2 But first… Age leftovers ProblemsSwedish as an L3Correlations among cognitive testsDo GJ tests measure Competence? Or?Opportunitiespre/post CP research suggested, butwhat about BiL/BiL comparisons?
3 Basic QuestionHow is the development of a new L2 influenced by knowledge & capabilities available through L1 (& previous L2s)?representation (Competence)learning strategies/cognitive processesprocessing tendencies (Control)
4 3.1 On L1-L2 differences & similarities Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)L1-L2 difference = L2 difficultyL1-L2 similarity = L2 easiness(based on behaviorist idea of habit formation)Problems for CAHSimilarities do not always help (Swedish neg)Differences do not always cause errors (w.o., r.c.)Difficulties can be asymmetrical (Fr/Eng pronouns)
5 3.2 Interlingual identifications “judgements that something in NL & TL are similar” (Odlin, 2003)PrecursorsCrucial 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)
6 Interlingual identification influences nature of specific L2 phenomenonperceived L1/L2 distance, transferabilityproficiency level
7 3.3 Besides the L1: Developmental influences & interlanguage L1/L2 common errors (wented, goed)Universal sequencesmorphology (e.g. -ing, -s, -ed)(morpho-semantics (e.g. tense, aspect)(word order (esp. negation, questions)(other syntax (relative clauses)(
8 InterlanguageTransitional language system constructed by learner at each point in development toward TL (Selinker, 1972)Synthesis of L1, L2, additional elements
9 3.4 First language vis-á-vis developmental influences Rate but not route varies by L1Clear L2 English (partial) examplesNegation: preverbal postverbalQuestions: intonation (2) fronting inversionArticles: the one/this substitution stage…L1 Hmong > L1 Spanish
10 3.5 Markedness & L1 transfer Relations among contrasting features within/across languages:unmarked: frequent, simplemarked: rare, complexExample: consonant voicingDevoicing is frequent, easy, unmarkedVoicing is less frequent, harder, marked
11 Markedness Differential hypothesis ( L2 > L1, difficulty is expectedL1 > L2, no particular learning challengeTransfer of marked features less likelyExplains asymmetry between Eng/GerL1 English L2ers of German easily learn word-final devoicingGermans transfer devoicing to English.
12 3.6 Can a cup break? Transferability Subjective intuitions about L1/L2 similarityIs a phenomenon L1-specific or universal?Also (better?) known as psychotypologyEx.: Kellerman’s “break” study (1979)
13 Kellerman’s “break” study Dutch L2ers of English judged transferability: acceptability of English equivalents of Dutch uses of “break”ResultsBeginners: bestIntermediates: worst (much too conservative)Advanced: better (still conservative)Too marked/Dutch-sounding not accepted
14 Kellerman’s “break” study He broke his leg.The cup brokeThe waves broke on the rocksThey 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.
15 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, CHNJPN/CHN better than PER/ARA in RCs?No way! JPN, CHN L2ers avoided RCsMaking fewer errors is not always good!
17 3.8 Underuse & overuse Successor to avoidance research L1 Finnish L2 ENG ex. (Jarvis & Odlin):underuse of prepositionsoveruse of inCorpus availability helps this research
18 3.9 Positive influences on L2 learning rate Rate of L2 English in Finland:L1 Swedish > L1 Finnish (Ringbom)Explanation: Typological/genetic closenessAlso 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 (
20 3.10 First language influence beneath the surface Information structure:Topic (JPN) vs. Subject (ENG) ProminenceTP L1ers try to maintain topic-comment structure in SP L2There are so many Taiwan people live around the lakeSP L1ers try to maintain subject-predicate structure in TP L2, avoiding topicalization(e.g. Korean “as for the elephant, its nose is long”) (
21 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 (
22 3.11 Crosslinguistic influences across all layers of language Pragmatics/speech actsL1 JPN, L2 ENG polite requests (L1/L2 Hebrew, L2/L1 ENG: apologies (L1 CHN, L2 ENG: compliment responsesThinking-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.
23 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 L3ATypology influences formal/surface CLIL1 influences semantic CLIL1/L2 functional roles are differentProficiency, foreignness, context effects
24 More multiple language data L1/L2 play different functional roles: (L1: intentional, metalinguistic,self-regulatoryL2: unconscious, function wordsFacilitative L1 CLI not always used: (L1 CHN, KOR L3ers of JPN = ENG L2ersFailed to transfer more similar L1 structureOrder of acquisition, recency, formality, foreignness; + bidirectional influences
25 3.13 The limits of crosslinguistic influence Easy to overestimate L1 CLIL1 influence impossible to determine? (InternalExternal, e.g. interlocutorsPost-colonial vs. FL contexts (Odlin)CLI as resistance, appropriation (