stock of meanings are dynamic and are added to by new contributions from members and deleted by lack of use.
Narrative meaning is about connections. It links individual human actions and events into inter-related aspects of an understandable composite. Narrative displays the significance that events have for one another. (The anti-story makes explicit that events do not have causal connections between each other.)
Stories fill our lives in the way that water fills the lives of fish. Stories are so all-pervasive that we practically cease to be aware of them.
"The products of our narrative schemes are ubiquitous in our lives: they fill our cultural and social environment. We create narrative descriptions for ourselves and for others about our own past actions, and we develop storied accounts that give sense to the behavior of others. We also use the narrative scheme to inform our decisions by constructing imaginative "what if" scenarios. On the receiving end, we are constantly confronted with stories during our conversations and encounters with the written and visual media. We are told fairy tales as children, and read and discuss stories in school." (Polkinghorne)
"The narratives of the world are without number...the narrative is present at all times, in all places, in all societies; the history of narrative begins with the history of mankind; there does not exist, and never has existed, a people without narratives:" (Barthes).
http://www.stevedenning.com/What_story.html
Narrative meaning is created by establishing that something is a part of a whole and usually that something is the cause of something else. It is usually combined with human actions or events that affect human beings. The meaning of each event is produced by the part it plays in the whole episode.
To say what something means is to say how it is related or connected to something else. To ask the meaning of an event is to ask how it contributed to the story in which it occurs. It is the connections or relations between events.
Meaning is a social phenomenon. Meaning is produced not only by individuals but by groups, communities, societies and cultures which maintain - through language and agreed understandings - knowledge of the connections between signifying sounds and signifying events.
Groups, communities, societies and cultures also preserve collections of typical narrative meanings in their myths, fairy tales, legends, histories and stories. To participate in a group, community, society or culture requires a general knowledge of these accumulated narrative meanings. The cultural stock of meanings are dynamic and are added to by new contributions from members and deleted by lack of use.
Narrative meaning is about connections. It links individual human actions and events into inter-related aspects of an understandable composite. Narrative displays the significance that events have for one another. (The anti-story makes explicit that events do not have causal connections between each other.)
Stories fill our lives in the way that water fills the lives of fish. Stories are so all-pervasive that we practically cease to be aware of them.
"The products of our narrative schemes are ubiquitous in our lives: they fill our cultural and social environment. We create narrative descriptions for ourselves and for others about our own past actions, and we develop storied accounts that give sense to the behavior of others. We also use the narrative scheme to inform our decisions by constructing imaginative "what if" scenarios. On the receiving end, we are constantly confronted with stories during our conversations and encounters with the written and visual media. We are told fairy tales as children, and read and discuss stories in school." (Polkinghorne)
"The narratives of the world are without number...the narrative is present at all times, in all places, in all societies; the history of narrative begins with the history of mankind; there does not exist, and never has existed, a people without narratives:" (Barthes).
http://www.stevedenning.com/What_story.html
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)
