Discuss the role of cross linguistic influence in second language acquisition PDF

Preview

Summary

Discuss the role of cross linguistic influence in second language acquisition ...

Description

''Discuss the role of cross linguistic influence in second language acquisition.''

The role of the first language in second language acquisition (SLA) has been a popular belief and a subject of research and disagreement for many decades. The main belief surrounding this topic is one of a negative influence. Researchers believe that the mother tongue can interfere with the learning of the L2 and that one of the biggest difficulties in learning a second language is about overcoming the L1 effects. Supporting the role of cross linguistic influence are factors such as ‘foreign’ accents in the speech of L2 learners. Ellis (1985) A native spanish speaker learning english will be almost immediately recognised as an L1 spanish speaker from there spanish accent while speaking english. Other factors include grammar, vocabulary and even L1 language habits. L2 acquisition theories simply cannot be considered complete by ignoring the learners L1. Ellis (1985) One of the main reasons that disagreement has occurred within this field regarding the role and use of the L1 is due to the changes that have occurred in the psychological section of the L1 examination. The L1 role was firstly linked to behaviourism and and seen in terms of the transfer theory. Ellis (1985) describes how Watson (1924) and Skinner (1957) set out on the investigation into the regular behaviour that was the result of a response to a particular stimulant, or a habit. In other words, they saw second language learning as a process of habit formation. As put by Mitchell and Myles (2004: 31), we must replace our old L1 habits with a set of new ones for SLA. Ellis (1985) mentions the two characteristics of habits which were identified by behaviourist psychologists: they were observable and they were automatic. The general theories of habits were then applied to language learning. L1 learning involved children imitating utterances from their parents, and being rewarded or corrected so children could build up patterns or ‘habits’ within the language. First and second language learning was most successful when the last was broken down into stimulus-response links and mastered one at a time. One of the major attractions of this subject of study was it demonstrated the SLA habitformation and it explained why the learner of the L2 made errors. Ellis (1985)

‘The grammatical apparatus programmed into the mind as the first language interferes with the smooth acquisition of the second (Bright and McGregor

1970:236). According to the theory of habit-formation, errors were the result of interference from L1 habits. Error can arise in the SLA when the first and second language share a meaning but express it in different way and the learner will transfer the realisation device from their mother tongue to the second. There are many examples of this such as an L2 speaker of french translating ‘I am cold’ as ‘je suis froid’, when the correct translation is ‘j’ai froid’ (Ellis 1985). This example is the result of proactive inhibition, which must be overcome to develop new habits. However, many cases occur where the expressions for meanings in different languages are the same, in which case proactive inhibition does not occur. There is also the issue of transfer, which will be negative when proactive inhibition occurs, resulting in errors. When first and second language habits are the same, transfer will be positive. Contrastive analysis was then developed. This was used to predict the errors that would occur as a result of different learner’s L1s so that teachers could focus on these specific areas during language learning and attempt to avoid the error. This procedure was based on the learning theory. However, during the 1970’s, the validity of the contrastive analysis theory was under suspicion. Many predicted errors failed to occur, while many errors which were not predicted occurred. Another issue is what are the non-linguistic variables which predict interference. Marton (1980) discusses how non-linguistic variables are not a major factor for naturalistic SLA, but a major element for classroom or foreign language learning as learners will always use their L1 between classes. The learners development stage was also a factor which was not applied. Ellis (1985) However, the L1 role was re-assessed gradually in the late 1960s (Ellis, 2008) after the contrastive analysis ‘crisis’ and took two forms: the nature of the language transfer, which was re-examined to gain deeper knowledge about the conditions that must occur for interference to take place, and the type of native language knowledge that was used. The contrastive analysis hypothesis was also modified to include avoidance. A study by Schachter (1974) found that Chinese and Japanese learners of english made few errors. It must be noted that these two languages do not contain many english-like clauses. Meanwhile, Persian and Arabic learners of english, whose relative clauses are similar to those of engish, made more mistakes. This contradicts the contrastive analysis hypothesis. However, it was also noted that fewer attempts were made at the relative clauses in the first case. This results in the L1 of the

learner predicting the use of relative clauses, resulting in avoidance. This contradicted the observed error frequencies method of the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Ellis (1985) Another factor which modified the hypothesis was the ‘degree of similarity’ that must occur between the L1 and L2 for interference to take place. The hypothesis was based upon the transfer theory and the result of interference from old habits in the acquisition of new ones. This should mean that the more difference, the more difficulty and the more errors that should occur. However, Lee (1968) reported little interference from his L1 Chinese while learning english, and based this on the fact that the languages are so different. In fact, Wode (1976) reports that interference was actually more likely when the L1 and L2 are similar. Similarly in other studies, for example Jackson (1981), errors appeared when there were certain similarities and contrasts between similar structures or words in the L1 and L2. We can now see that interference from the L1 occurs in certain contexts and not others. Ellis (1985) The final factor which was modified in the contrastive analysis hypothesis was the multi-factor nature of the learner error. The early research challenging the L1 was based upon the fact that error was either a result of interference or another factor. However, errors can be the result of a certain factor on one occasion and another on a different one and there is no reason why an error should have a single clause (Ellis, 1985). It is more likely that three sets of factors occur, including: universal factors, specific L1 factors, and specific L2 factors. The multi-factorial approach tries to identify the relationship that exists between these three factors. Ellis (1985) The contrastive analysis hypothesis was also entered into a framework where ‘interference’ was reinterpreted as ‘intercession’ - which was used when there were not enough second language resources. Contrastive analysis now also places more interest on the communication uses, which has become a more prominent use recently, known as contrastive pragmatics. This compares the communication functions of each language as many researchers felt that the focus was too much on the linguistic contrasts and not enough on contrasts such as he stylistic uses of items in the L1 And L2 or form-function relationships. Pragmatics is a direction which contrastive analysis will take in the future and help regain its credibility among teachers for its practical worth. Ellis (1985)

The influence of the first language is an important factor in second language acquisition. Although many other factors exist which may be more important, it is impossible to ignore the contribution the cross-linguistic influence makes. It is a source of knowledge that learners will use purposely, or subconsciously to help them place the data from the L2 input. To learn a second language most effectively, the L1 must be engaged with. The role and effect of the L1 influence depends on a number of factors, both formal and pragmatic Ellis (1985). It is most likely to witness this influence from the foreign accent or ‘phonology’ but occurs in many other forms. In all, cross-linguistic influence plays a considerable role in second language acquisition.

Bibliography Watson (1924) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42. Skinner (1957) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st

ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42.

Mitchell and Myles (2004: 31) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42.

Bright and McGregor 1970:236) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42. Marton (1980) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42. Schachter (1974) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42. Wode (1976) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42. Jackson (1981) in Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19-42. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.309-405....