• Author / Uploaded
• ablanguages

Citation preview

B. A. in English – University of Belgrano

Acquisition of first and second language Pampillo, Soledad - Duarte, Analía

Transfer

Group members:

Bozzani, Ana Laura Cruells, Nancy C. Gómez Dova, Valeria Moix, Jorgelina

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

2003

Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 2

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

TOPIC: TRANSFER Hardly anyone will argue that the more related a language is to any previously acquired language, the less time it takes learners to be able to understand a spoken or written message in that language. At the initial stage of learning, the foreign language learner largely depends on establishing equivalence between new items and the ones already existing in his memory store. Crosslinguistic equivalence between L1 and L2/L3, as the learner perceives it, provides the basis for his learning of new items, and where such equivalence can be easily and naturally established, transfer will be inevitable. In the following pages, we will deal with two major factors that interact in the determination of transfer: 1) the learner’s perception of L1-L2/L3 distance and 2) the degree of markedness among different language parameters. Through the analysis of the learning experience of Japanese students of L2 English and L3 Spanish, it is the purpose of this paper to show that the more similar linguistic structures in languages are, the greater the likelihood of transfer there will be. Historically, language transfer has been defined differently in different theories of L2 acquisition. On the one hand, Behaviourist views and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) considered transfer in terms of habit formation. On the other hand, the minimalist position, which appeared as a rejection to the CAH, tried to diminish the importance of the L1 and to emphasize the contribution of universal processes of language learning, such as hypothesis-testing. However, it is now widely accepted that the influence of the learner’s L1 cannot adequately be accounted for in terms of habit formation. Nor is transfer simply a matter of interference or of falling back on native language. Nor is it just a question of the influence of the learner’s L1, as other previously acquired languages can also have effect. Odlin offers this definition of transfer: “Transfer is the influence resulting from the similarities and differences between the TL

Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 3

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired.” (1989:27) In this paper, similarly to Odlin’s definition and in accordance to Brown’s opinion, transfer will be viewed as “the interaction of previously acquired linguistic and/or conceptual knowledge with the present learning event to facilitate a new language learning task.”(1993:117). Transfer can act as a language facilitator through general similarities between languages that “influence language development even in the absence of specific overt similarity.”(Gass.1996) When there is a large number of similarities, the learner is free to concentrate on other aspects of the grammar. In contrast, it could also be seen as a constraint on the hypothesis that the learner makes about the TL. Such constraints are strongly influenced by previous knowledge, which includes not only knowledge of the native language or other languages known, but also whatever is acquired of the TL, which is usually referred to as interference. Learners’ expectations about the TL are included in this category of prior knowledge as well. The learner’s perception of similarities or dissimilarities between the TL and prior knowledge has an important role in the process of decision-making and determines transferable elements. Native speakers consider some parts of their native language as infrequent or irregular (language specific) because they are highly marked and thus, less transferable than frequent and regular forms. The latter, also called language neutral, are more likely to be transferred. This language neutrality or language specificity can be expressed in terms of a continuum which interacts with Kellerman’s idea of psychotypology (language distance as perceived by learners).(1988) It is this distance that largely resolves how relevant a learner’s prior knowledge is to the learning of another language. The smaller the Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 4

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

distance, the more relevant this prior knowledge is to the learner. The learner of a related language already knows something about the structure of this language. Taking into account Corder’s view, we might be able to claim that if the previously learned knowledge is similar in form to the TL, the learner will pass more rapidly along the developmental continuum than if it differs. In addition to language distance, another influential constraint on transfer is that the transferability of different features depends on their degree of markedness. That is why, a theory of transfer that incorporates markedness can account for the evidence that shows that a given feature (z) is transferred in one direction (from language x to y) but not necessarily in the other (from language y to x). (Ellis 1995) A markedness definition could be found in Chomsky’s theory of UG. This distinguishes the rules of a language between core and periphery. The core is the highly restricted set of grammatical principles and parameters specified in the theory of UG; the former are invariant, absolute universals and unmarked; whereas the latter are those properties of grammar that are necessary but have varying realizations which can be marked or unmarked (e.g. non-pro-drop vs. pro-drop). The periphery consists of language particular phenomena outside the domain of the core, which is marked.

Given the current controversies concerning the role and influence of previous learned languages in the acquisition of a new language, parameter theory may provide a theoretical basis for our understanding of language transfer due to the fact that parameters can be set differently for different languages, i.e. the more equally marked parameters are, the more positive transfer there will be.

Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 5

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

It has been suggested that markedness can help to overcome one of the major problems of the CAH, namely that not all the linguistic differences between the NL and the TL result in learning difficulty. Markedness can be used to help predict which differences in languages lead to difficulty. Thus, markedness has helped to restore transfer theory. To support this approach we have analysed the way one of our Japanese learners of L2 English acquires L3 Spanish, providing evidence on how language distance and parameter setting work. In general, Japanese is seen as linguistically and psycholinguistically more distant to English and Spanish, which are considered closer. Thus, it is inevitable for this Japanese Spanish learner to transfer most phonology, lexis, morphology and discourse features from his related L2 English. As regards markedness, we could describe the different parameter setting by means of the following examples: 1- Head Parameter, covers the position of complements within phrases. English and Spanish have a head-first setting while Japanese has a head-last one. NP

I have fear of the result Tengo miedo del resultado Tensu ga kowai desu (result of fear have)

PP

in the classroom en la clase kyoshitsu de (classroom in)

VP

I love Cook’s book Amo el libro de Cook

Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 6

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

Kukku no hon ga suki desu (Cook of book love) 2- Governing Category Parameter, accounts for binding relations. In English and Spanish anaphors must be bound within their governing category. Whereas, in Japanese anaphors must be bound within the whole sentence. The teacher believes the student i hates herself

i

La profesora cree que la alumna i se i odia. Sensei i wa seito ga zibun i-o nikunde iru te. (teacher i student self

i

hates thinks) In view of the results, we noticed that the learner referred back to his L2 English for the setting of Head Parameter and Governing Category Parameter since they are equal to Spanish setting. However, it is important to highlight that he would resort to the Japanese setting for the Pro-drop Parameter bearing in mind that Spanish and Japanese share the same parameter setting. To sum up, the role of language transfer has changed throughout the years to accept the fact that previous language knowledge cannot be separated from the general theory of “second” language acquisition. On the basis of the perceived distance and degree of markedness between the different languages (L1/LN), learners decide whether to go ahead and transfer those items that they perceive to be closer and equally marked, which is the case of our Japanese students who are learning Spanish (L3) via transfer of some aspects of their L2 English. It is through this interaction between distance and markedness that congruence between L1 and L2/L3 allows learners to see relevant TL features and transfer them affecting production and comprehension of any TL.

Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 7

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

References Odlin, T (1989), Language transfer. Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. Brown, H. Douglas (1993), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall Regents Ellis, R. (1995), The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Gass, S. 1996. “Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory: The Role of Language Transfer”. In: Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition .San Diego: Academic Press.

Bibliography Flynn, S. & O’Neil, W.; (1988), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition. Kluwer Academic Pubishers, Part C and Part F Mazurkewich, I.; “The Acquisition of Infinitive and Gerund Complements by Second Language Learners” White, L.; “Island Effects in Second Language Acquisition” Sharwood Smith, M.; “On the Role of Linguistic Theory in Explanations of Second Language Developmental Grammars” Liceras, J.; “L2 Learnability: Delimiting the Domain of Core Grammar as Distinct from the Marked Periphery” Gair, J.W.; “Kinds of Markedness.” Gass, S.; “Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory: The Role of Language Transfer”. Eckman, F.; “Typological and Parametric Views of Universals in Second Language Adquisition”. Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (1986), Crosslinguistics influence in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press (New York) Kohn, K.; “The Analysis of Transfer.” Kellerman, E.; “An Eye for and Eye: Crosslingiuistic Constraints on the Development of the L2 Lexicon”. Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 8

University of Belgrano language B. A. in English

Acquisition of first and second

Faerch, C. and Kasper, G.; “Cognitive Dimensions of Language Transfer”. Kean, M.; “Core issues in Transfer” Ringbom, H.; “Crosslinguistic Influence and the Foreign Language Learning Process”. Wode,

H.;

“Language

Transfer:

A

Cognitive,

Functional

and

Developmental View”. Odlin, T (1989), Language transfer. Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1994), Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press Ellis, R. (1995), The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press Cook, V. (1993), Linguistics and Second Language Adquisition. Macmillan Press Pfaff (1982), First and Second Language Acquisition.

Newbury House

Publishers, Cambridge. Hyltenstam, K. “Markedness, language universals, language typology, and second language acquisition”. University of Stockholm, Sweden. Fetcher & Garman (1986), Language Acquisition. Press. Atkinson, M. “Learnability”. Retreat from: www.eirelink.com (Japanese Grammar)

Bozzani-Cruells-Gómez Dova-Moix 9

Cambridge University