1 LANE 622 APPLIED LINGUISTICS Class taught by Dr. Abdullah S. Al Shehri

2 LECTURE VIII CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE AND LEARNER LANGUAGE

3 Up to now.. Our focus has so far been on the psychology of language Acquisition and learning

4 In this lecture.. We will examine the most salient component of L2 acquisition: the language itself. We will look at two eras of preoccupation of language learning, namely: Studies of contrast between the native and the target languages (contrastive analysis), and the effect of native on target language (cross-linguistic influence). Studies of error analysis, and the concept of ‘inter- language’, lately referred as “learner language”.

5 The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) (CAH) emerged in the middle of the 20th century. (CAH) claimed that the main obstacle to L2 learning is the interference from the L1system. (CAH) proposes that a structural analysis of L1 and L2 would yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrast between the two which can help predict learning difficulties.

6 Moreover.. Human learning theories highlighted interfering elements of learning concluded with the following claims: Where no interference could be predicted, no difficulty would be experienced (positive transfer) Second language learning involves the overcoming of differences between L1 and L2 systems. Errors in L2 are caused by negative transfer from the native (L1) to the target language (L2).

7 Lado’s strong claims of CAH.. In the preface to Linguistics Across Cultures, Robert Lado (1957) claims that: “The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and the culture to be learned with native language and culture of the student.”

8 Further claim by Lado.. Lado (1957) continues in the first chapter of the same book: “in the comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning…Those elements that are similar to [the learner’s] native language will be simple for him and those elements that are different will be difficult.”

9 The strong CAH claim of Banathy, Trager, and Waddle (1966) Banathy, Trager, and Waddle (1966) claimed that: “The change that has to take place in the language behavior of a foreign language student can be equated with the differences between the structure of the student’s native language and culture and that of the target language and culture.”

10 Stockwell’s, Bowen’s, and Martin’s Hierarchy of Difficulty A well-known model offered by Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin (1965) suggested a hierarchy of difficulty by which a teacher or a linguist could make a prediction of the relative difficulty of a given aspect of the target language.

11 Clifford Prator’s Categories of Difficulty Clifford Prator (1967) captured the essence of grammatical and phonological hierarchy of difficulty in the following categories: Level 0 – Transfer. One to one correspondence. No difference or contrast. Level 1 – Coalescence. 2 items in L1 are coalesced into one item in L2 (English his/her → Spanish su; English teach/learn → French apprendre). Level 2 – Underdifferentiation. An item in L1 is absent in L2 and learner avoids such item: Use of ‘some’ in mass nouns in Spanish. Level 3 – Reinterpretation. An item in L1 is given a new distribution in L2: (English nasalization → Spanish nasalized vowels) Level 4 – Overdifferentiation. An entirely new item needs to be learned in L2: (Spanish grammatical gender of nouns). Level 5 – Split. One item in L1 becomes 2 or more in L2 requiring the learner to make a new distinction: Spanish indicative and subjunctive moods.

12 Shortcomings of the “Strong Version” of CAH Quite unrealistic and impracticable. The process was oversimplified. Subtle phonetic, phonological, and grammatical distinctions were not carefully accounted for. Very difficult to determine exactly which category a particular contrast fits into. Verifiability of predictions of difficulty is questionable.

13 The Weak Version of CAH Wardhaugh (1970) noted that contrastive analysis had intuitive appeal, and that teachers and linguists had successfully used “the best linguistic knowledge available … in order to account for observed difficulties in L2 learning.” He called such observational use of contrastive analysis the week version of the CAH. The week version does not imply a priori prediction of certain degrees of difficulty. It recognizes the fact that existence of language interference can explain difficulties. The weak version also recognizes that linguistic difficulties can be more profitably explained a posteriori. As errors happen, teachers can utilize their knowledge of L1 and L2 to understand sources of these errors.

14 Cross-linguistic Influence (CLI) CLI is today’s equivalent of the ‘weak version’ of CAH. CLI recognizes that a significant role is played by ‘prior experience’ in any learning act. CLI recognizes the importance of the role of the native language as a prior experience that must not be overlooked. CLI suggests that the difference between today’s emphasis on influence rather than prediction is an important one.  CLI recognizes that syntactic, lexical and semantic interference show far more variation among learners than psychomotor-based pronunciation interference. CLI suggests that teachers must guard against prejudging learners before they give them the chance to perform. CLI offers a cautious middle ground.

15 Markedness and Universal Grammar Fred Eckman (1977, 1981) proposed a useful method for determining directionality of difficulty: Markedness Differential Hypothesis. This is a theory which accounts for relative degrees of difficulty by means of principles of universal grammar (UG). Eckman (1981) showed that marked items will be more difficult to acquire than unmarked items, and degree of markedness will correspond to degree of difficulty.

16 Learner Language (Interlanguage) The learners, in acting upon their environment, construct what to them is a legitimate system of language in its own right. By a gradual process of trial and error and hypothesis testing, learners slowly and tediously succeed in establishing closer and closer approximations to the target system. The most obvious approach to analyzing interlanguage is to study the speech and writing of learners (Error Analysis).

17 Error Analysis Language learning is like any other human learning; it involves making mistakes. Researchers/teachers of L2 realize that such mistakes need to be analyzed carefully. Such mistakes may hold in them some of the keys to the understanding of the process of L2 acquisition.

18 Mistakes and Errors It is important to distinguish between mistakes and errors. A mistake is a performance error that is either a random guess or a “slip” – a failure to utilize a known system correctly. All people make mistakes in both native and second language. Native speakers are usually capable of recognizing their mistakes, which are not the result of deficiency in, or reflective of, their competence. A mistake can be self-corrected while an error cannot. An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, and reflects the competence of the learner.

19 Sources of Error Errors may be the result of: Interlingual Transfer: Errors resulting from the negative influence of the first language. Intralingual Transfer: Errors resulting from the negative influence of the second or target language itself (overgeneralization of rules). Context of Learning: “Context” is, for example, the classroom with its teacher and materials in the case of school learning which may lead to induced errors, as apposed to the other example of context which is the social situation in the case of untutored learning. Communication Strategies: These strategies can at times be a source of error.

20 Fossilization Errors may be the result of ‘fossilization’ of the adult learner’s brain. Fossilization is mostly manifested in “foreign accents” in the speech of those who learned the L2 after puberty. Fossilization may also be observed in persisting syntactic and lexical errors made by speakers of L2.