Cross-Linguistic Influence and Learner Language @ Cindy魔法ABC教室

Cross-Linguistic Influence and Learner Language

Outline

•Presentation of this chapter

•Implications to teaching

•Questions for discussion

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

•Definition: the study of two languages in contrast.

•CAH claimed that the principal barrier to SLA is the interference of the L1 system with the L2 system, and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two languages in question would yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which in turn would enable the linguist to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter.

Hierarchy of Difficulty

•Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin (1965)

• --level 0 – transfer: no difference (mortal)

--level 1 – coalescence: his/her (su)

--level 2 – underdifferentiation

--level 3 – reinterpretation

--level 4 – overdifferentiation:

--level 5 – split: “ser/estar”

• A teacher or linguist could make a prediction of the relative difficulty of a given aspect of the target language.

Markedness and Universal Grammar

•Fred Eckman’s Markedness Differential Hypothesis accounted for relative degrees of difficulty by means of principles of universal grammar.

•Eckman showed that marked items in a language will be more difficult to acquire than unmarked.

•Degrees of markedness will correspond to degrees of difficulty.

Learner Language

•Interlanguage

--a term that Selinker (1972) adapted from Weinreich’s term ‘interlingual.’ It refers to the separateness of a L2 learner’s system.

A structurally intermediate status between the L1 and L2.

•The most obvious approach to analyzing interlanguage is to study the speech and writing of the learners or what has come to be called learner language (Lightbown & Spada, 1993; C. James, 1990).

Error Analysis

Sources of Error

•Interlingual transfer

–Interference from L1 to L2 = negative transfer

•Intralingual transfer

–Interference within L2 (e.g., *goed of overgeneralization )

•Context of learning

–Incorrect information (e.g., unclear explanation)

•Communication strategies

–Wrong techniques (e.g., ‘well done’ for ‘welfare’)

Intralingual errors

Stages of Learner Language Development

There are four stages (Corder, 1973)

•Random errors: inaccurate guessing (e.g., “John cans sing.” “John can singing.”

•Emergent: internalize certain rules— “backsliding” (e.g., “I go, I went 1972.”)

•Systematic: close to L2 (e.g., “fish are serving” vs. “fish are served”)

•Stabilization: self-correct; fossilization

Variability in Learner Language

•Notable among models of variability are Elaine Tarone’s capability continuum paradigm and Rod Ellis’s variable competence model, both of which have inspired others to carry out research on the issue.

Models of Variability

Tarone (1988) suggested four categories of variation. Variation according to ….

•linguistic context (e.g., “He must paid” and “He must pay”)

•psychological processing

•social context

•language function

Fossilization

•Vigil and Oller’s (1976) model hold that….

--A positive affective response is imperative to the learner’s desire to continue attempts to communicate, e.g., ‘keep talking; I’m listening.’

--Cognitive feedback in the cognitive dimension such as ‘I understand what you mean’ will encourage learners to ‘try again,’ reinforcing an incorrect form of language.

Form-Focused Instruction (FFI)

•Any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly (Spada, 1997).

Error Treatment

•Affective and cognitive feedback

–Red light: abort

–Yellow light: adjustment (cognition)

–Green light: continuation
•Hendrickson (1980) recommended that global errors (need to be treated) vs. local error (can be ignored for the sake of maintaining a flow of communication).

Error Treatment Options

Basic Options by Baily (1985):

•to treat or to ignore

•to treat immediately or to delay

•to transfer to other learners or not

•to transfer to another individual, group, or whole class or not

•to return to original error maker or not

•to permit other learners to initiate treatment

•to test for the efficacy of the treatment

In the classroom:

A Model for Error Treatment in the classroom:

1. Teachers identify the type of deviation (lexical, phonological, etc.)

2. Teachers identify its source (L1, L2, teacher-induced, other students, outside L2 input).

3. The complexity of deviation may determine not only whether to treat or ignore, but how to treat if that is your decision.

4. Teachers decide whether the utterance is interpretable (local) or not (global error).

5. Teachers make a guess at whether it is a performance slip (mistake) or a competence error.

6. Teachers make an instant judgment about learners’ affective state (language ego fragility, anxiety level, confidence, and willingness to accept correction).

7. The learner’s linguistic stage of development.

8. Teachers’ own pedagogical focus at the moment will help you to decide whether or not to treat.

9. The communicative context of the deviation. For example, individual work, group work, whole-class work, S-S or S-T exchange.

10. Teacher’s own style (an interventionist or laissez-faire).

Implications to Teaching

•The teacher’s task is to value learners, prize their attempts to communicate, and provide optimal feedback for the interlanguage system to evolve in successive stages until learners are communicating meaningfully and unambiguously in the second language.

What do you think the role of error correction in EFL classroom?
In your opinion, how should students’ errors be handled in the classroom?