THE STUDY OF LEARNERS’ APPROXIMATIVE SYSTEMS
I. INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, second language acquisition can refer to the scientific study of
the second-language learning process. It means that second language acquisition
refers to what the learner does, it does not refer to what teachers do. As stated by
Menyuk (1971) that study of the child-learner’s errors does indeed throw light on the
types of the cognitive and linguistic processes that appear to be part of language
learning process. In addition, Corner (1971) stated that in second language learning,
the learner’s errors are indicative both of the state of the learner’s knowledge, and of
the ways in which a second language is learned.
According to Richard and Sampson that while current linguistic theories are
more insightful than previous ones, there has not been a corresponding increase in
the desriptive or explanatory powers of theories of second language acquisition.
Furthermore, they also added that the data gathered could perhaps provide corrective
feedback to general linguistic theory and to language teaching practice.
II. THE STUDY OF LEARNERS’ APPROXIMATIVE SYSTEMS
The concept of second language acquisition and how it is to be described and
understood is widely debated. Boaz (1889) suggested that learners perceived sounds
in new languages in terms of their native language or other languages to which they
had earlier been exposed. With the emergence of the notion of language as a system
however, the question of second language acquisition could be viewed as the
juxtaposition of two systems.
Lado (1957) tended to emphasize points of contrast between two language
systems. Contrastive analysis subsequently arose as a field of research. To be sure,
contrast between systems was understood not to be only factor involved in second
language learning.
1
According to Corder (1967) linguists study the process of language
acquisition and the various strategies learners may use. In line with this statement,
Strevens (1969) hypotesized that errors should not be viewed as problems to be
overcome, but rather as normal and inevitable features indiating the strategies that
learners use.
On the contrary, Nemser (1971) in his early work aimed at the collection and
evaluation of relevant interference data. In line with Nemser, Briere (1968) attempted
to test empirically the amount of interference that would ensue from competing
phonological categories. Errors which did not fit systematically into the native
language or target language systems were, for the most part, ignored.
Current research tends to focus on the learner himself as generator of the
grammar of his sentences in the new language. It is reflected in a growing
terminology for a field of research which deals with the learner’s attempts to
internalize the grammar of the language he is learning. This terminology includes
error analysis, idiosyncratic dialects, interlanguage, approximative systems,
transitional competence, l’etat de dialecte.
The small amount of research and speculation about learners’ approximative
systems mention seven factors that may influence and characterize the second
language learner systems:
1. Language transfer.
Sentences in the target language my exhibit interferences from the
mother tongue. Interference analysis tends to be from the deviant sentence back
to the mother tongue, while contrastive analysis predicts errors by comparing
the linguistic systems of the mother tongue and the target langauge. As stated
by George (1971) that one-third of the deviant sentences from second language
learners could be attribute to language transfer. However, until the role of other
factors is more understood, it is not possible to evaluate the amount of
systematic interference due to language transfer alone.
2
2. Intralingual Interferences.
Richards (1970) proposed intralingual interferences refer to items
produced by the learner which reflect not the structure of the mother tongue,
but generalizations based on partial exposure to the target language.
Furthermore, he found systematic intralingual errors to involve
overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incompete application of
rules, and semantic errors.
Like first language learners, the second language learner tries to derive
the rules behind the data to which he has been exposed, and may develop
hypotheses that correspond neither to the mother tongue nor target language.
As stated by Torrey (1966) in his experiment on learning Russian word order,
subjects sometimes adopted a consistent word order diffferent from either
Russian or English. In line with this experiment, Brudhiprabha (1972) on his
studies of Thai Learner of English, many intralingual errors represent the
learning difficulty of what are often low level rules in the target language.
3. Sociolinguistics Situation.
Different settings language use result in different degrees and types of
language learning. Terms of the effects of the socio-cultural setting on the
learner’s language are different from terms of the relationship holding between
the learner and the target language community and the respective linguistic
markers of these relations and identities such as the effects of the learner’s
particular motivations for learning the second language as well as the effects of
the socio-cultural setting.
Sociolinguistics situation leads to inclusion of the general motivational
variables which influence language learning. Psychologists have related the
types of language learning achieved to the role of the language in relation to
the learner’s needs and perceptions. In focusing on the type of relationship
holding between the learner and the target language community it would be
appropriate to consider non-standard dialects, pidgins, creoles, and immigrant
3
language learning. According to Ferguson (1971) the phenomenon of
simplification in some language contact situations, represented by the absence
of the copula, reduction of morphological and inflectional system, and
grammatical simplification, may likewise be socially motivated.
In addition, Mackey (1962 noted that in describing interference one must
account for variation according to medium, style, or register in which the
speaker is operating. Sampson (1971) suggested that varying situations evoke
different kinds of errors in varying quantities when children are trying to use
the target language.
4. Modality.
The learner’s language may vary according to the modality of exposure
to the target language and the modality of production. Vildomec (1963)
observed that interferences between the bilingual’s languages is generally in
the productive rather than in receptive side. Some of the modalities affecting
the learner’s approximative system are auditory cues, spelling pronunciations,
and confusions of written and spoken styles.
5. Age.
Some aspects of the child’s learning capacities change as he grows older
and these may affect language learning. Lenneberg (1967) noted a period of
primary language acquisition, postulated to be biologically determined,
beginning when the child starts to walk and continuing until puberty.
In some ways adults are better prepared for language learning than
children. Adults have better memories, a larger store of abstract concepts that
can be used in learning, and a greater ability to form new concepts. Children
however are better imitators of speech sounds. Ervin-Tripp (1970) suggested
tht adult mother tongue development is primarily in terms of vocabulary. The
adult’s strategies of language learning may be more vocabulary oriented than
syntactic.
6. Successions of Approximative Systems.
4
It concerns the lack stability of the learner’s approximative system.
Because the circumtances for individual language learning are never identical,
the acquisition of new lexical, phonological and syntactic items varies from
one individual to another.
Since most studies of second language learners systems have dealt with
the learner’s production rather than his comprehension of language, the
question also arises as to whether the grammar by which the learner
understands speech is the same as that by which he produces speech.
According to Troike (1969) assuming the learner hears and understands
standard English but produses a significant number of deviant sentences, the
distinction between his receptive competence (the rules he understands) and his
productive competence (the rules he uses) may be useful.
Evidence from earlier studies indicates that many phonological
replacements found in the speech of second language learners are unique to the
approximative system.
7. Universal Hierarchy of Difficulty.
It concerns with the inherent difficulty for man of certain phonological,
syntactic or semantic items and structures.
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER SYSTEMS
The difference between first language acquisition and second language learning:
First language acquisition Second language learning
learning of the mother tongue is the
part of the whole maturational
process of the child
Learning a second language
normally begins only after the
maturational process
The learner’s errors provide evidence of the system of the language that is using at
the particular point at the course. For the teacher, it can give information about how
far the goal has been reached, and what remains for him/her to be learned.
5
Top Related