L1 TRANSFER ON L2 by Hacer Kökcür & Duygu Işık. RESEARCH QUESTION Does first language (L1)...

L1 TRANSFER ON L2

byHacer Kökcür & Duygu Işık

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does first language (L1) influence the acquisition of the second language (L2)in terms of

grammar, or not?

AIM

• To understand whether there is a transfer on L2 from L1 in the

aspect of adjective use ( as a similarity) and definite article use

(as a difference)

• To suggest ways of how teachers can benefit our results in their

classrooms.

LITERATURE REVIEW

TRANSFER

Transfer is defined as “the influence resulting from similarities

and differences between the target language and any other

language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly)

acquired” (Odlin, 2000, p. 27).

TRANSFER• Positive transfer

• Negative transfer

Underproduction: Learners may produce very few or no examples of a target

language structure.

Overproduction: Learner produces too many of the same structure violating the

norms.

Production errors: Substitutions, use of a L1 form in L2.

Misinterpretation: L1 structures influence the interpretation of messages in L2.

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS

• “Contrastive analysis (CA) seems to be a hybrid linguistic

enterprise … and we might say, CA is a linguistic enterprise

aimed at producing inverted (i.e. contrastive, not comparative)

two-valued typologies (a CA is always concerned with a pair of

languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can

be compared.”

CA

“Contrastive analysis assumed that many of the mistakes made

by learners are caused by differences between the native and

target languages, and led to a large number of extremely

valuable language descriptions and pedagogical grammars”

(Spolsk, 1979, p. 251).

ERROR ANALYSIS

“Error analysis, the technique of examining and categorizing

systematic errors of language learners, owes its popularity in

part to trends in L1 research, and in part to the inability of

existing theories of L2 acquisition to explain some of the

phenomena occurring in the speech of L2 learners”. Chun (1980,

p. 292)

METHODOLOGY

PARTICIPANTS

The participants of this study are 80 prep class students( 20 A1, 20 A2,

20 B1 and 20 B2 students) . They are all students at Gediz University.

Their ages are between nineteen (19) and twenty-two (22). Their

proficiency level in English is between elementary to upper-

intermediate. All of the participants are native speakers of Turkish and

learning English as a foreign language. They do not know any other

language nor do they have any constant contact with foreign people.

METHODOLOGY

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

We used the students’ writings to collect data.

DATA ANALYSIS

We counted the expected total usage of each structure and wrote them down.

After counting the total usage, we counted the correct and misuse of each

structure and wrote them down, too. By comparing the correct, incorrect and

omission of each structure, we got the misuse percentage of each structure by

all participants, and put them in charts.

RESULTS

A1 LEVELADJECTIVES DEFINITE

ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT

DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT

DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION

CORRECT USAGE 138 13 17 57

INCORRECT USAGE 8 4 2 8

OMISSION- 26 50 12

TOTAL USAGE 146 43 69 77






INCORRECT USAGE 5 1 - 3

OMISSION- 30 46 11


B1 LEVELADJECTIVES DEFINITE





INCORRECT USAGE 1 - 4 13

OMISSION- 33 41 15







INCORRECT USAGE 1 - 3 14

OMISSION- 22 24 2






CORRECT USAGE%

94.52% 30.23% 24.63% 74.02%

INCORRECT USAGE%

5.47% 9.30% 2.89% 10.38%

OMISSION% - 60.46% 72.46% 15.58%

TOTAL USAGE%

100% 100% 100% 100%





CORRECT USAGE%

96.35% 34.04% 31.34% 78.12%

INCORRECT USAGE%

3.65% 2.12% - 4.68%

OMISSION% - 63.82% 68.65% 17.18%

TOTAL USAGE%

100% 100% 100% 100%





CORRECT USAGE%

99.57% 38.88% 44.44% 73.58%

INCORRECT USAGE%

0.43% - 4.93% 12.26%

OMISSION% - 61.12% 50.61% 14.15%

TOTAL USAGE%

100% 100% 100% 100%





CORRECT USAGE%

99.62% 55.10% 53.44% 81.60%

INCORRECT USAGE%

0.37% - 5.17% 16.09%

OMISSION% - 44.89% 41.37% 2.29%

TOTAL USAGE%

100% 100% 100% 100%

GENERAL PERCENTAGES

ADJECTIVES

CORRECT USAGE 770 (98.08%)

INCORRECT USAGE 15( 1.91)

TOTAL USAGE 785( 100%)

THE DEFINITE ARTICLEDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT



THE IN GENERAL

CORRECT USAGE

77(39.89 %) 105 (38.18 %) 256(76.6%) 438 (54.61%)

INCORRECT USAGE

5(2.59%) 9 (3.27%) 38(11.37%) 52 (6.48%)

OMISSION 111 (57.51%) 161 (58.54%) 40 (11.97%) 312 (38.90%)

TOTAL USAGE 193 (24.06%) 275(34.28%) 334(41.64%) 802 (100%)

DISCUSSION

• We found out that there is a significant difference in the incorrect usage of similar and dissimilar structures.

The similar structure (adjectives) of the two languages (L1= Turkish, L2= English) has a very small percentage of incorrect usage

However the dissimilar structure (definite article) has a significantly big percentage of incorrect usage even in its different usages.

OTHER POSSIBLE REASONS BEHIND THE INCORRECT USAGES

• The L2- input ( which may be naturalistic and/or classroom

based)

• Innate linguistic knowledge not obviously traceable to either L1-

transfer or L2 input

THANKS FOR YOUR LISTENING

L1 TRANSFER ON L2 by Hacer Kökcür & Duygu Işık. RESEARCH QUESTION Does first language (L1)...

Documents

Transcript of L1 TRANSFER ON L2 by Hacer Kökcür & Duygu Işık. RESEARCH QUESTION Does first language (L1)...