1. L1 transfer in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Adapted from Franceschina (2003)

2. 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)

3. “ [transfer is] the use of the native language (or other language) information in the acquisition of an L2 (or additional language) ” Gass (1996: 321)

4. “ [transfer is] influence that the learner ’ s L1 exerts on the acquisition of an L2 ” Ellis (1997: 51)

5. 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)

6. Early research 1950s-1960s Behaviourism Lado (1957), Fries (1945) Positive transfer (facilitation) vs Negative transfer (interference) 

7. Contrastive Analysis Methodology (strong version of CAH): 1. Find out what the differences are between pairs of languages 2. On the basis of 1, you can predict areas in which L2 learners will have difficulties and those where they won ’ t Pedagogical uses

8. Contrastive Analysis (cont’d) Difference = difficulty Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) (Lado 1957) include steps of description, selection, comparison, and prediction Types/hierarchy of difficulty in L2: (more difficult) split — new — absent — coalesced ( t wo items in L1 become coalesced (come together) into essentially one item in L2) — correspondence (less difficult) (p. 307)

9. Contrastive Analysis Hypotheses 1. Strong form: errors can be predicted 2. Weak form: some are traceable; a posteriori explanation Strong form: theoretically untenable Work form: impractical/inadequate Lost ground to error analysis in the 1970s

10. 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

11. Error Analysis Corder (1967) Mistake vs Error EA methodology: – Collect data – Identify errors – Classify errors – Quantify errors – Identify source – Remedy

12. Classifying errors Source or errors: – Interlingual – Intralingual

13. Problems with E.A. Total reliance on errors (not the whole picture) Difficulties identifying source of errors

14. 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

15. Problems with no-L1-influence-on- SLA views There IS empirical evidence of L1 influence Methodological drawbacks of morphemes studies

16. Krashen ’ s account of L1 transfer No L1 influence in the acquired system L1 influence is a communication strategy (Krashen, 1982, 1985)

17. Current views on transfer General consensus: the L1 and general developmental processes shape SLA. No agreement on what exactly each contributes, or how.

18. Transfer may be realised as: Errors Facilitation Avoidance strategies

19. Where can transfer manifest itself? Rate of acquisition Route of development Frequency of occurrence of errors/omissions Perception and production

20. Recent developments Transfer in L3 acquisition (Cenoz and Jessner, 2000) L2 effects on the L1 (Cook, 2003)

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.