Transcript Introduction (Ch. 1)

Crosslinguistic
Influences (Ch. 3)
Understanding SLA
Lourdes Ortega (2009)
www.routledge.com/cw/ortega
Published by Routledge © 2009 Mark Sawyer
But first… Age leftovers
Problems
 Swedish as an L3
 Correlations among cognitive tests

Do GJ tests measure Competence? Or?
Opportunities
 pre/post CP research suggested, but
 what about BiL/BiL comparisons?
Basic Question

How is the development of a new L2
influenced by knowledge & capabilities
available through L1 (& previous L2s)?



representation (Competence)
learning strategies/cognitive processes
processing tendencies (Control)
3.1 On L1-L2 differences
& similarities

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)


L1-L2 difference = L2 difficulty
L1-L2 similarity = L2 easiness
(based on behaviorist idea of habit formation)

Problems for CAH

Similarities do not always help (Swedish neg)

Differences do not always cause errors (w.o., r.c.)
Difficulties can be asymmetrical (Fr/Eng pronouns)

3.2 Interlingual identifications


“judgements that something in NL & TL are
similar” (Odlin, 2003)
Precursors



Crucial Similarity Measure (Wode, 1976)
Transfer to Somewhere (Anderson, 1983)
Ex1: Evidentiality L1 Quecha  L2 Spanish
(Spanish V morphology is tempting site for CLI)

Ex2: L1 Eng L2 French guesses (Singleton)
Interlingual identification influences
a)
b)
c)
nature of specific L2 phenomenon
perceived L1/L2 distance, transferability
proficiency level
3.3 Besides the L1:
Developmental influences & interlanguage


L1/L2 common errors (wented, goed)
Universal sequences




morphology (e.g. -ing, -s, -ed)(
morpho-semantics (e.g. tense, aspect)(
word order (esp. negation, questions)(
other syntax (relative clauses)(
Interlanguage


Transitional language system
constructed by learner at each point in
development toward TL (Selinker, 1972)
Synthesis of L1, L2, additional elements
3.4 First language vis-á-vis
developmental influences


Rate but not route varies by L1
Clear L2 English (partial) examples



Negation: preverbal  postverbal
Questions: intonation (2) fronting inversion
Articles: the  one/this substitution
stage…L1 Hmong > L1 Spanish
3.5 Markedness & L1 transfer

Relations among contrasting features
within/across languages:



unmarked: frequent, simple
marked: rare, complex
Example: consonant voicing


Devoicing is frequent, easy, unmarked
Voicing is less frequent, harder, marked
Markedness Differential hypothesis (




L2 > L1, difficulty is expected
L1 > L2, no particular learning challenge
Transfer of marked features less likely
Explains asymmetry between Eng/Ger


L1 English L2ers of German easily learn
word-final devoicing
Germans transfer devoicing to English.
3.6 Can a cup break?
Transferability

Subjective intuitions about L1/L2 similarity
 Is a phenomenon L1-specific or universal?

Also (better?) known as psychotypology
Ex.: Kellerman’s “break” study (1979)

Kellerman’s “break” study


Dutch L2ers of English judged transferability:
acceptability of English equivalents of Dutch
uses of “break”
Results




Beginners: best
Intermediates: worst (much too conservative)
Advanced: better (still conservative)
Too marked/Dutch-sounding not accepted
Kellerman’s “break” study
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
He broke his leg.
The cup broke
The waves broke on the rocks
They finally broke the ice between them.
He broke his word/oath.
She broke the world record.
The tree broke her fall.
The tea break nicely broke up the afternoon.
3.7 Avoidance


Errors of omission? (cf. commission)
Schacter’s relative clause (RC) study





“An error in error analysis” (1974)
RC errors: Persian, Arabic > JPN, CHN
JPN/CHN better than PER/ARA in RCs?
No way! JPN, CHN L2ers avoided RCs
Making fewer errors is not always good!
Avoidance: English phrasal verbs




Hebrew L2ers avoided (
Swedish L2ers avoided non-clear ones (
Dutch L2ers avoided “L1-like” ones (
Explanations?
3.8 Underuse & overuse


Successor to avoidance research
L1 Finnish L2 ENG ex. (Jarvis & Odlin):



underuse of prepositions
overuse of in
Corpus availability helps this research
3.9 Positive influences
on L2 learning rate





Rate of L2 English in Finland:
L1 Swedish > L1 Finnish (Ringbom)
Explanation: Typological/genetic closeness
Also specifically for the, zero article (
L2 French grammatical gender:
L1 German > L1 English (
L2 Thai tones, experimental treatment:
Tonal L1s (Mandarin, T) > non-tonal L1 ENG (
Abstract similarity, Mixed Effect
Artificial animacy-based article rule:
L1s w/grammatical gender > L1s w/o (
 Tense systems
(French passé composé 
English Simple Past, Present Perfect)
Functional overlap/crucial similarity:
delays SP, accelerates PP (

3.10 First language influence
beneath the surface

Information structure:
Topic (JPN) vs. Subject (ENG) Prominence
TP L1ers try to maintain topic-comment
structure in SP L2
There are so many Taiwan people live around the lake
SP L1ers try to maintain subject-predicate
structure in TP L2, avoiding topicalization
(e.g. Korean “as for the elephant, its nose is long”) (
More information structure data


L1 Cambodian L2er of ENG maintained
have in place of existential there is (
Advanced L1 ENG L2ers of German
maintained existential there is rather
than preferred locational constructions (
3.11 Crosslinguistic influences
across all layers of language

Pragmatics/speech acts




L1 JPN, L2 ENG polite requests (
L1/L2 Hebrew, L2/L1 ENG: apologies (
L1 CHN, L2 ENG: compliment responses
Thinking-for-speaking (Dan Slobin)


Languages vary in resources for framing meaning,
e.g. verb-framing or satellite framing for motion.
L1 thinking/framing tendency transfers to L2.
3.12 Beyond the L1: Crosslinguistic
influences across multiple languages



Previous L2s accelerate L3, especially when
typologically related
(vocabulary) strategies have developed,
even if not related (
Morphosyntax (prep stranding): L3 > L2 (

L1 does not hold privileged status in all L3A
 Typology influences formal/surface CLI
 L1 influences semantic CLI

L1/L2 functional roles are different
Proficiency, foreignness, context effects

More multiple language data

L1/L2 play different functional roles: (



Facilitative L1 CLI not always used: (



L1: intentional, metalinguistic,self-regulatory
L2: unconscious, function words
L1 CHN, KOR L3ers of JPN = ENG L2ers
Failed to transfer more similar L1 structure
Order of acquisition, recency, formality,
foreignness; + bidirectional influences
3.13 The limits of
crosslinguistic influence


Easy to overestimate L1 CLI
L1 influence impossible to determine? (




Internal
External, e.g. interlocutors
Post-colonial vs. FL contexts (Odlin)
CLI as resistance, appropriation (