CLL lecture: L1 transfer in SLA

2 December 2003

Florencia Franceschina

What is transfer?

“[transfer is evidenced as] those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language”

Weinreich (1953: 1)

“[transfer is] the use of the native language (or other language) information in the acquisition of an L2 (or additional language)”

Gass (1996: 321)

“[transfer is] influence that the learner’s L1 exerts on the acquisition of an L2”

Ellis (1997: 51)

Other terms

Transfer Mother tongue influence (Corder, 1967) Native language influence (Gass, 1996) Cross-linguistic influence (Kellerman and

Sharwood-Smith, 1986; Odlin, 1989) Cross-linguistic generalization (Zobl, 1984)

Early research

1950s-1960s Behaviourism Lado (1957), Fries (1945) Positive transfer (facilitation)

vs Negative transfer (interference)

Contrastive Analysis

Methodology (strong version of CAH):

1. Find out what the differences are between pairs of languages2. On the basis of 1, you can predict areas in which L2 learners will have difficulties and those where they won’t

Pedagogical uses

Lado’s hierarchy of difficulty:

– Differentiation– New category– Absent category– Coalescing– Correspondence

Problems with CAH

CAH was empirically unsupported:

– It predicted some difficulties that were not observed in L2 learners

– It failed to predict some difficulties that were observed in L2 learners

Error Analysis

Corder (1967) Mistake vs Error EA methodology:

– Collect data– Identify errors– Classify errors– Quantify errors– Identify source– Remedy

Classifying errors

Source or errors:

– Interlingual

– Intralingual

Problems with E.A.

Total reliance on errors (not the whole picture)

Difficulties identifying source of errors

Morpheme order studies

Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974)Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974)

Claim: there is little or no influence of the L1 in L2 development

Problems with no-L1-influence-on-SLA views

There IS empirical evidence of L1 influence

Methodological drawbacks of morphemes studies

Krashen’s account of L1 transfer

No L1 influence in the acquired system

L1 influence is a communication strategy

(Krashen, 1982, 1985)

Kellerman’s (1979) framework

Learner’s perceived language distance Psychotypology Markedness

Current views on transfer

General consensus: the L1 and general developmental processes shape SLA.

No agreement on what exactly each contributes, or how.

Transfer may be realised as:

Errors Facilitation Avoidance strategies ...

Where can transfer manifest itself?

Rate of acquisition Route of development Frequency of occurrence of errors/omissions Perception and production

Transfer in the L2 initial stage

Minimal Trees (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996, 1998)

vs

Full Transfer/Full Access (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996)

Some background concepts

Phrase structure

(1) XP

specifier X'

X

(head)

complement

(2)

(3)

VP

V'

V

go

PP

to school

NP

N'

N

bunch

PP

of flowers

Lexical vs functional categories

(4) IP

I'

I

[-past] [3PS]

VP

V'

V

go

PP

to school

(5)

DP

D'

D

[-def]

NP

a N'

N

bunch

PP

of flowers

Hierarchy of phrase components

(6) CP

C'

C IP

I'

I DP

D'

D

Full Transfer/Full Access (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996)

Initial state=entire L1 grammar (except specific lexical items)

Development:- L2 input will trigger target-like development- learners are not stuck with L1 settings- ambiguous input could be a problem

Endstate: Convergence is possible, but not guaranteed

Supporting evidence:- Haznedar (1997)- White (1985, 1986)- Yuan (1998)- Slabakova (2000)

Counterevidence:- Yuan (2001)

Minimal Trees (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996)

Initial state:- lack of functional categories- transfer of L1 lexical categories

Development:- full UG-inventory available- gradual emergence of FCs:lexical stage > FP stage > IP stage > CP stage- no L1 transfer of FCs

Endstate:Convergence is possible given enough exposure to the L2

Supporting evidence:- Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994, 1996)

Counterevidence:- Evidence for the presence of FCs in the initial state (Haznedar, 1997; Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1994, 1996; Grondin and White, 1996; Lakshmanan, 1993/94)- Development doesn’t seem to follow the predicted progression (Gavruseva and Lardiere, 1996)- Evidence of L1 transfer of FCs (Haznedar, 1997; Trahey and White, 1993)

ExerciseLook at Ionin’s data. Are they compatible with FT/FA? Are they compatible with MTs?

Recent developments

Transfer in L3 acquisition (Cenoz and Jessner, 2000)

L2 effects on the L1 (Cook, 2003)

References

Bailey, N., C. G. Madden and S. D. Krashen. 1974: Is there a ‘natural sequence’ in adult second language learning? Language Learning 24, 235-243.

Cenoz, J. and U. Jessner. (eds.) 2000: English in Europe: the acquisition of a third language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Corder, P. 1967: The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL) 5, 2/3: 161-170.

Cook, V. J. (ed.) 2003: Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1973: Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245-258. Dulay, H. and M. Burt.1974: Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24,

37-53. Ellis, R. 1997: Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fries, C. 1945: Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press. Gass, S. M. 1996: Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: the role of language transfer, in W. C.

Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia, eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp. 317-345.

Kellerman, E. 1979: Transfer and non-transfer: where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2, 37-57.

Kellerman, E. and M. Sharwood Smith. 1986: Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

References

Krashen, S. D. 1982: Principles and practice in SLA. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D. 1985: The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman. Lado, R. 1957: Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Odlin, T. 1989: Language transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1994: Word order and nominative Case in nonnative language acquisition: a

longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage, in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds. Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 317-368.

Schwartz, B. D. and R. A. Sprouse. 1996: L2 cognitive states and the 'full transfer/full access' model. Second Language Research 12, 1: 40-72.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1994: Direct access to X'-theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German., in T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, eds. Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1996: Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research 12, 1: 7-39.

Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. 1998: Functional categories and related mechanisms in child second language acquisition, in S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono and W. O'neil, eds. The generative study of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weinreich, U. 1953: Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. Zobl, H. 1984: Aspects of reference and the ponominal syntax preference in the speech of young child L2 learners, in

R. W. Andersen, ed. Second languages: a cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Reading

Gass, S. 1996: Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: the role of language transfer. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.): Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp. 317-345.