on modularity of l1 acquisition and l2 learning: reviewing ......on modularity of l1 acquisition and...

On Modularity of L1 Acquisition and L2 Learning: Reviewing Three Different Approaches�

Hyu-Yong Park

(Sungshin Women’s University)

Park, Hyu-Yong. (2011). On Modularity of L1 Acquisition and L2 Learn-ing: Reviewing Three Different Approaches. Language Research 47.1, 101-121.

This paper discusses the issues of modularity, Universal Grammar (UG),

and transferability in children’s mother tongue (L1) acquisition and second

language (L2) learning. In doing so, this paper discusses nativisms’ modu-

larity hypothesis and its three major characteristics; further, this paper intro-duces controversies on modularity from sociocultural perspectives and

connectionism. By comparing and critically analyzing the different ap-

proaches to modularity, UG, and transferability of L1 knowledge to L2

acquisition, this paper emphasizes overcoming the modular account of

human language and expanding understanding on L1/L2 acquisition or learning. Finally, this paper discusses the pedagogic implications of lan-

guage modularity, especially the role of L1 on L2 learning in classroom

settings.

Keywords: modularity, transferability, Universal Grammar, nativism, UG access, connectionism

1. Introduction

This paper discusses the issues of modularity, Universal Grammar (UG),

and transferability in children’s mother tongue (L1) acquisition and second

language (L2) learning and introduces three different approaches to three

issues: modularity (the genetic evolution model, sociocultural adaptation

model, and genetic assimilation model), UG access (nativism, socio-cultural

theories, and connectionism), and transferability (Contrastive Analysis or

Contrastive Rhetoric, Constructive Underlying Proficiency, and Creative

Construction). Given the close relationship between the hypotheses of

modularity and UG in human language capacity and the transferability of

L1 knowledge to L2 learning, a review of the different approaches to these

hypotheses will expand our understanding of L1 acquisition and L2 learning.

In doing so, this paper discusses the notion of modularity in the nativists’

� This work was supported by the Sungshin Women’s University Research Grant of Year 2011.

102 Hyu-Yong Park

theory and examines three characteristics of modularity. Based on the dis-

cussion, this paper examines the controversies surrounding modularity from

the perspectives of sociocultural theories and connectionism. Based on this

discussion, this paper argues that the development of human’s language fac-

ulty results, not from independently working modules, but through the inter-

actions among modules deeply situated in the cultural context. Next, this

paper looks at several different approaches toward modularity or UG access

and L1 transfer to L2 learning. These approaches include Chomskyan na-

tivisim, strong and weak nativism, sociocultural theories, and hard and soft connec-

tionism. Finally, this paper discusses the transferability of L1 knowledge to

L1 learning and compares four different hypotheses: Contrastive Analysis (CA),

Contrastive Rhetoric (CR), Constructive Underlying Proficiency (CUP), and Crea-

tive Construction (CC) (Hui 2010). Generally, the major factors of positive or

negative transfer include language distance, cultural commonalities or differ-

ences, and the conceptual and linguistic knowledge of learners.

2. Body

2.1. Modularity of Language

Scholars use the notion of Theory of Mind (henceforth, ToM) to under-

stand certain domains of mental phenomena, including children’s mother

tongue (L1) acquisition or adults’ second language (L2) learning (Wellman

1990). Within ToM, two approaches to understand the work of the mind

have emerged: one approach views the mind as a uniform system, while the

other sees the human mind as a set of genetically specified, autonomous,

and domain-specific systems (i.e., modules) that function independently with

other modules (Fodor 1983). For example, Chomsky’s (1986) “language fac-

ulty” suggests a separate module handling the process of language acquisi-

tion (Gregg 1996a). Others consider modularity a condition of evolvability,

allowing a little environmental or sociocultural influence (Wagner & Alten-

berg 1996); while still others consider it a result of evolution, affected by ge-

netic or biological programming (Pinker 1997). Nonetheless, defining the

typical characteristics of modularity proves difficult since modules can differ

from one another functionally, structurally, ontogenetically, and phylogeneti-

cally (Sperber 1996). Generally speaking, we can consider a module an in-

nate, encapsulated, and domain-specific part of the cognitive architecture

(Garfield 1987; Leslie 1987, 1991, 1994).

On the one hand, many theorists have argued against the modularity view,

claiming that understanding a language module must go hand-in-hand with

considering the developmental aspects of language (Bartsch & Wellman

On Modularity of L1 Acquisition and L2 Learning 103

1995, Gopnik 1996, Gopnik & Wellman 1992, Perner 1991). On the other

hand, Scholl and Leslie (1999) argued that environmental factors cannot

facilitate the development of different sets of language modules, but they do

allow for slightly earlier and faster development. In this sense, Scholl and

Leslie (1999) took the position that combines the concept of language mod-

ule and theories of language development and asserted an intimate relation-

ship between modular and developmental aspects of language.

The argument, language as modular versus developmental, relates theo-

retically to the two different aspects of modularity—synchronic and dia-

chronic (Segal 1996). Segal suggested that a diachronic module signifies the

modular conception of development; the diachronic module represents not a

static capacity but rather a device that develops through experiential interac-

tions (e.g., communicative experience using language). In this sense, Chom-

sky’s (1957) LAD might represent a paradigmatic diachronic module pro-

vided that LAD is not a fixed structure but open to further development

(Scholl & Leslie 1999). Meanwhile, a synchronic module handles syntax

faculty, for instance, that distinguishes the grammars of different languages.

Thus, the concept of diachronic module can extend the scope of the modular

account of language development since diachronic modules can combine

innate structure (e.g., LAD) with language experiences during development.

That said, language competence seems to undergo a process of development

during childhood, and such development presumably explains how children

incrementally arrive at more sophisticated and complex linguistic structures.

In short, language modules develop and become distinguished in many

different ways as they evolve. Some innate modules, such as syntactic know-

ledge, develop according to a genetic schedule (Pinker 1997), while other

modules, such as the lexicon, are entirely acquired (Karmiloff-Smith 1995).

Furthermore, despite the developmental aspect of modularity, linguists dis-

pute the necessary quantity or relevance of environmental input needed to

trigger and tune the work of a language module on language development.

Hence, we have the highly debatable issue of language modularity—an issue

which invites many controversies on its major characteristics.

2.2. Controversies on the Modularity of Language

Three major characteristics—innateness, domain specificity, and encapsu-

lation (Fodor 1985)—unify the three aspects of language modularity. Re-

garding innateness, modularity theorists who follow Chomsky (1975) argue

that children, born with neurological equipment such as language instinct,

have the ability to appreciate and analyze the structure of speech (Pinker

1989, Pinker & Bloom 1990). In terms of domain specificity, Petitto (1992)

asserted that the knowledge of language does not wholly derive from a gen-

104 Hyu-Yong Park

eral cognitive capacity but has a fundamental distinction from other cogni-

tive and kinetic knowledge. On encapsulation, Hornstein (1987) argued that

semantic interpretation in the surface-structure level and in the logical-form

level are informationally encapsulated and do not share information with

each other. He considered this a mark of modularity.

However, one argument holds that the three modular characteristics of

language—innateness, domain specificity, and encapsulation—are not pre-

sent at the same time (Bates 1994); in other words, it is too difficult to apply

those three characteristics universally into all subcategories of language.

Others have argued that although domain specificity or localization may

represent the endpoints of learning or development, it does not necessarily

signify the starting point of language development (Karmiloff-Smith 1993),

which concerns us here. For instance, some theorists have contended that

children with deficit language development cannot catch up with the normal

level of language because the brain has localized and the environmental in-

puts are effortless (Hyter et al. 2001, Van der Lely 1997); however, others

have claimed that deficit studies do not provide enough explanation for the

major effect of language input because brain localization itself seems to be

the result of language learning, not its precondition (Farah 1994, Karmiloff-

Smith 1995, Shaywitz 2003).

Other arguments pertain to the difference in syntactic or phonological and

lexical, semantic, or pragmatic aspects. While many supporters of language

modularity base their arguments on examples from syntactic aspects, others

hesitate to favor language modularity depending on semantic or pragmatic

findings (Garfield 1987). In this sense, for example, Wood (1998) criticized

research that stresses a biological instinct to learn language (e.g., Pinker 1991),

without fully attending to interpersonal experiences and environmental factors.

To resolve these arguments, others have suggested that language faculty re-

sembles a sort of complex learning module that, given proper linguistic and

contextual input, can yield many different mental grammars (K Kim et al.

1997, Dehaene et al. 1997). Each of these grammars, as the final result of

language modularity, can be learned, developed, and might be selectively

decayed or impaired during its development. This implies that the notion of

modularity of language does not necessarily mean an unchanging, hard-

wired, or encapsulated mechanism.

2.3. Widening Our Understanding on Modularity

More flexible understandings of modularity will settle controversies regar-

ding the following three issues: local level vs. global level, encapsulation vs.

redescriptive process, and domain specificity vs. cooperation between modules.


2.3.1. Local Level Versus Global Level Modularity

Fodor (2000) revised his previous position on modularity (Fodor 1983),

arguing that the design of most of the cognitive mind is not modularized;

that is, though the local mental processes may be modular, the global mental

processes, like thinking, reasoning, inferencing, or problem solving, are not

modular. Since language faculty works beyond the local level, we must con-

sider the presumptive modular structure of language at the local level while

regarding the nonmodular process of thinking at the global level. In this

sense, the concepts that define many aspects of linguistic phenomena are not

modular (Fodor 2000); instead, interface capacities make language possible

(Sterelny 2003). That said, we can integrate the linguistic process (or mod-

ule) within our overall mental processes and extend the processes to the

scope of the social or cultural level. Therefore, we cannot encapsulate the

semantic and pragmatic usage of language at the local level but, rather, con-

ceptualize it at the global level.

2.3.2. Encapsulative Module Versus Redescriptive Process

Karmiloff-Smith (1995) criticized the nativists’ account of “native compe-

tence plus language input” as not providing a clear understanding of how

children actively construct their linguistic knowledge. Instead, she suggested

the representational redescription model (RR)1 to account for how children’s rep-

resentations become progressively more malleable and flexible for the emer-

gence of conscious access to linguistic knowledge. In RR theory, she argues

that redescription takes place from very early infancy as children are “ac-

tively engaged in analyzing phonological or morphological inputs” and rede-

scribe them “into the more accessible format of linguistic schemas” (Kar-

miloff-Smith 1995: 42). Even humans presumably have innate mechanisms

or capacities that underpin language acquisition and Karmiloff-Smith em-

phasized the developmental process over the matter of modularity.

2.3.3. Domain Specificity Versus Cooperation Between Modules

The critical issue in building a mind is not the modules from which the

mind is composed, but the process by which the modules are integrated. In

this sense, Spelke (2003) argues that human’s unique mental capabilities arise

from cooperation between modules. For example, our faculty of language

might be composed of a few dozen specialized modules—not only phonetic,

phonological, or lexical modules but also auditory, visual, or kinetic modules

bidirectionally connected to each other. Given this complex connection, we

cannot judge which modules predominantly regulate our language faculty

1 According to the RR theory, for instance, trial-and-error of the irregular forms in English may serve as indicators of conceptual change and reorganization, which is the process of repre-sentation (Wood 1998: 137).

106 Hyu-Yong Park

(Kirby 1998).

In short, scholars have disputed the suggested characteristics of modularity,

and the assumptive concept of modularity also calls for further examination.

Consequently, discussions about modularity have been a diversification that

goes beyond the hypothesis of modularity.

2.4. Overcoming Modularity: Socio-cultural Theories and Connectionism

2.4.1. Language in Context Versus Language in Modules

Contrary to modular perspectives, sociocultural theory views language

learning in its connection and coherence to the social context. Vygotsky

(1978) considered social interaction as both an external source and integral

part of individual development and social experience as the motive for chil-

dren’s developmental changes and higher mental functions (Gauvain 2001).

In such social experiences, language signifies a medium while it can also fa-

cilitate cognitive development (Bloom 2002, Rogoff 1990). For instance,

Bloom (2002) found that children solve name-object mapping problems by

inferring from the referential intentions of others and argued that a distinct

module does not produce this “mind reading” ability.

In comparing modularity and social context, Cole (1999) suggested that

the two sources of structure—context as a cultural factor and modularity as

a phylogeneric factor for development—interweave over time. On the one

hand, context, cultural source in the structuration of language, provides both

constraints on the formation of language and tools used in the process of

constructing linguistic knowledge (Cole 1999: 84). On the other hand, cul-

tural context plays a significant role in choosing among different kinds of

modular inputs, depending on culturally accumulated knowledge acting as

constraints. For example, phylogenetic modules (e.g., phonemic awareness in

the early infancy) provide a primary level of constraint on building linguistic

knowledge, and historically accumulated modes of action (e.g., Korean in-

fants intuitively distinguish /b/, /p/, and /pp/ by experience) further con-

strain those. As such, Cole argued that phylogenetic input and cultural modi-

fications coevolve in the macrotime (e.g., tens of thousands years) of phylo-

genic influence and the microtime (e.g., hundreds of years) of cultural influ-

ence (Cole 1999: 87-88).

To summarize, as Geertz (1973) viewed this relation as the intertwining

coevolution of culture and human phylogeny, language acquisition not only

signifies a matter of individual microgenesis but also the effect of intermin-

gled interactions of language modules deeply situated in the cultural context.

2.4.2. Is Culture Everything?: Coevolution Models

Although this paper highlights the sociocultural understanding of lan-


guage modules, the sociocultural perspective alone cannot provide an ac-

count for all facets of language development (Fodor 1999). Deacon (1997)

argued that language arises slowly through cognitive and cultural inventive-

ness, and cognitive effort and genetic assimilation interact as language and

brain coevolve. In other words, language has not evolved by itself; the coevo-

lution of language and the brain has occurred through genetic assimilation,

which involves neurobiological changes that assist attention, memory, and

association to ease the laborious work of language.

In the same vein, Dual Inheritance Theory argues that normal human devel-

opment, including language development, depends crucially on both bio-

logical and cultural inheritance (Durham 1991, Tomasello 1999). For in-

stance, Tomasello (1999: 41) emphasized that the process of cumulative cul-

tural evolution represents “a powerful form of collaborative inventiveness or

sociogenesis”. We have this “cumulative cultural evolution” to thank for

humans’ ability to develop language capacities within a relatively short pe-

riod in evolution.

2.4.3. Connectionist View of Language

Some researchers reject language modularity due to its abstractness; in-

stead, they propose a more scientific and positivistic approach—connec-

tionism (Gasser 1990). According to the connectionist view, the human

mind signifies the “global result of many interactions taking place in a net-

work of neurons modeled with an artificial neural network and consists en-

tirely of quantitative processes in which physicochemical causes produce

physicochemical effects” (Alemi & Daftarifard 2010: 3). Contrary to Chom-

sky (1957), who believed in a specific mental module specialized for lan-

guage, and Fodor (1983), who argued that such capacity has emerged under

some specific evolutionary pressure, connectionism considers the entire

mind, including language capacity, as the result of learning and experience

during life (Dilworht 2005).

Connectionism posits that modules, if any, while not present in the pheno-

type from birth, may develop later in life. Thus, according to connectionism,

modules, only very partially encoded in the genotype, result only from com-

plex interactions between genetically encoded information and learning by

experience (Calabretta & Parisi 2001). Some evolutionary connectionists

admit the existence of modules if the modules result from development and

learning rather than appearing innately. Currently, both neuroscientists and

computer scientists interested in the computational power of networks of

simple processing units laboriously examine connectionist models (Calab-

retta & Parisi 2001).

In short, many different approaches have challenged the language module

hypothesis and the idea of innateness is getting questioned these days.

108 Hyu-Yong Park

Rather, we should sincerely consider the development of language capacity

under the context of sociocultural influences. According to dual inheritance

theory, language development depends crucially on both biological and cul-

tural inheritance; and connectionism investigates the nature of modules in

terms not of domain specificity or encapsulation but as the result of complex

interactions between genetic encoding and everyday experience.

2.5. Modularity and L2 Learning

Having discussed the controversies over the modularity of L1, we turn to

questions on how L2 learning differs from L1 acquisition in terms of modu-

larity and whether L1 knowledge can be transferred to L2.2

2.5.1. Modularity of L1 and L2

Scholars have offered many idiosyncratic theoretical positions regarding

modularity, UG access, or L1–L2 transfer. Some, like Chomskyan nativism

(1980, 1986), accept modularity, while others, such as sociocultural theories

and connectionism, reject modularity. Strong natavism (Dehaene 1997, Fodor

2001, Matthews 2001, Selinker 1984) professes that L1 and L2 learning can

access UG, while weaker nativism (Clahsen & Muysken 1986, Cowie 1999,

Schachter 1990) remains skeptic about UG access of both L1 and L2. The

following provides a detailed analysis of the different theoretical positions

regarding UG access (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparing Theoretical Positions on Modularity, UG Access, and L1–L2

Transfer.

UG Access

Theoretical positionModu-

larity

Domain

specificity &

InnatenessL1 L2

L1 � L2

Transfer

Chomskyan nativism Not sure

Fundamental

Difference Hypo.

� � × Indirect access

(L1 parameters transfer)

Possible (a little) transfer Strong nativism � � �

UG Direct access to L2

Weak nativism

Modular

� × × - Non-UG Access Hypo.

- May be no transfer

Sociocultural × × × No transfer

Hard Connectionist × × × No transfer

Soft Connectionist

Non-

modular×

� �

(Dual Inheri-

tance)

- Maybe UG + culture

- Depends on languages

2 For other categories of the relations between L1 and L2, see White (1996) and Flynn (1996).


When Chomsky (1957)3 tried to explain UG in terms of a modular com-

ponent, the issue of whether the concept of UG can be applied in L2 learn-

ing did not come up. In this sense, Gregg (1996a, 1996b) distinguished two

different positions regarding the contribution of UG in L2 learning: one ar-

gues that UG, though it works for L1, plays no direct role in L2 acquisition

(Chomskyan nativism). The other, Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (hence-

forth, FDH), differentiates between child L1 acquisition with adult L2 learn-

ing (Clahsen & Muysken 1989, Schachter 1989). FDH argues that adult L2

learning relies on general cognitive ability and problem solving ability; in this

sense, child L1 acquisition differs from adult L2 learning in that child L1

acquisition needs direct access to UG (i.e., setting principles and parameters),

while L2 learning relies on the L1 principles and parameters. In brief, FDH

posits that humans acquire L1 through L1 input under the mechanism of

principles and parameters of bioprogrammed UG, while we learn L2 from

experiences with L2 input guided by the parameters set by L1 (Galasso 2002).

Strong nativism affirms that UG also works as a causal factor in L2 learn-

ing; it implies that no difference exists between L1 and L2 learning and that

UG operates in L2 acquisition as well. As for strong nativism, Dehaene

(1997) argues that, in the case of bilingual individuals, two distinct mental

grammars of both languages are submodules of a more general mental UG

and, thus, share some resources. For example, when a Korean native speaker

learns English vocabulary, s/he might select and adapt the new English lexi-

cal knowledge to a pre-existing neural region of the Korean lexical system

rather than by constructing an English lexical system anew. Dehaene argued

that, say, in the case of the Korean second-language learner, the gained lexi-

cal knowledge of English resulted from a process of ad hoc modularisation

of a lexical knowledge of Korean. Therefore, we can say that L1 lexical

knowledge (i.e., Korean) transfers to L2 (i.e., English). Additionally, strong

nativism posits another minor viewpoint (Selinker 1984) arguing that UG, as

L1, drives L2 acquisition by young children; however, strong nativists do not

consider this influence of L1 but adopt the L2 Direct UG Access Hypotheses

(Krashen 1985, Thomas 1991).

While strong nativism accepts domain specificity, innateness, and UG,

weak nativism rejects UG and consequently argues against transfer of L1

knowledge to L2 acquisition. To elaborate, weak nativists affirm that hu-

mans possess an innate and domain-specific capacity for language acquisi-

tion, without necessarily having faculties such as UG and without expecting

3 Cowie (1999: 176) characterized Chomskyan nativism in terms of domain specificity, innate-ness, and Universal Grammar; according to Chomskyan nativism, human language is modu-lar because: i) human language is constrained by principles specific to the linguistic domain; ii) human capacity of learning a language is not gained by experience but innately encoded, and iii) the constraints and principles are to be identified with the peculiar knowledge of Uni-versal Grammar.

110 Hyu-Yong Park

L1 transfer to L2. Hence, we have the L2 Non-UG Access Hypothesis (Clahsen

& Muysken 1986, Schachter 1990, Cowie 1999).

Sociocultural theorists (Ellis 1998, Lantolf & Poehner 2008, Vygotsky 1986)

affirm neither UG nor modular accounts of language. Rather, they believe

experience, sociocultural context, and/or practice largely influence language

acquisition. Transfer of L1 knowledge to L2 can occur, but it takes place

through the familiarity of languages and language-learning experiences and

not by the effects of modularity or UG.

Meanwhile, connectionists have two different positions regarding UG—

hard and soft connectionism. The former posits no modules or UG but ar-

gues that language acquisition does not differ from other cognitive and

neurobiological tasks. Naturally, it has little interest in L1 transfer to L2

learning. The effects of transfer or interference also depend on the familiarity

of both languages (Nambiar 2009). The latter, represented by the dual inheri-

tance theory, argues that UG may define human language capacity, but an-

other significant factor — i.e., culture — takes precedent. Therefore, innate-

ness does not solely determine language acquisition, rather, language acquisi-

tion occurs developmentally, and the language faculty is not entirely domain

specific, but involves interactions among modules. This position presumes

no difference between L1 acquisition and L2 learning; thus, shift of L1

knowledge to L2 can occur through transfer or interference, depending on

the familiarity between L1 and L2 (Lindsey et al. 2003, Sparks et al. 2008).

2.5.2. L1–L2 Transferability

Debates in the literature of second language acquisition and bilingual edu-

cation have long surrounded the transferability between L1 and L2. None-

theless, researchers have not reached a consensus on whether transfer of L1

knowledge has constructive or destructive influences.

We can categorize the role of L1 on the acquisition of L2 into four differ-

ent perspectives in terms of cross-linguistic analysis (Hui 2010): Contrastive

Analysis (CA), Contrastive Rhetoric (CR), Constructive Underlying Proficiency

(CUP), and Creative Construction (CC). Among these, CA and CR hold that

L1 interferes with L2 acquisition when L1 and L2 differ linguistically; CUP

maintains that L1 facilitates L2 learning; and CC claims that L1 has no ef-

fect on L2 acquisition. Table 2 demonstrates these distinctions.


Table 2. Four Hypotheses on L1-L2 Transfer.

Hypo-

thesis L1–L2 relationship L1 influence Conditions for positive transfer

CUP Similar languagesPositive

(Facilitation)

Conceptual & linguistic knowledge,

common experience (Similar cognitive

processes, shared structures, &

transferrable mechanism)

CA Distant languagesPsychological (Learning strategies) &

Linguistic aspect (Structural similarities)

CR Structural similarities

Cultural differences

Negative

(Inter-

ference) Cultural commonalities

CC No matter No effectUniversal process for all language

learning

First, CUP hypothesizes L1 and L2 as proficiencies separated at the sur-

face level but suggests they might share certain abstract universal principles

and constraints at the deeper level for all natural languages (Cummins 1979,

1983). This hypothesis affirms that becoming proficient in L2 requires suc-

cessful transfer of the skills, knowledge, and concepts of L1. Securing CUP

requires three elements: conceptual knowledge, common experience, and

linguistic knowledge (Francis 2000). In other words, CUP is secured when

L1 and L2 have similar cognitive processes, shared structures, and mecha-

nisms that allow the processes and structures for successful L1 transfer to L2

(Eisterhold 1990). In short, positive L1 transfer means that L2 learners must

utilize cognitive skills at a deeper level, such as reading and writing or lan-

guage-learning strategies, skills which might be shared with L1 proficiency

(Hall 1990, Liu 2002, Scott 1997, Upton & Li-Chun 2001).

In this sense, some view L2 learning as highly parasitic on the structures

of L1 in lexicons (Kroll & Sholl 1992) or phonology (Flege & Davidian 1984,

Hancin-Bhatt 1994), relative to L1 knowledge transfer to L2. However, stud-

ies supporting such transferability mostly have explored cognate languages

(Skehan & Ducroquet 1988). In addition, many occasions arise when the

transfer of syntactic patterns is only structurally correct but pragmatically

inaccurate (MacWhinney 2001). Moreover, even in the case of transfer be-

tween cognate languages, more cases of negative transfer occur, for instance,

in phonology where L1 articulatory patterns influence production of foreign

accents in L2 (MacWhinney 2001).

Second, CA hypothesizes that L1 knowledge might interfere with L2

learning in terms of both psychological (e.g., interfering elements of learn-

ing) and linguistic (e.g., language difference) aspects (James 1980). Mean-

while, CR focuses on cases in which the similarities in structure and the dif-

112 Hyu-Yong Park

ferences in cultural conventions and knowledge in L1 and L2 cause negative

influence of L1 (Grabe & Kaplan 1989). This negative transfer happens at

various levels of language, such as phonological, syntactic, and discourse

levels (Liu 2002).

Therefore, we have difficulty in expecting positive transfer between distant

languages (Ellis 2003). Negative transfer between distant languages may ne-

cessitate more time required in learning L2 than when learning cognate lan-

guages. For example, the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) has created a list

showing the approximate time people need to learn a specific language as an

English speaker, up to the level “Speaking 3 (General Professional Profi-

ciency in Speaking)” and “Reading 3 (General Professional Proficiency in

Reading).” Table 3 displays this information (FSI 2011).

Table 3. Language-learning Timeframes for Native English Speakers.

Category Description Necessary time Examples of languages

I Languages closely

related to English

23-24 weeks

(575-600 hours)

- Romance (Dutch, French, Italian,

Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish)

- Scandinavian (Danish, Norwe-

gian Swedish, etc.)

I-1 Languages lingui-

stically related

30 weeks (750 hours)

36 weeks (900 hours)

- German

- Indonesian, Malaysian, Swahili

II

Languages with

significant linguistic

and/or cultural

differences

44 weeks

(1100 hours)

- Slavic (Russian, Polish, Hungar-

ian, Albanian, Finnish, Bulgarian,

etc.)

- Greek (Croatian, Hebrew)

- Hindi (Urdu, Burmese, etc.)

III

Languages exception-

ally difficult for native

English speakers

88 weeks (2200

hours) (2nd year of

study in-country)

- Asian (Cantonese, Mandarin,

Japanese, Korean)

- Arabic

A great volume of research provides evidence supporting the bidirectional

difficulty of L2 learning between distance languages in both linguistic and

cultural aspects.

Lastly, CC hypothesizes that L1 plays no role in L2 acquisition and claims

there is no difference between L1 and L2 acquisition (Dulay & Burt 1972,

Ellis 2003, Faerch & Kasper 1987). Many cases wherein L2 learners did not

get help from their L1 knowledge support this position, contrary to Cum-

mins (1979, 1983) but supported by Cao (2001) and Dulay and Burt (1972).

To examine this issue, we have to specify more precisely which aspects of

language competence and language use are interdependent or separate; oth-

erwise, we cannot be sure how and why L1 and L2 proficiencies are interde-

pendent and how L1 proficiency is transferred to L2 (Francis 2000). Bilin-


gual learning offers a good example to explore how the degree of L1 and L2

proficiency works. Normally, bilinguals who acquire their languages simul-

taneously during childhood construct separate lexicons and grammars and

experience no need to go through a process of transfer (De Houwer 1995,

Grosjean 1982); however, L1 knowledge greatly affects sequential bilinguals

or adults during L2 learning. Generally speaking, a higher degree of L1 pro-

ficiency yields more transfer to a lower degree of L2 proficiency (Ringbom

1987). A positive transfer, such as cognate vocabulary use, will more likely

occur at high levels of L1 and L2 proficiency (Odlin 1989).

In short, empirical findings from studies on L1 influences on L2 learning

are generally in contrast. This is because additional variables other than lin-

guistic aspects exist, such as typological distance and markedness, in the

matter of L1-L2 transfer: e.g., age of a learner, level of learner’s knowledge,

stage of language acquisition, and choice of learning strategies (White 1989).

This makes the relationship between L1 and L2 proficiency extremely com-

plex (Zhang 2006).4 This being said, in the following section this paper dis-

cusses some pedagogic implications to handle the complex issues for imple-

menting successful 1st and 2nd language teaching and learning.

2.5.3. Pedagogic Implications

The issue of modularity of language yields many significant pedagogic

implications regarding L2 learning. That said, several suggestions deserve

noting regarding the role of L1 on L2 learning, especially for native Korean

speakers learning English as L2.

First, language teachers must perceive the dynamic and multifaceted role

of L1 on L2 learning and employ more retrospective measures in L2 lan-

guage classrooms. To date, many teachers have proposed instructional tech-

niques and strategies in isolation from students’ L1 proficiency and knowl-

edge. This paper would strongly suggest, given the discussion herein, that

successful L2 learning demands consideration of a learner’s L1 and sociocul-

tural background. Therefore, the foreign language instructor must invite the

learners’ knowledge, culture, and L1 skills into the classroom along with the

student.

Second, as Cummins (1976, 1979, 1983) argued in his Threshold Hy-

pothesis5, acceleration of L2 learning requires a certain level of L1 skills and

4 For instance, Zhang (2006) classified the related variables for L1–L2 transfer into three groups: learner-related variables (such as age or motivation), language-based variables (such as mark-edness, language or cultural distance, language proficiency) and sociolinguistic variables (lan-guage learning context or the relationship between the addresser and the addressee).

5 Cummins’s (1979) Threshold Hypothesis claimed that the level of linguistic competence of a bilingual child may affect his or her cognitive growth. Earlier, he (1976) argued that there are two-level thresholds and children with low levels of proficiency in both L1 and L2 may suffer “negative cognitive effects”; however, by mastering one language, the child could move be-

114 Hyu-Yong Park

knowledge. Such a process should see the gradual decline of L1 use, for in-

stance, in a bilingual classroom with consideration of the learners’ develop-

ing L2 levels. This argues against the full-immersion class for learning L2

distant from L1 without providing considerable backup in the duration of

immersion, quality of experience, and sociocultural backgrounds.

Third, in L2 classrooms, instructors should combine various instructional

techniques to instigate learners’ cognitive operations. While the modularity

hypothesis posits distinctive roles or functions of language modules in their

own development, other approaches stress the cooperative and situated

process between linguistic units and other mental functions. Especially,

teachers should be more tolerant with low-level L2 learners who tend to rely

on their L1 skills when they have difficulty in thinking in and practicing L2.

Of course, instructors can encourage high-level L2 learners to think in L2 as

much as possible to pursue the ultimate goal of expert L2 proficiency.

Fourth, we should consider the role of extralinguistic factors on language

learning. Sociocultural theories emphasize the role of context in both L1

acquisition and L2 learning. In Vygotskian theory, for example, three main

themes–process (development), interpersonal activity, and inter/intramental

activity mediated by language — signify the basis for an investigation into

how human mental functioning is located within cultural, historical, and

institutional contexts (Wertsch 1991). This implies that we cannot learn a

language by itself. Language represents both a source and byproduct of cul-

tural construction and a medium of thought and a tool for higher-level think-

ing (Vygotsky 1978, 1986). Therefore, for L2 instruction, we must consider

cultural background and artifacts, cultural understanding, and interpersonal

relationships with native speakers of the target language.

In short, this paper recommends providing L2 learners a choice of settings

among separate, immersion, or bilingual classrooms or their use of L1 or L2

in L2 lessons. Teachers consider if learners receive encouragement to use

their L1, if necessary, to prepare assignments, to confirm their comprehen-

sion, and to ask any questions. L1 knowledge and skills cannot be regarded

as obstacles but as assets and scaffolding (Upton & Li-Chun 2001).

3. Conclusion

This paper has discussed the modular account of human language in

terms of three major characteristics—i.e., innateness, domain specificity, and

encapsulation—by highlighting some controversies on language modularity.

yond the first threshold and will suffer neither positive nor negative effects. Lastly, when the child develops high proficiency in both languages. “positive cognitive effects” will result.


To expand our understanding on modularity, this paper proposed, arguably,

three main approaches to the development of human language capacity:

genetic evolution (pro-modular), sociocultural adaptation (cultural), and ge-

netic assimilation (dual inheritance). Theories from the perspectives of ge-

netic evolution presuppose a genetic event that gave modern languages their

structures and “innate module,” unrelated to others, encapsulated, and do-

main specific. Sociocultural adaptation posits the process of language devel-

opment as social transmission of knowledge from interaction and takes a

nonmodular approach by saying that language is acquired and sophisticated

and stored in individual or social memory with a form of culture. Genetic

assimilation proposes that human cognitive (and language) development

relies equally on biological and cultural inheritance. This approach tries rec-

onciliation of modular and nonmodular principles for human language de-

velopment. This paper especially emphasized that many researchers believe

language does not work in isolation and confined to modular aspects, rather,

it works in cooperating with thought and in interpersonal or sociocultural

contexts. Therefore, practitioners should seriously consider the development

of language capacity under the context of sociocultural influence.

Finally, this paper reviewed several theoretical positions regarding UG ac-

cess and transferability of L1 and L2. Empirical findings from studies of L1

influence on L2 learning generally contrast, which makes the relationship

between L1 and L2 proficiency extremely complex. In brief, Chomskyan

nativism accepts modularity, while others, such as sociocultural theories and

connectionism, reject modularity. Even among nativists, strong nativism pos-

its that L1 and L2 learning rely on UG, while weak nativism acknowledges

only domain specificity and innateness and rejects UG access of both L1

and L2. Meanwhile, sociocultural theorists do not consider UG and L1

transfer critical to L2 learning; the same holds true for the hard connection-

ists. Among connectionism, however, soft connectionists accept a possible

role of UG in addition to cultural influences, as in the dual inheritance hy-

pothesis. For transferability, generally speaking, positive influence is expected

among cognate languages; negative influence is anticipated among distant

languages and those languages similar in structure but different in culture.

It is highly recommended for classroom teachers, especially who teach a

second or foreign language which is linguistically different from the mother

tongue, to consider the possible range of L1 transferability to L2 learning

and the sociocultural factors affecting the effectiveness of L2 learning. After

these been considered, teachers may select one of the variety of methodo-

logical approaches or instructional techniques.

116 Hyu-Yong Park

References

Alemi, Minoo and Parisa Daftarifard. (2010). Modular versus unitary (non-modular)

views on the brain and mind. BRAIN (Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and

Neuroscience) 1.3, 1-5.

Bartsch, Karen and Henry M. Wellman. (1995). Children Talk about the Mind. Oxford

University Press.

Bates, Elizabeth. (1994). Modularity, domain specificity and the development of lan-

guage. Discussions in Neuroscience 10.1/2, 136-149.

Bloom, Paul. (2002). Mindreading, communication and the learning of names for

things. Mind and Language 17, 37-54.

Calabretta, Raffelele and Dominico Parisi. (2001). Evolutionary connectionism and

mind/brain modularity. Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution

of Complex Natural Systems. MIT press.

Cao, Hui X. (2001). A Study on How Chinese EFL Learners Develop Comparison and Con-

trast Essays in English. Unpublished MA thesis, Nanjing University.

Chomsky, Noam A. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton.

Chomsky, Noam A. (1975). Reflections on Language. Random House.

Chomsky, Noam A. (1980). On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to

Piaget. In Masimo Piattelli-Palmarini, ed., Language and Learning: The Debate be-

tween Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, 35-52. Harvard University Press.

Chomsky, Noam A. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger.

Clahsen, Harald and Pieter Muysken. (1986). The availability of universal grammar

to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order.

Second Language Research 2, 93-119.

Clahsen, Harald and Pieter Muysken. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition.

Second Language Research 5, 1-29.

Cole, Michael. (1999). Context, modularity, and the cultural constitution of devel-

opment. In Peter Lloyd and Charles Fernyhough, ed., Lev Vygotsky: Critical As-

sessments (Vol. IV), 74-100. Routledge.

Cowie, Fiona. (1999). What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered. Oxford University Press.

Cummins, Jim. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A syn-

thesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilin-

gualism 9, 1-43.

Cummins, Jim. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interde-

pendence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on

Bilingualism 19, 121-129.

Cummins, Jim. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In J. W.

Oller, Jr., ed., Issues in Language Testing Research. Newbury House.

De Houwer, Annick. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher and B.

MacWhinney, eds., The Handbook of Child Language, 219-250. Blackwell.

Deacon, Terrence W. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the


Brain. W. W. Norton and Company.

Dehaene, Stanislas. (1997). Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and

arithmetic: The “neuronal recycling” hypothesis. In Stanislas Dehaene, Jean R.

Duhamel, Marc Hauser, and Giacomo Rizzolatti, eds., From Monkeybrain to

Human Brain. MIT Press.

Dehaene, Stanislas, Emmanuel Dupoux, Jacques Mehler, Laurent Cohen, E. Paulesu,

and Daniela Perani. (1997). Anatomical variability in the cortical representa-

tion of first and second languages. NeuroReport 8, 3809-3815.

Dilworht, John. (2005). The reflexive theory of perception. Behavior and Philosophy 33,

17-40.

Dulay, Heidi C. and Marina K. Burt. (1972). Goofing: An indicator of children’s

second language learning strategies. Language Learning 22.2, 235-251.

Durham, William H. (1991). Coevolution: Genes, Culture and Human Diversity. Stanford

University Press.

Eisterhold, Joan C. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for

second language learners. In B. Kroll, ed., Second Language Writing Research In-

sights for Classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, Nick C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language

Learning 48, 631-664.

Ellis, Rod. (2003). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Faerch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper. (1987). Perspectives on language transfer. Applied

Linguistics 8, 111-136.

Farah, Martha J. (1994). Neuropsychologcial inference with a interactive brain: A

critique of the ‘locality’ assumption. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17.1, 43-104.

Flege, James E. and Richard Davidian. (1984). Transfer and developmental pro-

cesses in adult foreign language production. Journal of Applied Psycholinguistic

Research 5, 323-347.

Flynn, Suzanne. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to second language acqui-

sition. In Willaim Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, eds., Handbook of Second Language

Acquisition, 121-158. Academic Press.

Fodor, Jerry. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. MIT Press.

Fodor, Jerry. (1985). Precis of The Modularity of Mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8,

1-42.

Fodor, Jerry. (1999). A Theory of Content and Other Essays. MIT Press.

Fodor, Jerry. (2000). The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Compu-

tational Psychology. MIT Press.

Fodor, Jerry. (2001). Doing without What’s Within: Fiona Cowie’s critique of nativ-

ism. Mind 110, 99-148.

Francis, Norbert. (2000). The shared conceptual system and language processing in

bilingual children: Findings from literacy assessment in Spanish and Nahuatl.

Applied Linguistics 21.2, 170-204.

FSI (Foreign Service Institute). (2011). Retrieved on May 12, 2010, from http://www.

118 Hyu-Yong Park

state.gov/m/fsi/

Galasso, Joseph. (2002). Interference in Second Language Acquisition: A Review of the

Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Retrieved on March 7, 2010, from http://

www.csun.edu/~galasso/pro.pdf

Garfield, Jay L. ed. (1987). Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Lan-

guage Understanding. MIT Press.

Gasser, Michael. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second language acqui-

sition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 179-199.

Gauvain, Mary. (2001). The Social Context of Cognitive Development. Guildford Press.

Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.

Gopnik, Alison and Henry Wellman. (1992). Why the child’s theory of mind really is

a theory. Mind and Language 7, 145-171.

Gopnik, Alison. (1996). Theories and modules: Creation myths, developmental reali-

ties, and Neurath’s boat. In P. Carruthers and P. Smith, eds., Theories of Theories

of Mind, 169-183. Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, William and Robert B. Kaplan. (1989). Writing in a second language: Con-

trastive rhetoric. In Donna M. Johnson and Duane H. Roen, eds., Richness in

Writing: Empowering ESL Students, 263-283, Longman.

Gregg, Kevin R. (1996a). SLA theory: Construction and assessment. In Catherine

Doughty and Michael H. Long, eds., The Handbook of Second Language Acqui-

sition, 831-865. Blackwell.

Gregg, Kevin R. (1996b). The logical developmental problems of second language

acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia, eds., Handbook of Second Language

Acquisition, 49-81. Academic Press.

Grosjean, Francois. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism.

Harvard University Press.

Hall, Chris. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL

Quarterly 24.1, 43-60.

Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara. (1994). Segmental transfer: A natural consequence of a dy-

namic system. Second Language Research 10.3, 242-270.

Hornstein, Norbert. (1987). Restructuring and interpretation in a T-Model. The Lin-

guistic Review 5.4, 301-334.

Hui, Yan. (2010). The role of L1 transfer on L2 and pedagogical implications. Cana-

dian Social Science 6.3, 97-103.

Hyter, Yvette D., Diana L. Rogers-Adkinson, Trisha L. Self, Brande F. Simmons, and

Jennifer Jantz. (2001). Pragmatic language intervention for children with lan-

guage and emotional/behavioral disorders. Communication Disorders Quarterly

23, 4-16.

James, Carl. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Longman.

Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. (1993). Is creativity domain-specific or domain-general?:

Clues from normal and abnormal development. AISB Quarterly on Artificial In-

telligence and Creativity 85, 26-31.


Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. (1995). Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on

Cognitive Science. MIT Press.

Kim, Karl H. S., Relkin Norman R., Lee Kyung-Min, and Hirsch Joy. (1997). Dis-

tinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature 388,

171-174.

Kirby, Simon. (1998). Language evolution without natural selection: From voca-

bulary to syntax in a population of learners. Technical Report EOPL 98.1. De-

partment of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.

Krashen, Stephen D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman.

Kroll, Judith F. and Alexandra Sholl. (1992). Lexical and conceptual memory in

fluent and nonfluent bilinguals. Cogntive Processing in Bilinguals, 191-204. Else-

vier Science.

Lantolf, James P. and Matthew E. Poehner., eds., (2008). Sociocultural Theory and Sec-

ond Language Teaching. Equinox.

Leslie, Alan M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind.”

Psychological Review 94, 412-426.

Leslie, Alan M. (1991). The theory of mind impairment in autism: Evidence for a

modular mechanism of development? In Andrew Whiten, ed., Natural Theories

of Mind: Evolution, Development and Simulation of Everyday Mindreading, 63-78.

Blackwell.

Leslie, Alan M. (1994). Pretending and believing: Issues in the theory of ToM. Cogni-

tion 50, 211-238.

Lindsey, Kim A., Franklin Manis, and Caroline Bailey. (2003). Prediction of rstfi -

grade reading in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology 95, 482-494.

Liu, Jinkai. (2002). A study of L1 strategy transfer in L2 acquisition. Modern Foreign

Languages 25.3, 250-258.

MacWhinney, Brian. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the

brain. In Peter Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 61-90.

Cambridge University Press.

Matthews, Robert. (2001). Cowie’s anti-nativism. Mind and Language 16, 215-230.

Nambiar, Radha. (2009). Cross linguistic transfer between L1 and L2 texts: Learning

strategies used by bilingual malay tertiary learners. European Journal of Social

Sciences 7.3, 114-125.

Odlin, Terence. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning.


Perner, Josef. (1991). Understanding the Representational Mind. MIT Press.

Petitto, Laura. (1992). Modularity and constraints in early lexical acquisition: Evi-

dence from children’s early language and gesture. In Megan Gunnar and Mi-

chael Maratsos, eds., Modularity and Constraints in Language and Cognition, 25-59.

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pinker, Steven. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure.

120 Hyu-Yong Park

MIT Press.

Pinker, Steven. (1991). Rules of language. Science 253, 530-535.

Pinker, Steven. (1997). How the Mind Works. Norton.

Pinker, Steven and Paul Bloom. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Be-

havioral and Brain Sciences 13.4, 707-784.

Ringbom, Hakan. (1987). The Role of First Language in Foreign Language Acquisition.

Multilingual Matters.

Rogoff, Barbara. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Con-

text. Oxford University Press.

Schachter, Jacquelyn. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In Susan M. Gass and

Jacquelyn Schachter, Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, 73-88.


Schachter, Jacquelyn. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language ac-

quisition. Second Language Research 6, 93-124.

Scholl, Brian J. and Alan M. Leslie. (1999). Modularity, development and ‘theory of

mind’. Mind and Language 14.1, 131-153.

Scott, Jarvis. (1997). The role of L1-based concepts in L2 lexical reference. Applied

Linguistics 5.4, 97-118.

Segal, Gabriel. (1996). The modularity of theory of mind. In Peter Carruthers and

Peter Smith, eds., Theories of Theories of Mind, 141-157. Cambridge University

Press.

Selinker, Larry. (1984). The current state of interlanguage studies: An attempted criti-

cal summary. In Davies et al., eds., Interlanguage. Edinburgh University Press.

Shaywitz, Sally. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia. Alfred A. Knopf.

Skehan, Peter and Lucile Ducroquet. (1988). A Comparison of First and Foreign Lan-

guage Ability (Working Documents No. 8). London University.

Sparks, Richard, Jon Patton, Leonore Ganschow, Nancy Humbach, and James

Javorsky. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later

second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology

100, 162-174.

Spelke, Elizabeth. (2003). What makes us smart?: Core knowledge and natural lan-

guage. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow, eds., Advances in the Investigation

of Language and Thought. MIT Press.

Sperber, Dan. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Blackwell.

Sterelny, Kim. (2003). Thought in a Hostile World: The Evolution of Human Cognition.

Blackwell.

Thomas, Margaret. (1991). Universal Grammar and the interpretation of reflexives

in a second language. Language 67, 211-239.

Tomasello, Michael. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard Univer-

sity Press.

Upton, Thomas A. and Lee T. Li-Chun. (2001). The role of the first language in sec-

ond language reading. SSLA 23, 469-495.


Van der Lely, Heather. (1997). Narrative discourse in grammatical specific language

impaired children: A modular language deficit? Journal of Child Language 24,

221-256.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1986). Thought and Language. MIT Press.

Wagner, Guntehr P. and Lee Altenberg. (1996). Complex adaptations and the evolu-

tion of evolvability. Evolution 50.3, 967-976.

Wellman, Henry M. (1990). The Child’s Theory of Mind. MIT Press.

Wertsch, James V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action.

Harvester Wheatsheaf.

White, Lydia. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. John Ben-

jamins.

White, Lydia. (1996). Universal grammar and second language acquisition: Current

trends and new direction. In W. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia, eds., Handbook of Sec-

ond Language Acquisition, 85-120. Academic Press.

Wood, David. (1998). How Children Think and Learn, 2nd ed. Blackwell.

Zhang, Charles. (2006). On variables affecting L1 transfer in L2 acquisition. Sino-US

English Teaching 3.5, 53-55.

Hyu-Yong Park

Sungshin Women’s University

Sujeonggwan, #B-832

Dongseon-3ga, 249-1

136-742, Seoul, Korea

[email protected]

Received: March 3, 2011

Revised version received: May 19, 2011

Accepted: June 3, 2011