principles of language learning and teaching (longman) – chapter 8: cross linguistic influence and...

8/18/2019 Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Longman) – Chapter 8: Cross Linguistic influence and learner language

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/principles-of-language-learning-and-teaching-longman-chapter-8-cross 1/18

rHA 'Ti:R 7 Sociocullur il F:Jt:lor>

· , ¡·

·¡·.

- ·rh

or

vou\:e tricd to

Think of one or t\VO languages you

re

.tn11

t.u

wt

.

lcarn. How

<lo you

feel ahout tlle peo

ple of rhe culrure of

that

l a n g u a g c ~

Any tníxcd

feelings? ,

Look at iteni 4

011

page 203 and v,rrite ahout an cxan1ple oi. one

or_

inure

nf J-Iofstede's

categories

in

your

O\Vn current

or

past

exper1cnces in

lan+

guage classroon1s. . . .

1

Do \'OU personally think the spread

of

English in the colon.1al. e: a h,t(.

i n i p ~ r i a l i s t i c overtones? l low c:1n you as an English teacher in thts llC\V

n1ille11niu1n avoid such cultural in1períalisn1?

lvlake a Hst of words, phrases, or language rules in your foreign languagc.

w•¡ ¡ si· T'1ke two or three uf

thar are

good

exainples of the w 101 t1.u1

1ypo 1e s. ·

·-

. .

those a ~ d

write about

whether or

not

you

think

the

language

1t,<,elí

shapes

the

\\tay

speakers

of

that

language

think

or

feel.

-¡-"<RG12í

LA;N uA C

L

· - ~ ~ q ~ · ~ " - " ~ " " " " " ~ ~ ~

C c i - . , ; t ~ S ' l i \ I C :

~ N f ~ \ . y , S " . ¿ ¿

+

l

i

~ 6 U A . é z ~

1

1

CRQSS--_LIN G I S T I C . ~ -

lNFLUENCE AND

LEARNER

L l\LGU GE

U

PTO this

point in the

trcattnent

of

principies

of

se-cond lang uage ac.qui

sirion, our focus has been on

the

psychology

of

language learning.

Psychological

principies of second

language

acqu si.tir1n forn1 the founc a

tion stones for building a con1prehensh'e understí-lnding uf rhe acc¡uisilion

of rhe linguistic system.

In

this chapter '1.

1

e

vil

take a differenr direction a: .

we

begin ro

exa1nine

the

n1ost sa ient

con1ponent of

secon<l languagi::

acquisition:

t h e f J ; f n g u a g e ~ [ j T h i s

treatJnent ~ - i l l first consider, in -

ical progressiorl, an

era

of preoccupation \Vith studies of c.ontr<J.Sts bet\Veen

tJ e_ na,riveAanguage aJllj

the

t ~ ~ Q ¡ ; e t

, l ; l n g u a g ~

(

? l J r : 1 ' : . Ú I , ~ 2 D

l . 1 l : : i i ) 1ncl

_thc

effect

of native o n . t ~ ~ g e t langu;a.,e

(now

callCd

''cross- ingni<>tic

influenCe"f

\ Xfe

\Vill then see houl the - ~ 2 1 _ 9 J _ ~ : _ s ~ n _ t r a < > t l v e an:1lysis gave v:ay toan era or"

t;rror.

a . n a l y ~ - i ~ ,

1.yirh· its g u ü l i n g c Q ) C T p t ü f ~ ~ r E l r i : g c l J g e ~ . J l i 2 i v also \viciely

r:efen::ed ¡o as learner : i n ° u a g ~ _ ~ , ' ~ F i n a i i y . qu.estions ah;);.rt he effect of class

roon1

instruction

and error

treatl11ent

\Yil be

addn:s.sed,

"\vit11

::.on1t·

prac

tica in1plications for

the language

teacher.

THE

CONTRASTIVE AL"lAIYS S HYPOTHESIS

In

ihe

1 ; ñ i ( Ñ C ( ) f f h e " " C T V e 1 t ' i e t h : ~ c e n t u í : V : : J ) n e of the .rnost pnpüLir pur:;1iirsJ

for

:tpplicd

H n g u i ~ ~ : · . ' i \ ' , · ~ s the

tudy

of t"\YO

1:1ng\1;ige:s

in contr:1st.

l:Yei1

t u ~

rile stoc.kpilc of c<:n1p-:ir:HiYe and contr;1stivt dará on a inultitudt' of pairs ·of

L1ngu:<ges

y\cldcd

\\'lu.t comn1on y c:in1e

to he knn\\'n

as

ÜE::

Co·nt:rastlve

An.:ii'ysis flyfn.1tl1esiS (CAH).Deeply hehaviodstic and srrtH>

207



208 Cl-nPTER 8 Cross-Linguistic lnfluenc e and l..e irner l anguage

turalist

approaches

ofthe Uay,

the

C E L ~ that

thc princip;tl

bal'rier to

second language acquisition is the'iifterfereni..::c

of

the

fh:st language system

'W'itlrthe second language system, and that a scientific, strucrural analysis

of

the

two

languagcs

in

qui;stion Yvould yie d a

taxono1ny of linguistic con

trasts between the-m which in turn

would enable the

linguist

to-preclict

the

difficulties

a

learner

woul<l

encounter.

-It 'vas at that tüne considered feasible that the tools of structur.1 lin

guistics, such as Fries's (1952) slot-filler

gran11.11ar,

would enable

a linguist

to

accurately

describe

the two languages

in question, and

to match those

t \-VO

descriptions

against

each othcr

to

deternline

valid

contrasts,

or

differences,

bctween them. BehJ.vioristn contributed to the notion that

human behavior

is

the

sum of its s111allest parts and cornponents, and therefore that lan

guage lc:i.rning

could

be dcscribed as the acquü;ition

of

all of_ those discrete

units. i\loreover,

hurnan

it.:arning theories highlighted i tte1feritig'.;elements

of

learning,

coaclud-ing

that

\Vhere

no interference

ccilt1d be pre-dicted, no

í.lifficulty 1vould he experienced sincc

one

couid transfer positively ali

other ite1ns

in

a lrtnguage. The iogical conclusion frurn

these

various psy

chologícal and

linguislic

as.sumptíons ~ v a s that second language learning

basically

involved

the overconling of

the

differences benveen the two lin

guistic

systems-the

nat.ive and target languages.

Intuitively the

CAH

has

appeal in that we comn1onlv observe

in

s c c o ~ d language l ~ a r ~ e r s

a plethora o f ~ a t t r i b u t a b : e to .

he

negative

transfer

of the

nat1ve

1anguage

to the

target language.

It

1s

quite

common,

t ~ ) f example, to detcct

ccrtain

foreign

acccnts and

to

be

able to infer, fro1n

the speech

of

the

learner

alone,

where

the learner

con1es fron1. Native

English speakers

can

easily

identify

the accents of English language

lcarners fi·on1 Gerrnany,

France,

Spain, and Japan, for e x ~ u n p l c Such accents

cJ.n

even be repn:sented

in the

written

word.

Consi<ler Tv1ark Twain s The

nuocents Abro< t.:l (1869:

111), in which the French-spcaking

guide intro

duces himself: "If

zc zhentlcmans

'·ill to me n1ake

ze

grande honneur to

n1e rattain in hces scrveece, I shall show to him everysing zat is magnifique

to lcok 11p0n In

z::::

beautif11l Paree. I speaky ze Angleesh oirf:.liun;iw." Or

\'í/illiam

E.

CJ.Uahan's Juan C:Istaniegos, a

young IVJe, (ican

in .A/raid

o the

Dark who says: u:riclp

n1e

to leave

from thees piace.

But, Señor a p ~ t á n , me,

rave

do notheeng.

Nuthceng, Señor Capitán."

These

e.xcerpts also

capture

the

transfer

of

vocabulary

and

gran1matical

rules from

the

native

language.

Son1e rather strong cL'lllns were ma<le of the CAH by

language

teaching

experts

and linguists. One of the strongest was n1ade by

Robert

Lado

(1957: vii) in

the

preface

to

Li11guistics Across Cultu1·es: 1'he

plan

of

the

book rcsts on

the assumption

that we

can

preJíct

an<l

describe

the

pat

terns that 'viU cause <lli11culty

in

lcarning)

and

thosc lhat \Vill nol cause dif

ficulty, by cun1pasing systcn1alically

the

la11guage and the culture to be

Ci-1;.PnR 8 Cross-Linguistic lnfluen ce and Learner Language 209

learneJ

'\Vith

the native language

and

culture

of

the student." Then, in

the

first chapter of the book, Lado continues: "in the con1parison benveen

native

and foreign languagr: lies the key to ease or difficulty in foreign

lan

guage learning

fhose elements that

are similar to

[the

learner's] native

language will

be sitnple for hin1 and those

elements that

are <lifferent "'"ill

be clifficult"(pp.

1-2 .

An equally strong claim was made by Banathy,Trager,

and \Vaddle

(1966:

37):

The

change tha_t has to take place in the language

behavior of

a forcign

language

student can be

equated

with the differences

between

the structure

of the student's native languagc and culture and

that

of

the

targct

language

and

culture."

Such

claims

were supported by what sorne researchers clain1ed to be

an empirical

n1ethod

of prediction.

A

well-known model was

offered

by

? ~ _ ( j - ~ - ~ ~ é l _ l _ , _ - B ó ~ ? ~

~ n d - M á r i ü i . - _ 1 9 6 5 ) , . w h o

p_o_site_d what

they called a hier:.

-a¡C-l1y Óf difficulty

by which

a teacher:

or

líriguist

could

make a prediction

of the relative difficulty of a given aspect

of

the

target language: For phono

logical systems in contrast, Stockwell and his associatcs- suggested éight

possible <legr<::es

of

difficulty. These degrees were Based

upon

the notiÜf1s

of

trahsfer (positive, negative,

and

zero)

and of

optional ancl úbligatOry

choices

of

_certalll

phonemes

in

the two

languages

in

contf'J.St. Through a

Yery careful, systematic analysis 0f

the properties

of

the

Gvo languages in

reference to

the

hierarchy of difficulty, applied linguists were able to derive

a reasonably

accurate

inventory of phonological difficulties that a second

language

learner would

encounter.

Stock'ivell

and

his associates also

constructed

a hiera:tchy of difficulty

for granun-atical stiuCtures

of

two language:;; in contrast. Their grammatical

hierarchy included sixteen levt.:ls

of

difficulty, based on the

sanie

notions

uscd to construct phonological

criteria,

\Vith

the

addcd

dirnensions

of

structural correspondence and functional/semantic correspondence.'·

Clifford Prator (1967)

captured the

esscnce of this gra1nmatical

hierarchy

in sL t categoríes

of

difficulty

Prator's hierarchy

\Vas applicable to

both

gr:ammatical

aüd

phonological features

of

language. The six

categories,

in

ascending order

of

difficulty,

are

Iisted below. Most of the examplt1S are

taken from English and Spanish

(a

native English speaker lcarning

Spanish

as a

second

language); a few examples illustrate other

pairs

of

contrasting

languagcs.

Leve O -

T : : t a [ i _ S , f ~ r . : i

No

difference or contrast

is

present bet\veen the

two 1anguages. The:l earne r

c-an

simply transfer (positively) a

sound, structure, or lcxical item frotn

the

native language to

the

target language. Examples: English and Spanish cardinal vo\vcls,

\vord order, and certain \Vords (ntortal, inteligente, arte, an1eri

canos).



Ci-/Af T[R 8 Cross-Lin guistic fn(/¡1f nce ; l ld Learner Language

~ ~ v e t - · 1 : ; _ -

C()ales_ce_nce&:Two iten1s·in the native language hecon1e coa·

lesced in o essentíaUy one iten1 in tlle target_ language. This

requires

that learners

over ook

a distinction they haYe

gro\vn

accuston1ed to. Exan1ples: English

third-person

p o s s e s ~ J i v e s

require

gender distinctioo (1Jis/her), ;ind in Sp::tnish

they do not (.su);

an

English speaker

learning

r ~ n c h

mt1st overlook

the

clistinction

berween teacb and learn, and use just the one '\vord apprendre

in

French.

Level_2

Dó:det<liff'eréntiatiot'.tAn item in the-na1i\"e language is

absent in the larget language.The learner 1nust avoid thar iten1.

Exa1nples: English learners of Spanish inust "forget" such iten1s as

English

do

as a

tense

carrier, possess ive forn1s

of I l ' J-

\Vords

zvbose),

or

the

use of

~ · n 1 n e

with mass nouns.

Level 3 - - - ~ ~ i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ¡ : · A n item that exists in the native language

is givcn a new Shape or distribution. Exan1ple: an English speaker

Jearning

I

4

rench

must

learn a ne•v

distribution

for nasalized

-vowels.

Leve 4 - ó V e f d i f f ¿ Í - é n t i a t i o r i ~

A :riew

item entirely. bearingJittle ¡f

any

siri {ü.l rúY

to

the

native ianguage iten1,

n 1 ~ t

be

learned.

Exan1ple: an English speaker learning

Spanish

n1ust

learn to

include dererminers

in generalized nominals (Nlan is 1nortal/El

hon1/Jre es 1nortal), or, most con1monly, ro learn Spanish gram1nat

ical gender

inherent

in nouns.

Level S - ~ p l i t . - o n e item in- the native language- becomes tv.ro or more

in the target language, requiring

the learner

to n1_ake a ne•v dis

tinction. Exa1nple: an English spe;iker_ learning Spaq,ish n1ust learn

the distinction- between

ser

and estar (to he), or the distinctioo

between Spanish inclicative and subjunctivc 111oods.

Prator's reinterpretation, and Stockwell and his

assocíates· original

hier

archy of difficulty,were

based

on principies of htunan

learning.

The first,

or

"zero,"

degree of

difficulty

rcpresents c o _ n 1 p l ~ t e one-to-one

correspondence

and

.transfer, while the fifth clegree of difficulty was the heighr of intcrfer

ence. Praror an<l Stockwell both claüned that

their

hierarchy

could

be

applied to virtually any two languages and 1nake it

possible

ro predict

secon<l language learner <lifficulties in

any

language with a t ~ t i r dcgree

of

certainty and objectivit)''.

C-

-

<._

o

U-f,\i fi- R B Cross-L1ng uistic lnr.luence ,1nrl Learner /.an¡:udge

211

FROM

THE

CAH TO CU (CROSS-UNGVISTIC

INFLUENCE)

Pre<liction of difficulty by n1eans of contrastive

procedures

\\

1

as not

\Vithout glaring shorrcomings. For one thing,

the process

\V:1s oversimpli

fied.

Subtle ph{inetic,

phonological, and gran1n1arical {lhtinctions were not

carefully

accounted

f(Jf.

Second,

it

\Vas

very

difficult,

even

'\Vltb six care

gories, to <letern1ine exacrly

which

category

a p1rticuLrc

contrast fit into.

For

exan1ple, when a : 1 p a r H . : s ~ speaker learns the Fnglish /r/, is ita

case

of

a level O,

l,

or 3 <lífficulty? J-\

ca:>e

can he n1ade for all three.The third and

1nosr proble1natic issue

centered on the larger qut'stion oí whether or

not

predictions of diffi.culty Jevels \:vere actually verifiab e.

The atten1pt to pre<lict difficulty

by

n1eans

nf

contrastive analysis is

what Rp,n;tli;J. \ V:;u ufia i1g b (1970) cal ed the[5trong -versior1Jof rhe CAI-i, a

version rhat

he

-

believed

"\VílS guite -t_i_nrc-; Ji:,t_ic anti irnpracti-cab e.

\V'ardh:iugh no'ted

(p.

125) that '·ar the very least, this

version

dc1nands. of

linguísts

tLat they have :n·ai1able a set of ingui<>tic unh'tT-;als

formulated

within

a comprehensiYe linguistic theory

which

clt:als

adequately

with

syntax, s e m a n t i c s ~

and

phono ogy." He went on to

point out

rhe difficulty

(p. 126), already

noted,

of

an adequate procedure,

bnilt

nn

snt1nrl

theory.

for

actually

c o n t r a s t ü ~ g the fonns

of

languages:"Do lingl1ists

have

avaibble to

the111 an overall contrasth-e systen1 \Vithin

which they can relate the

t•vo

ianguages

in

tern1s of mergers,

splits,

zeroes, over-diffcrentlatinns, under

differentiations,

reinterpretations?"

And so, \\'hile many H n g u í ~ t s clain1t:d

to be

using

a

scientific,

e1npirical, and theoretically jll'>tified tool in

con

trasrive analysis, in

actualiry

they were operating n1ore out of n1entalistic

subjectí•·ity.

\ Y : . ~ r d h a u g h - notcd, hO\\-'ever (p. 126), that contr;istive ;in:llysis ha<l inru

itive

appeal,

and that teachers

and

Unguists

had

succcs.sfully used ·'the best

linguistic knowledge av-ailable in order to a-z:count for obscrYcd diffi

culties in second language

learning:· l-Ic

termed such nhscr.::itinnal use of

c o n t 1 - ; i ~ t i - v e

: i n : 1 l y < ~ rhe ~ e : a k - - - v e - r s i o n of-1he:C/"'l-L \\Tak

versinn

<loes

not

in1ply

the

n

¡;rfnri

prcdiction

uf certain

dep:rees

of

difficulty. It.

recag-

_nizes-the<s:ignittcance of:interference·-tic1•0ss-Jn1:Igu11ges:vtl1c fact that sl1ch

ínterterence cines exíst :111l..l can cxpl:iin d i C f i c n l t i c ~ . hut it 11"·1¡ recng\'izes

th;:¡t

linguistic

difficu ties can be

rnore profitahly

expl:1tned u poster ior f

~ . ; · t - J ) c .

E1c1 i\

learners are learnin rhe

·T:lñgú;lge . U 1 d

errors

appear.

teaChcrs

e.in uti 1ze

t

1eir knO\Yledge of the t:1rgcr anc n:HíYe

languages to

understand

sources of error.

The so-c:tlled \\'e:ik ,-ersion of rhe

CAI--1

is

•vh;ir

rt"n1:1ins

toLhly

under

the lahe

cross-lin.guistic

b:U:111e11ce

_ L1),

suggesting

th:it \Ve atl r t : C o g ~

nize

the -signi.ficant rok: th:H prior experience playt> in

any

lcarning act. and



212

Cl- APTER r Cross Linguistic lnflucnce

and

Learner

Language

that

the

ínfluence

of

the nalive

language

as

prior experience

1nust not be

overlookcd.

l 'he diffcrence between today's cmphasis on

influence. rather

than

prediction,

is

an

important

one.

Aside fro1n phonoiogy, which re1nains

the most reliable llnguistic

category

for predicting learner perforn1ance, as

illustrateJ at the beginning of the chapter,

other

aspects of language

present

more

of a ga1uble.

Syntactíc, lexical,

and

senuntic, in,terference

show

far more variatiun

arnong

learners than

p s y c l l u n 1 o t o r ~ b a s e d

pronun

ciation interference.

Evcn

presumably sünple gr..tn1111atical categories

like

vvord ordcr, tense,

or

aspect have been shown

to

contain a good <leal of

variation. For

exa1nplc,

one

n1ight

expect

a

French speaker who

is begin

ning to

lcarn Englisll

to

say "I an1 in Ne>v York sincc January"; however, to

prcdict

such

an

ultcr:>.nce

fro1.n

cvcry

French

learner of English is to go

too

fat:

1'he most cvnvincing carly criticism of

the

strong

version

of

the CAH

\Vas

offcred by\\/hitni:.u1 and]ackson (1972), who undertook to test empir

ically

the cffecti\'CHCSs of

contrasü\·e a n ~ l y s i s as a tool for predicting arcas

of difficulty for

Japancsc learners

of English. The

pretlictions

of four sepa

rare

contrastive

ana1ysis

rubrics

(inctuding

that

of

Stockwell, I3owen,

l'vlartin 1965)

\.vere :ipplicú. lo a

fortr·ite1n test of English grammar to deter

mine, a priori

the

relalivc diJficu1ty of the test items for spcakers of

Japanese.

fhe

test was ~ u J n ü n i s t e r e d

to

2500 Japancse learners

of

English

v¡.rho

did

not know

the

relative predicted difficulty of each iten1. The results

of the test were cornpared with the predictions. The

result: \\?hitn1an

and

J ~ c k s o n tüund

no support

für the predictions

of

the contrastivc analyses

so

carefully \Vorked out

by

linguists

They

concluded (p. 40) that "contrastiYe

analysis, as represented

by

the four analyses

tested

in this

project,

is inade-

4uate,

theoretically and practically,

to

pn.:Jict the interference pfoblen1s

of

a language learner."

Another l¡lo\v

to

the strong version

of

the CAii was delivere<l y Oller

and Ziahos;,einy

(1970),

\Vho

proposed what

one might

calla "subtle

dif

ferences''

Yer;;ion

of

lhe CAH on

the

basis

of

a rather

íntriguing study of

speHing

errors. Thcy

found

that

for

learncrs

of

Euglish as a second lan

guage, English spelling proved

to

be rnore <lifficult for pcoplc

\vhosc

r.;:·,tive

langua.gc

used

:.l Ron1an sc.ript (for cxan1ple,French, Spanish) than for thosc

whuse

native hi.nguage used a non·Roman

script

(Ar.1bic,

Japanese).

The

strong

form

of

the

C.i\11

\Voul<l

have

prc<lícted

that thc lcarning of an

entirely ne\Y \Yrit.ing systen1 (Level 4

in the hicrarchy

of-difficulty) woulJ

be n1ore

difücuil

than reinterpreting (Level 3) spelling rules. Oller

and

Ziahosseiny (p. 186) found thc oppositc to be true, conciu<ling that "wher

ever patterns are n1inünally d.istinct in tOrm

or

n1caning in

one or

more sys

ten1s,

confusion

inay result."

The

learnlng

of sounJ;,,

sequenccs, an<l

meanings •vill,

according to

Oller and Ziahue:.sciny's stu<ly, bt: potcntialiy very úifl1cult

\vhere subtle

dis-

C/-"IAPTfR 8 CroS<;·Linguisric lnfluenr;e and / earner Language

213

tinctions

a.re

required eirher bet\veen the target language and native lan-

J

guage or

\Vithin thc

target language itself. In the case of thcir research

on

spel ing E11glish, there were more differences betwcen non-Roman •vriting

and Ro1nan \\ITiting, but

learncrs

from a non-Ro1nan

writing

systen1 ha<l tu

makc fewer subtle <listinctions than

<lid

those from thc tornan writing

systen1. Exan1ples

of

subtlc tlistinctions

at

the lexical leve inay be seen in

false

cognatcs

like the

French

\VOrd parent which

in

the singular means

''relative" or"kin,·· \Vhile only the plural p a r e n ~ )

means

"parents." Consider

thc Spanish verb enzbarazar >vhich con1mo.nly denotes "to make preg

nant,"

and

has

thcrefore bcen the

so1.1rce of

true

'·en1barrassment"

on

the

part of

beginners atte1npting

to

speak Spanish In

recent

years,

research

on

CLI

has uncovere<l a nun1ber

of

instances of

subtle

differences causing

great difficulty (Sjoholrn 1995). ·

' fhe

couclusion that

g i , : ~ a t , - : . d i f t ~ . ~ 9 - J ¿ E ~ h ¡ ; t - B - ~ - ~ : - _ n o t

necessarily cause

g.reat

<lifficuJty

--underscores

the

significan,Ce of

ffitr lingu l

'-(\.vithin one lan

guage)

errors (see subsequent sections in this chapter), which are as much

a

factor

in secontl

language learning

as

interlingual (across

two

or more

languagCs) errors. The forms within one languitge are often

perceived

to

be

minimally <listinct in con1parison to the vast differences between the native

and target language.

yet

rhose intralingual factors can leacl to so1ne of

the

greatest

difficulties.

·To lay we

recognize that teachers must

certainly

guard

against

a priori

pigeon-holing

of learners before u..·e

have

even

given learners

a

chance

to

perfonn

.

At the san1e tin1e, we must also under.stand that CLI is an impor

tant linguistic factor at play in the acquisition

of a

second language

(Jaszczolt 1995).

CLI

implies

mu

ch nlore

than

simply the effect of

one

s first

language on a

second:

the second language also

influences

the firsc more

over. subsequent languages in rnultilinguals ali affect each other

in

various

ways. Specialized research

on

CLJ in the türn1 of contrastive lexicology,

syntax, se1.nantics, and prJ.gn1atics continues to

provide

insights

into

SLA

that

musr

not

be

discounted (Shanvood-Srnith 1996; Sheen 1996). Sheen

(1996) found. for examp e. that in

an

ESL

course

for

speakers

of Arabic,

overt attention to

targeted synractic

contrasts

bct\veen A.rabie

and

English

reduce<l error rates. Indeed, thc strong form

of

the CAH was too strong, but

the \.veak forn1 was also perhaps too

weak. CLI

rescarch offers a cautious

middle ground.

MARKEDNESS AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR

Fred Eckman (1977, 1981) Prnposed a useful rnetl1od for

determining

direc

tionality of difflculty.

I-:Iis

Markedness Differential I-I}'pothesis (othe1-WiSe

kno\vn

as 1narkedness

thcory) accounted

for relative

degrees

of difficulty



CHAl Tl R 8 Cross·Lingui stic lnOuence

ami

l earner l anguage

by

means of principles of universal gramn1ar.

Celce-Murcia

and Hawkins

(1985: 66)

sum up

markedness

theory:

It distinguishes members of

a pair

of related

f0rn1s

or

structures

by assuming that

the

marked member uf a

pair

contains at least

one

more tEature than

the unmarked one. In addition, the

unmarked (or neutral) n1cmber of the

pair

is rhe one with a wider

range

of

distribution

t:han

the

marked

one.

For example, in

the

case of the English indefinite

articles a

andan), an is

the n1ore

cotnplex or marked form (it has

an

additional

sound)

and a is the

unmarked forro with the

wicler

distribution.

Eckman (1981) showed

that n1arked

items in a language \Vill be n1ore diffi*

cult

to acquire than

unmarked, and

that degrees of markedness will corre

spond

to

degree.s

of

di.fficulty.

Rutherford (1982) used 1narkedness theory

to explain why there seen1s to be a certain order

of

acquisition of

mor

phemes in Engiish:

marked

stnictures are acquire<l later

than un1narked

structures.

i\tlajor and

Faudree

(1996)

found

that

the phonological

per

formance of native speakers

of

Korean

Jearning English reflected principies

of n1arkedness universals.

In

recent

years,

the attention of

sorne

second

language researchers has

expanded beyond markedness hypotheses alone to the broader

fran1ework

of

linguistic

universals in general (i'vlajor & Faudree 1996;

Eckinan

1991;

Carroll and Meisel 1990; C.;mrie 1990; Gass 1989). Sorne

of

these argu·

menrs focus on

the

applicability of notions of

univers l grammar

(l.JG)

to second language acquisirion (\'V'hite 1990; Schachter 1988; an1ong

others). As

we

sav.r in Chapter

2,

n1any of the

rules acquired by

children

learning

their

first language are presumed

to be universal.

By

extension,

rules that are

shared

by all Ianguages comprise

this UG.

Such rules

aré a set

of limitations or p r meters

(Flynn

1987) of language. Different

languages

set their p:ira1neters

differently,

thereby

creating

the characteristic

gr:i;nmar

for rh::.t language.

The hope is that hy discovering innate

linguistic

principies that

govern

what is possible in human

languages,

we may

be

better

able to

understand and

describe

c o n t r a ~ t s

between

native

an<l

target

languages

and

the difficulties

encountered

by

adult second language

learners. Research on UG ha'5 begun to identify

snch

universal

properties

and principies, and therefore

represents

an avenue of sotne promisc.

Markedness theory and U(; perspectives provide a n1ore sophisticated

understanding

of

difficulty

in Icarning a second language

than

we had

pre

viouslv fron1 the

earlv fonnulations

of the CA}l,

and

fit n1ore

appropriately

into c ~ 1 r r e n t studies :,r

t-:=LI.

But ,ve

do

well to

ren1en1ber d1at

describing

and predicting difficulty amidst ail

the

variables of

hun1an

learning

is still

an elush-e process. Teachers of

foreign languages

can benefit fron1 UG and

CHAPTER

8 Cross·Linguistic h.{hrnce

2nd

Learner Language 215

marke<lness

research,

but

even

in

this hope-filled avenue of

research,

an

instant

map predicting

learner

difficulties

is

not

ríght around

the

corner.

~ L E R N E R LANGUAGE.

1

O The(.f=f\ :I. ~ ~ . ~ . e ~ ~ y { : t t J ~ . ~ : . h 1 t ~ r f ~ r J J 1 , g e f f < ~ c t s of

rhe

lan ;ilúige Dfi

secqncl

lan_-

V\

'

":f-":; ,,,

...

' ·

...

' · · · · · ·

:·

......

•

,,

....

. , , . , , . , ,

... :

.

fa'.' ' ' '' ' ''' '

O

p..: ~ e - { M . : ~

.

p e ' .

..

: ~ ~ ~ r ~ n i . n ~ t

and claHned,

in

its

strong

form, that

Secoi:ú.l

Ianguage

\e.P°': .:i '

1' lear1iTi\g

iS -:-f>rinÍaril).

if

not

e:s.ch1siYely,

a proc;ess of acquiri.ng svharever

\.· J -d5;;.

Ó?o-<

items aré diffe1'ent from the first langnage. As notcd above, such a

il ? ~ ) V )\ '').?<.;"

~ - P ' - ' v .1.i<

'

. v

d ,,s..,.

narrow view of interfcrence lgnoreJ, the intrJ.lingu:<l

effccts

of learning,

~ X ¿

e-"'

Q ~ < f a · •

~ m o n g

other

factors. In

te.

ce.nt years resea rchers

an<l tea.chers

have

con1e

: - C-

1 : - ~

.<;

cJ .i'>

,"'' > ª° e--

c. )\ ;

i 1 1 0 ~ 7 ,,and. more to u n d ~ r s t á n ~ · ~ ; ~ • ~ · ~ . ; ~ ~ ~ . ; : : 1 . ~ ~ . 1 : 1 ? : 1 a ~ e . l e a t n i n g is a .process of

~ ~ ~ c - 1 > 1 ' -

/ ' '

. ~ . i . ; : ;

i

the c r ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ . : , E . ~ : , 1 ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ . t . 1 9 1 ~ ,nt·:a ~ y s ~ e m 111 wh1ch learner.s . . r . ~ ~ o t ~ c i o u . s l y

=

,.,,,

..

¡

:/c- o:>__ <

~ < V

t e s t i ~ g h y p o r 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ...ab()t1.t:

tli,e

. t a ~ g ~ ~ .. 1.atls.u.a.se. t ~ ~ 9 , . f ~ .

a

.. 1 . 9 . 1 n P . t ; . ~ ·

..

9J._pQss.ible

e - & v . . ~ o- 'd,;; . ~ , ' >

C»<Y

<fa;:o\e.,,

s ~ ~ 1 ~ c e s . , , _ q f l n l o w l e . ~ l ~ . ~ : .

k n ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ : 9 f · r . \ 1 ~ ..

n.ª.tive lungnage,

u . 1 1 f t : ~

... ·

d_ '_ ..,.. f'_,

v - - º \ , . e - ' O ' ~ , . . . o " " - <.<.º e.dge

of_the target langua.ge ítself'. k n o ~ " e d g e º.f the

corn11111nicatiYe

fr1nc-

-,,..-.

.. b ~ º ~ ' ' e• ttons l:1nguage,

k _ 1 ~ ~ ~ } : Y , l . e < l g e

about l ~ n g u a g i ; : ~ . : 1 ~ g e . e . ~ ~ , ancl

/· ,.. y (""° about bfe,

hun11n be1ngs,

and

the

unrverse. The leárners., in élcting upon

' J c - o - < ( . ~ e . . J ? f ; , ...¡,,.< their

enYirorunent,

~ o n s t r u c t what to 1 e m

is

a l e g i t i ~ t e svsteJlLQ.Ül l·

c,p?

$ ~ a g e

in

its

own

r ight-a

structured

set

of

rules

th::it fl)r

the

time being

bring sorne

order

_ to.

t_he

linguistic chaos

that confronts

them.

r 'By the

late

',J.96os:'sLA

hegan

t:o be

examined in

mucb. the

S;ime waY

t h a t ~ ~ f i r s t

language acquisition

had

been

studied for

sotne tiine: learner's

were

looked on not_ a ~ . P r o d u . c e r ~ . 9f,_rµ:1Jfor.rned, L']lperfect i a n g u i " l g ~ replete

with

ntistakes

bur

as

intelligent and creative beings proceeding through

logical, systen1atic

stages

of acquisition,

creatively

acting upon

their

lin

guistic

environ1nent

as they

encountered

its forms :ind functions ü1

m e a n ~

ingful contexts. By

a

gradual process of

trial

and

error

and hypothesis

testing, learners slowly and tediously

succeed

in estahlishing closer

and

closer approxin1ations

to

the system used by n3.riYe speakers of the Jan

guage. A

number

of terms

have

been

coined

ro

de.,crihe thc perspectlve

that stresses the l ~ g . i t i m ~ cy o.f 1 . e ~ · ~ : n e r s '

second b.ng11::ige sy:.,tem.s.

1'he best

known ofthese

s t f t l t _ ~ f . l ~ ~ . f f ü ~ i ~ j : · ?

tcrm

that

SelinLcr

(1972)

:i.dapted

from

\Veinreich's.

(1953) term

winterllnguaL"

Interbngu1ge

refe1·s

to the sepa

r ~ t . e ~ 1 e ; ~ s ..

f?f

~ : ~ . < ? , . 1 1 ~ 1 , 1 . a n g ~ 1 : ~ ~ ~ ...

? ~ ~ n . ~ t : s ..

r ~ r . t : ~

n

syste.ITi

thar :.has a struc-.

tui.111y

intefmE:dfrttC sta.tri."I b e m ~ e { : : n t11e

nattve taxget lrrngÍ1ages;

Ne111ser

(1971) referred to.the sanie gene1 '.ll phenomenon in second

language learnlng b u t . s r r e s ~ e ~

. ~ . , e s _ u ~ c . : s . s i v e approxi.ni.:1.tíon ·to the

target

1 ~ u < 1 : . g _ e · i n . h i s t e r 1 n \ i ~ i i ' P i O . X i l l i a 1 1 V < f system::rnrdcr (1971: is

1)

usett

r h e ~

ten1l

i í T i o _ ~ y n U . . L l . f i C ..

:iialCCt'

Úl c o 1 ~ ~ 1 C H e

'i_Et;'"idca th;it rhe

lcarncr's tanguagc

is urri:'que

to a par1icuLu· indh'"idn:1l, th:i.t the rules of tbe

lc:1rner's

language

are peculiar to the language of that tndi1'idu:li alone. \V11ile each of these



216 CHAPTER 8

CroS :>-Linp,uistic Jnflul. nce

and

Learner Langu,1ge

designations en1phasizes

a particular notion.

they

share thc concept that

secun<l ianguage

earners

are fornling their o\vn self-contained linguistic

systcn1s.

This

is neither the system of the

native language

nor the systern

uf

the

target language, but a

system

based

upon thc

best atte1npt of learners

to bring

on.ler

and structure to

the

linguistic stin1uli surrounding them. The

interlanguage hypothesis led to a \vhole new era of

second

language

research and te<.i.¡_;lüng and

presented

a significant breakthrough fron1 the

shack cs of the CAH.

111e n1ost

obvious

a p p r o ; : ~ c h

q.J

analyzíng

intedanguage

is

tó

study

t h t . ~

speech. and \Vriting

of

iearners,

or

\vhat has corne

to

be : : ~ H e d ~ l , ~ ~ . P n e . : r · la.n

g u a g ~ (Lightbcnvn Sp;1da 1993; C. James 1990). Production data is pub

liclr observable and is prcsun1ably reflectivc

of

a

lcarner's underlying

con1petence-production

competence. that is. Comprchension of a sccond

language is n-iorc diJficulr

to

study since it is not directly

observable and

must

be

inf\..Tred fn.Jn1 ovcrt verbal and nonverbal

responses,

by artificial

instrumcnrs,

or

by

thc

intuition

of

the teacher

or

researcllcr.

It follo,vs thJ.t the

study

ofthe speech

and writihg.oflearners

is largely

thc slu<ly

of

the error s o f learners. "·Corrcct,. proúuct ion yields little ínfor

mation

about thc

actu;11

linguistic

system of learners, only information

about thc t ~ t r g c r languagc system that learners have already acquire<l.

Therefore, uur focus in the

rest

of this chapter wiU be on· the signiJicance

of errors in

lcarncrs' dcvcloping

systcms,

otherwise

kno'\vn

as

error

analysis.

EllliOR

f INALYSIS

H.u1nan,\carnJ.ng is fu110atnentally a.proct::ss

that

involvcs the making

of rnis,

tákes. ;\lbtakes,

nli.sjuJgrncnts, nüscalculations,

and

erroneous assun1ptions

fOrn1

an in1portant aspect of learning virtually any skill or acquiring· infor

mation. You learn to swim by first jumping in o

the

water and flailing arn1s

and ;.,:gs ~ 1 t i l

y. }u

;:H0covt:r that thcrc is a L o n 1 b i n a t : ' . ~ ; 1 of

m o v e : n e n t ~ a

structured

pat tern-that succeeds

in

kceping

you

afloat

and

propclling

you lhrough thc

water. The first n1istakes üf learning

to

swin1 are giant

oncs,

g.radually

Jiminblüng

as

you

learn

fron1 n1aking

thosc

mistakes.

Learning to

SYVÍln,

to play lcnnis, to type, orto read all

involve

a process in

\Vhich sut:cess cou1cs hy profiting froin

rnistakes,

y using mistakes tu

obtain tCcJback from the

enYironrncnt,

and vvüh that

feedback

to make

new

alternpts that

successively

approxi.rnale <lesire<l goals.

La11guage

learning, in this sense, is like any

other

hurnan learning. We

have

already

seen in the

second chapter

that children learning their first

language ü l ~ l k e countless"nlistakes" fro1n

the

point

of

vicw uf aüult g:i:am-

1na tica l langu:otge. i>Iany of the:;c nlist:akes are

logical

in the

limited

lin- --

on OTER 8

(J•J3S·l.inguistic

lníluence and

Learner LanguJge 217

guistic systen1 \Vithin \vhich children operare, but, y

carefully

processing

feedback from othcrs,

children

slo1,.\dy

but surely learn

to produce

\vhat

i::;

acceptab C

Speech in their natiYt: anguage. S ~ : C · 0 ~ 1 . d _ lan.guage

~ . C i l f n i n g

is., a:

process

that

is clearly I)Ot unlike first

languí.l.ge

Jeafning.i;n it s trial-an<l-error

nature.

Inevitably learners will make mistakes in the process

of

acquisition.

and that proccss will be

ünpe<led

if they do not comtnit errors and then

benefit from various fonns of

feedback

un those errors.

Researchers an<l teachers of

second languages carne

to

realize that the

mistakes

a

person

1nade in

this

process

of

con.structing

a

ne"'

systen1

of

lan

guage needed to be

analyzed carefully, for they possibly held in them sorne

of the keys to the under.standing of the proccss of second language acqui

sition.As Corder (1967: 167) noted:

"A learncr's

errors are signil1cant in

[thatl they

provi<le to the

researcher evidcnce of

hO"\V

language

is learned

or

acqui.red,

what

strategics or procedures

the

learner is etnploying in the

<liscovery

of

rhc language."

Mistakes and llfrorsc

'

In order

to analyze

learner_language in

an

appropria.(e

perspective,

it is cru

cial to

n:ake a dj,$1it CJ:io'n bet"v.eefl. ~ J t a k e s

and

errors-; technically t>vo

very different

pht:no1nena.

A mistake refers to a performance

error

that is

either

a

guess

or

a

"slip·:·'

in

that

it is

a

failure

to

utilize

a

kno•vn

syste1n

correctly.

Ali peopie make

inistakes. in

both nativc and .second lan

guage situations Native. speakt:rs are norn1ally

capable

of recognizing

a '1d.

correcting

such

"lapses"' or nlistakcs, which· are

not

the result

of

a defi

ciency in con1petence but the"result uf sorríe

sort

oftempor.ify breakdown

or in1perfection

in the

process

of pro<lucing

speech. 1'hcse hesitations.

slips of the tongue, random ungrammaticalities, and other perfonnance

lapses

in native-speaker production

also occur in

second language speech.

l\'listakes, when attention is called to then1. can be self-corrected.

J.Vlistakes 1nust be

carefully

distinguished from errors

of

a second lan

guage l:::;:::T,e:-. : d i c - ~ : - : 1 . : : : - . 1 . s i . : : s ;" rhe langi..:age

cf thc

learner that are' clirccr

n1anil'estations of a systen1 ~ ' i t h i n which a learner

is

opcrating at thc

tin1e.

An i T O t ~ noticeahle

deviation fron1

the

a<lult granunar of a na ive

speaker.

reflects

the

co1npetcnce

of the

learner.

Learners

of

English

who

ask,

"Does

John can

sing?" are in all likelihood reflecting a competet1<.:e lev el in which

all verbs require a pre-poseJ du

auxiliary for

question formation. As such.

it is an error. most like y not a rnistake, and an error that reveals a portion

of

the

learner's

comperence in the

target

language.

Can you tell the difference

between an error

and a nlistake? Not

ahvays. An

error

cannot

be

self-corrccte<l, according to a m e ~ (1998: S:;).

Vi.-'hile 1nistakes can be self-correcte<l Lf the deviation is pointed out to the

speaker. But the

learner's

c a p ~ t c i r y

f•

n self-correction objectively

observ-



CHAlTER

8 Cross Linguisric

lnffuenu

and Learncr Language

able only i

the

lcarner actually self-corrects; therefore, i

no

su

ch

self..

correction

occurs,

V\ e

are srill left with no n1eans to identify error vs. n1is·

takc. So, can

we turn to

freqllency of a deviant fonn as a criterion?

Sometimes.

lf,

on one

or

t\VO

occasions,

an English learner say::;

"John

cans

sing,"

but

on other

occasions

says

"John

can sing," it is difficult to deternüne

'vhcther ·cans" is a 1nistakc oran error. lf, howcver,

further

exanünarion

of

the íearner's speech consistently reveals

such

utterances as 'John vvills go,"

'John

mays come,"

and

so forth, w-ith very

few instances

of correct

thin.1-

person singular usage

of modal

auxiliaries, you

might

safely conclude that

·'cans," "1nays," and other such for1ns

are errors

indicating

that the learner

has not distinguishetl modals fro1n other verbs. But it is possible,

hecause

of the few correct

instances

of

production of this form,

that

the

learner is

on the verge of

making

the necessary differentiation between

the

two

types

of

verbs.

You can

thus

appreciate the suhjectivity

of

deternüning the

difference

bet\veen

a mistake

and

an error

in learner speech.

That under

taking alw;iys

bears

with it the chance of a faulty assun1ption on the

part

of a teachcr

or

researcher.

The fact that learners

do

1nake errors, and that these errors

can

be

observedj analyzed;

and

classified to reveal something ofthe-systetn

oper

ating

within the learner, led

to a surge of

study

óf learners'

errors

1

called

error

analysis._·

Error

analysis

became

distinguished

fro1n

contrastive

analysis by its

examination

of

errors attributable to all possible sources, not

just those resulting from negative transfer

of

the native language. Error

analysis easily superseded

contrastive

analysis, as we dbcovered that only

son e of

the errors

a

learner

n1akcs are attributahle to

the inother tongue;

that

learners

do not

actually n1ake all the

errors that

contrastive analysis

predicted they

should, and that learners from disparate language back

grounds tend to make sünílar errors in learning one target language.

Errors-overt manifestations

of

learners' s y s t e m s ~ a r i s e from severa pos

sible

general

sources:

interlingual errors of

interference

from

the

natlve Ian

guage,

intralingual

_errors

within

the target

language, the

sociolinguistic

co1üext o.f commurücatiOT' ., psycholinguistic or cognitive srrategies,·:ind no

doubt countless affective variables.

rors in Error Analysis

There is a

danger

in too

1nuch attention

to learncrs' errors. \X hile

errors

indeed

reveal a

system

at

work,

the classrooin language teacher

can

becon1e so preoccupied with

noticing

errors

that

the correct utterances in

the second language go unnoticed. In our observation

and

analysis of

errors-for

all that thcy do revea about the learne1--wc n1ust be\.varc of

CHM TER

8 Cross·Linguistic lnfluence

and

Learner Language

219

placing too n1uch

attention

on

errors

and not lose sight of

the

value of pos

itive rcinforcernent of clear, free cornmunication. '<

1

hlle

the diminishing of

errors is an in1portant criterion for increasing language proficiency, the u ti

mate goal

of secnnd language learning is the attainment

of

communicatiYe

fluency.

Another

shortcon1ing in error analysis is an overemphasis on produc

tion data. ~ 1 and .listen in , -.;;vritln

rrnd

reaclin . The

cnmprehc'nsion

of

language

is as

important

as

productlon.

lt

so

happens

that production ends itself

to

analysis

and _thus

becomes the prey

of

researchers, but comprehension data

is

equaHy

important

in developing an

understanding of the

process

of I ~ \

()ver the years, n1any studics Qames 1998;Tarone 1981; Kleinmann

1977; SchJchter 1974) have shown that error ;:¡nalysis

fails

to accolint for

the strategy of 3Voidance. A learner

'l;:vho .tOr onc

reason or another avoids

a

particular sound,

vvord, structure, or discourse caregory may be assun1ed

incorrecrly to have

no

diffit:v1ry therewith.- Sch1chtcr l t ) /1) found, for

exan1ple, that it was 1nfslcacling to

draw

conclusions ahout relative clause

errors among cert3in English learners; native J1par,ese speak, .'.rs were

largely avoiding that structure

and thus

nor

manifesting

nearly

as many

errors as sorne native Persi:in speakers. The absence

of error therefore éJoes

not

n,ecessaíily

reflect

nativelike com_petence,

because

tearners

n1ay

be

: i v o i d i n g t h ~

very

structures that pose difficulty for

them.

Finally, error analysis can

keep

us too closely focused on specific lan

guages rather than

vie\\"ing

universal aspects of

langu:ige. Gass

(1989) rec

on1mended that. researchers

pay

more attention

to

Hnguistic

elements

that

are com1non to ali languages. The language systen1s of learners n1ay ha·.:e

elements

that reflect neither the rarget l1nguage nor

the

native language.

but rather a universal feature

of

sorne kind. Such assertions are

in

keeping

\.Vith

the

bioprogramming

theories referred

to

in Chapter

2.

But there are

problen1s, of

course,

with the

search

for universal propcrties of learner·s

errors.

·It is not

at all clear

in

any precise \vay v..Then

the

influence of

the

universal \Vill appear in

the

intert1ngu::ige oflearners r:;ther

than

a violation

uf it

based

on

influence

from

either the

source or targer l:i.ngt1age" (Celc e

r.Iurcia H.awkins 1985: 66).

\ e

do \Vell, therefore, in the analysis of

learners'

errors,

to

engage in

·'performance

analysis"

or'·interlanguage

analysis" (Ce ce-i\lurci a Hawkin.s

1985: 6·4), a less

restrictive concept

that places a healthy invesügation of

errors

''-:itllin the larger

perspective

of

the

learner's total ianguage p r ~

forman ce. \Vh le a significant portion of this chapter deals with error

analysis. lct us nevertheless rc1nember that production errors are only' a

sub:;(:t

of

the overall performance

of

the lean1er.



220 UW TER 8 Cms dinguistic lnflucncc und leamcc Language

Identifying

and

Describing

Errors

()ne of the

c o m r n o n _ ~ i 1 T i s : _ t _ ü _ t J S , §

in ...

L 1 l 9 . S . f ~ - t ~ _ i ? : f g l l g

: _ ~ _ J l & ~ Ü : ~ A ~ " " ~ , } ~ ~ - ~ , f , I - l , ~ of

both i r s t ~ ; ; L ~ . S . ' 2 I l s " L l ~ D b : B g ~ J & 1 . r 1 ~ § _is thc fact that sus : _zyste1ns s i : . n n _ q ~ ~

l?:t:_dire_ctly obst.:rv:ctJ. They must be i n f C r ~ e d

by

n1eans

of

a 1 ~ ~ _ l l y _ z i 9 g __

pro

. . Y E J } S . ~ E } J . ~ L t ; ; S ~ ~ - H 2 S : J ~ S : : _ l _ l § 9 _ 1 _ 1 __ ' - _ t ~ ..y;

1

-i1at n1akes the

task

cvcn thornier is the

inst bility of lean1crs'

.':>ystems.

Systems

are

in a constant

state

of flux as

new infOFn1ation fl .J\V::. in an<l, thruugh the process

of

subsun1ption, causes

existing

structures

to be revised. Repeate<l

observations

of a

learner

will

often

reveal apparcnlly

unpre<l_ictabk:

or

even

contra<líctory data. In

under

taking the task

of

pcrfunnance analysis, the teacher

and

researcher

are

callcd upon to it1fer

ordtr

and logic

in

this uns_table and variable system.

1'he first in thc process - o J - - ~ n a l y s i s , :

the

"identífic;ttio_n'. ai <l

<lt:scription

of-errors:

o r d ~ r (1971) proYidcd a

model

f9r i , d e 1 1 t i 1 : ' y i n g - e r ~ o -

1 i ; ~ l l ~ _ ? r _ i ( í " i ~ y t i ~ í ~ a _ t i _ t : .

~ ~ t ~ _ ~ r a n c e _ ~ __1 a ~ c o _ t ~ d : ] ' ~ ~ ~ g ~ 1 a i i e . ~ 1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ t , . ~ ~ < l ~ i - is

sC1J.Cff1JtiZeJ -in

- 1 - : ¡ g u ¡ : ~

- 3 ~ 1 : · A ~ - ¿ ; ; r J Ú 1 g

Corder's

- n 1 ~ ~ ( í ' C 1 ,

' - ~ ~ ~ I - " " ~ i e _ ~ e _ n ~ ~ -

t1tte_r_ed

by-

the learne-r a n ~

su

- ~ c q ~ _ e n ú y

- ~ : J : 1 : ~ 5 ~ E L ~ - ~ - 9 :

..

~ ' l ~ ~ - - - l ? , : ~ _ : _ : , ~ n a ~ ~ $

.

f 2F

iúfÓsy;ncra.sies.

_¡\

11Jaj0:r_dü:1tinCiiofii;,

n1ade-

at the oulsct bertvccn oy( _Q:-(.lnd

__ o v e ~ - _ - e t r ? r ~ ~ _ Q : \ ~ r t l y

. e r r o _ ~ - ~ - S ' . - ~ - ~ - ? , , , , - ~ _ 1 _ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ a _ 1 _ c : e s _

1Ef ' < ~ L ~ r u : ~ l l ; ? n í l ~ l y ~ ~ d m ~ _

1 1 1 a t _ i _ c ~ t l _-ª: __ h e : _ · 5 : : n t ~ 1 1 ~ ~ - t e ~ e t : < ~ o v e r t l y -

_ r _ ~ ( ) n c o u s - ~ i t t e r J

nces

a J ? _ e : ; - g ~ ~ 6 : t _ t l l a t i ~

~ ~ ~ l i f i f 1 : ~ ~ ~ - B i ~ i - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - J ~ Y ~ I ~ § i ~ ~ - ~ E $ J l 2 í - - f u ~ ~ E t ? X ~ ~ ~ ~ t h i n

the::

c2Ji sd'tt-:Q:f

. ' . C Q í i l l ~ , f i l i J f l . : - ' C < : ; i _ ' . t . ' . ~ E ~ . , . ~ - ~ ~ ~ t ~ ,

in otl1er

\Yord.s,

a r e , , . ~ o ~ , -

~ ~ - ~ - ~ Y , ,

covert

at

all

if

you

attcnd

tu surrqu1u.ling

discourse (befare _or

afte+

the

uttcranc_e):

_,

, __ i l l ~ : ; - · a ; ~ U l k _ i S ~ i f i t ñ l ~ 1 á t i C U 1 1 y ~ C O f f e C ~ t ~ a ~ _ i . ~ ~ = s e i í ~ ~ l i ~ ~ - ; ,

i e ' \ ; ~ f : ? í i y as-:i respOiiSC"tQ'(\\Vh.-o' r ~ ·

);¿)ll?--;,it ¡ , 5 · o · n ~ i 0 u s 1 y _ a 1 1 err_or. ;A simpler

a , ¡ 1 J , l l 1 Z ) r e · · ; ; ; : ~ : a ¡ g r ; ~ f o r ~ ~ : ; ~ ~ z r ; ~ ~ s ,

then:

o u l d - b e : 5 ~ D . - t ~ n c ~

level"

anti

"discourse lcvel" errors.

Corder's

modcl in

Figure

8.1

indicates

that, in

thc case of both

overt

an<l-covert errors. i a p au&ibk: interpretation can be

n1:-1de of

the·s-eritcnce,

{ j ~ ~ n

o-ii-C"'SE'O-iúd

fonJ1 a re;construction of

the

sentence in

the

t _ ~ E g ~ _ t tan:

guag(::_, o n 1 r _ ~ r e the r e C < ) _ ~ ~ ~ t T _ l : l _ ~ i _ ¡ J n _

- - ~ - ~ ~ ~ 1 -

__ _ ? - ~ - - origif?.al i < l i o s y n c r a t i ~ sen-

tcnce, and then describe the

differences.

lf the native

language

of the

- ~ j ~ : \ f ñ e f - f S - f ú ó ~ ~ · n ; - - t l " i e - - · n 1 - ¿ - ) J C f } f i - ¿ ; ; C J i e s l L ~ Í n g translation :.ts a possible indi-

cator

of

native

lJ.nguotge fntcrference as

the source

of

error.

In sorne

cases,

of

course,

no plausible intcrpretation is possible at

aH,

anti the r e ~ e a r c h e r

is

lel't:

with no

analy:>is

of the error

(()U1'3).

Consi<ler

the

follo'i-ving exarnples

of

idiosyncratic utterances of

learners, and

let us allov.r

them

to be fed through

Corder's

procedure for

error

ana ysis:

N

s

o

l

. ;

®--+-

o

o

2

,

.

¡

,_

'

1'

o

'o

e

º

_Q

0

e

E

e

..2

V

"'

c

e

E

u

e

e

V

s;

e

2

o

"'

k

e

o

'

-

5

º

2

il

o

V

:o

2

-

o

I

i

2

o

:

221



_22 CHAPTER

8

Cross-Linguistic

lnfluence

and

Lrarner

Langudge

1.; Does John can sing?

A NO

C.

YES

l). Can

John

sing?

E ()riginal sentcnce contained pre-posed do auxiliary applicable

to

n1ost

verbs, hut not to verbs vvith n1o<lal

auxilia.des.

OU'f2

2.

I

sa\v

their

department.

A.

YES

B. NO

(context

vv:t<; in a conversation ahour

living quarters in

i\lexico)

C. NO

F YES, Spani::;h.

G

·yo vi

su cleparta1nento.YES

IL I

saw

their

apartment.

E.

Deparüunento \vas

translatecl

to

false

cognate dejJart1nent.

OUTz

3.

The different city

is

another one in the another rwo.

A.

NO

C.

NO

F.

YES,

Spanish.

G

No plausible transL"ltion or

interpretation.

I. No

analysis.

()lJT

3

It can be secn

that

thc model

is not con1plicated and represents a

proce

Uure that teachers and researchers n1ight intuitively follo\V. Of course, 9.n.s:s;

í l I J ~ _ . t f J l : i ~ L h l _ ~ J , , - U i t i t : s . L . J J A . ~ , , m J i ; ; t ~ ~ ~ C - 2 " ' . ~ < k - - ' ~ J : i b e

_ j _ t _ ~ 9 S l 1 l i i ~ , something

the

aboye

procé<lure

has

only begun

to

accon1plish.

A numher

of different categories

for

description of

errors

have been

identified

in

research

on

learner language (for an

overvie\\r, see

Lennon

199 l).

l.

The

n1ost

generalized

breakdown

car1-he 1nade

by

identifying

crrors of{idditioij)otnission,

, ~ 1 _ L " ? . § ~ ~ Y _ i o n ,

and

o r d e r i n ~ ,

.foll'.)W ng

standard mathe1natical

categories.

In

English a do aux1l1ary m1ght

be

added

(Does cau be síng?),

a definire

article

01nitted

(J

ruent

to 1novie), an ite111 substituted ( lost 111)- road), ora word order

confused I to t Je store iuent). But such categories are

clcarly

very generalized.

2.

\Vithin each category,

feuels

of language can

be

considered:

phono qgy or orthography, lexicon,

gran1n1ar,

and

disconr.se.

WAPTER [ C c n o > ~ L i n g u i ; t i c lnf/uence 'nd

teamu;

L o ngu oge 223

Often.

of

course, iL

is difflcult

to disting11ish different

levels

of

errors. A word with a faulty pronunciation, for exan1ple, might

bide a

syntactic or

exical

error. A

French learner

\.Vho says

"[zhey}

suis

allé

a

'école"

might

be

mispronouncing

the

grammat

ically

correcr je;' or corrcctly

pronouncing a

grammatically

incor

rect j'aí.

3.

Eri:()r.s

may

also be vie\ved as either gl(fl' -P] or

fr >Cttl

"(Burt

&

Kiparsky 1972).

G10bal

errors

hindei',·é'"ori1fnttnlcatio11;

rhey

pre

vent

the hearer

fron1

cómprehen<li:ng sorne aspect

of

the n1es

sage. for

exarnple,

"Well, it's a great hUrrr J.ronnd,"

in

whatever

context, n1ay

be

difficult

or i m p o ~ s i b l e to interpret.

Local

errors

do

not

prevent the message fro1n being_ heard

1

u ~ n a l l y

because

there is only a minor violnt on

of

one s e g r n ~ e n t

of

a

sentence,

alJov::t-ing

the hearer/reader_to

make

an

accurate guess about

tbe

inte.11de<l 111eaning.

' A scissors,"

for e¡ran1ple, is a local

error.

The

global-local distinction

is

discussed in the vignette at

the

end

of

this chapter.

4

Finally,

. ( ~ n n o n _

(1991,)_

s1,1_g,gests

that two related dimen.sions of

error, dornain

:1od

e,xteut

:shonld-be cor1$idered in anv error

- - ' •> C. , ' • w ' • . .: ,;_ .; ,• '

analysis-, EJ_On?_ain is the_ rank: of:linguistic-unit (frnm phoneme to

discoursc}thát must

be

-1:-;tken

as

contcxt ln order

for

the error

to

become

apparent,

and extent is the rank of_linguistic unit that

\vould have to be deietecL replaced, suppHecl,

or

reordered in

order

to repair

the

sentence. Lennon's

C:1tegories

help to

opera

tionalize Corder's overt-covert distinction discussed abovc.

So,

in

the

ex:imple

just

cited above,

"a

~ c i s s o r s , ' " the

don1;iin is

the

phrase, and the extent is tbe inclefinite article.

Sotlrces of Error

~ v i n g exan1ined

procedures of error analysi.s used to

identify

errors

in

second language

. ~ ~ t r n e r production data,

tJur fiílal step in the

a.nal:ysis of

erron.eous

learner speech

is

that of deterrnlning

the source

of

error.

Wli}',

are

cé'rtain

e1:ro1\S

rnúde? \\l1at cognitíve strategies

and

styles

or even

Per

sonality

variables

underlie certain errors?

\'\'hile

the answers to these q_ues

tion.;; are son1e'.vhat speculariYe

in that sources

1nust

be inferred from

avai ahle data, in such questions lies

the

ultimare value of learner language

:111alysb

in general.

By trying

to

i<lentify sources '\ve

can

take

another

step

tO '.-V<trd understanding

ho\v the learner's cognitive

and

affective

processes

relate to

the

linguistíc

system

and to türmulatc an

lnregratcd ur:.derstanding

of the process of second language ;H

:t1ubitlon.



224

O IAPTfR

8 Cross·Linguistic

lnfluence

and Learner Language

lttterllngual 1 ransfer

As

we

ha

ve alreaJy

~ e e n ,

interlingual transfer

is a

signülcant soun.:e of error

for all learners. ' fhe beginning stages of learning a second languagc are

especially

vulncrabie to interlingual transfer

fron1

the native language, or

interference. In these

early stages, before

the-systen1 of

the second-1anguage

is fan-Ullar, the native language

is

the

only

previous linguistic systen1 upoh

\vbich

the

lt:arner

can draw. We have

aH heanl

English

l ~ a r n e r s

say

s h e e p ' ~

for

'·ship,''

or

"the

hook üf Jaék" instead of "Jack's

Oook";

French learners

may say"Je sais Jean" for"je

connais

Jean,'' an<l so forth. AH

these

errors are

attrlbutuble

to

negative inter ingual

tr-an:Sfér. \\._.hile

it

is

not

ahvays

c ear

that an

error is the result

of transfer

from the native language,

many

such

errors are detectable

in

learncr speech.

Fluent

kno"\vledgc

or

even famil

iarity with a

leanH.:r's

native language of course

ai<ls

the

teacher

in

detecting and analyzing such errors.

The -learning of a

thi:rd lánguage (and

subsequent languages) pro

vi<les

an interesting

context for research. Depending upon a number

of fac

tors,

including

the

línguistic

an<l cultural

relatedness of the

languages

and

the context

of learning,

there

are varying degrees of interlingual interfer

ence

frorn

both the

first anU second Janguage to

the third

language,

espe

cially

if

the second and third languages are cluscly

rclatcd

or the learner is

atteinpting a

third

language shortly after beginning

a second language.

Intralitigu_al Tr·ansj er

Onc of

the n1ajor contrlbutions

o

learner

language research has been its

recognition of sources

of

error that extend beyond interlingual errors in

learning

a

second

language. It

is now clear that

intrilingual

transfer (Withín

the target ianguage itselí)

is

a

n1ajor

factor in second language

learning.- In

Chapter

4 we

di,-,cusse<l

overgeneralization, which is

the

negalive c o u n ~ e r -

part of intralingual transfer.· Researchers (see )aszczolt 1995;Taylor 1975)

have found that the

early

stages

of

language learning are

characterizccl

by

a

pi"edoruinance of

interf "."renc e (intf'.'.r íngu;:i1 tra 1sfer). lT .lt r r ; . c ~ ·

i ~ n r n e r s

have begun to

acquire

parts

of

the nev.- system, more

and

more intralingual

transfer-genera.lization within the

target

language-is

n1anifeste<l.1'his

of

coursc

foilows logically

fi-om

the

tenets

of Jearning theory.

As

learners

progress in

the sccond

language,

theír previous experience and their

e,""'{isting subsun1ers

begin

to

iriclude

structures within

the target language

itsclf.

Ncgative

intralingual

transfer, or overgenerJ.lization,

has already been

illustrate<l in

such

utterances

as "Does

john

can si11g?" Other exan1ples

abound-utterances like "He gocd,""I don't know what tin1e is it, and "Il a

ton1bé." Once

again,

the teacher

or researcher

cannot ahvays he certain

of

Cl-IAlTER

8 Cross Linguistic Jnfluence and Le;Jrner Language 225

the source

of an

apparent

intralingual error, but

repeated systematic o s e r ~

vations of

a

learner's

speech

data \Viil often rcmove

the

ambiguity of

a

single observation of an

error.

1 ~ h e

analysis of

intralingual errors in a corpus of production elata can

bccome

quite complex. For

examp e, in

BarryTaylor's (1975: 95)

analysis of

English

sentences produced

by ESL learners,

just the

class of errors

in

pro

ducing

the n1ain

verb follo\ving an auxiliary

yielcled

nine different types of

error:

Tab e B.¡. Typic:i English intra ingual error;;

in

the use

of

articles (Írom Richards

1971

187)

1.

Omission

of

TH

(a) befare

unique nauns

(b} befare nouns of natíonality

(e)

before nouns

made

partícÚlar

in

context

(d) befare a noun madified by a participle

e) befare super atives

(f) befare a noun modified by an

of phrase

2. TH l'Jsed lnstead of 0

(al before

proper

names

(b)

befare abstract nouns

(e) befare nouns behaving like

abstract nouns

(d)

befare plural

nouns

e} before sorne

3. A Used lnstead

of

THE

a) before superlatives

(b1

befare

unique

nouns

4. A

lnstead of 0

(a) befare a plural noun qualííied by

an

adjective

(bi befare uncountables

(e\

befare an adjective

5. Omission of

A

beíore class nouns defined

by

adjectives

Sun

is

very hot

Himalayas are .

Spaniards and A.rabs .

At the conclusion oí article

She goes to

bazaar

every day

She is mother

of

that boy

Solution given in this article

Richest p ~ r s o n

lnstitute of Nuclear Physics

TI

e

Shakespear f,

the

Sunda¡

The friendship, r:-ie nature,

the science

After the school, after the break

fast

The

complex

structures are

still

developing

The sorne

knovv edge

a \VOrst, a best hoy in the class

a sun becomes red

a holy places, a human beings,

abad nev•s

a

gold, a

1¡vork

taken as a definite

he was good

boy

he \Vas brave mtln



' 6

C APTER 8 Cross Unguistic lntfuence and Lcarner Language

1. Past-tense forn1

of

verb following a modal

2. Present-tense

-son a

vcrh

follov.-·ing a tnodal

3.

-ing on a verb

follo'\ving a n1oda

4. are (for be following zvill

5. Past-tense forn1

of

verb following

do

6.

Present-tense

s on a

verb

follo'>ving

dn

7.

-ing on

a verb following

do

8.

Past-tense

form

of

a

verb

folio'>ving

be

(inserted

to

replace

a

modal

or

do)

9. Present-tense

-son

a verb following

be

(insertecl to replace a

modal or do)

And of course

these are

linüted to

the particular data

that

Taylor

was

ana

lyzing

and

are

therefore

not exhaustive within a gran1matical category.

Moreover, they pertain only to errors of overgeneralization, excluding

another long

list of categories of errors that

he

found attributahle to inter

lingual transfer. Similarly,Jack

C.

Richards (1971: 185-187) provided a list

of

typical

English

intralingual

errors

in

the

use of articles

(see Table

8.1 on

page

125). These

are

not exhaustive either, but are examples of some

of

the

errors coinmonly encountered in English learners from

disparate

native

language backgrounds.

Both

'l"'aylor's

and

Richards

s

lists

are

restricted to

English, but

clearly theír counterparts exist

in other

languages.

A third

major

source of _error,

although

it overlaps both rypes of transfer, is

the

context of

learning. Context refers, for

example,

to the classroon1

w i t l ~ its teacher

anc;i

its materials in the case of school learning or the social

situation in

the

case

of

untutored second language learning.

In

a c l ~ s r o o m

context the

teacher

or the

textbook can

lead

the learner to make faulty

hypotheses about the language, what Richards (1971) called f < : ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ - 9 . 1 } ·

cep1s" ant..i what St..: . .nson (197

4)

termed

induced

errors."

Students often

n ¡ke

errors because

of

a misleading

explanation

from the teacher, t1ulty

presentation

of

a structure or word in a textbook, or even because of a pat

tern

that

was rotely men1orized in a drill

but

improperly contextualize<l.

Two

vocabulary

items presented contiguously-for t' xample,point

at and

point

out-might in

later

recali be

confused

sin1ply

because

of the conti

guity of presentation. Ora teacher may provide incorrect inforn1ation-not

an

uncommon occurrence-by

\vay of a misleading definition, word,

or

gramn1atical generalization. Another manifestation

of

language learned in

classrooin

contexts

is

the occasional

tendency on

the

part

of

learners to

givc uncontrJ.cted and inappropriately formal forn1s

of

anguage. We

have

C --IAPTER 8 Cross-Linguistic

rr:+ f::rr-ce

and LParnt'r

L nguage 227

ali e:x:perienced íoreign

learners whose bnnkish langn:ige

gives the1n away

as classroom Ianguage learners.

The sociolinguistic context of natural, untutored Lingu:ige acquisition

can give rise to certain

dialect acquisition

that

may

itsel.f

be

a

source

of

error.

Corder's

rerm

idiosyncratic

<lialect"

applies especially well here. For

exarnple, a japanese in1migrant who livect in a predn1ninantly ;v1exican

An1erican area of a U.S. city produced a learner Linguage that V·ias an inter

esting blend of I\ilexican-1\n1erican English and the staodard English to

vvhich he '\vas exposed in

the

university, colored y

his

Japanese

accent.

Co- nrnunícation

Strategies

In (:hapter

5

communication strategies v,rere ctefined

and

related to

learning styles. Learners obviously use procluction s t : ~ . . t t e g i e s

in

order

to

enhance getting their

messages

across, but at tin1es these techniques

can

themselves

becon1e a source

of

error. ()ncc an

ESL

Iearner said, "Let us

work for

the well done

of

our

country."

Wlüle

it exhibited a nice little m·ist

of hunHJ_r, the sentence

had

an

incorrect approximation

of the

word 1cel·

/are. Llke\vise, word coinage, circum. ocution, false

cognates

(fro1n Tarone

1981),

and

prefabricated

patterns can all be

sources

of error.

STAGES OF l.FARNER lAiNGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

There are n1any

different

ways to describe the progression

of

learners' lin·

guistic

development

as

rheir

attempts

at production

successively

approxi-

1nate the target language system. Incleed,

learners are

so variable in

their

acquisition of a second

language

that stages of developn1ent defy descrip

tion.

Borrowing

soine insights from an earlier model proposed

by

Corder

(1973),

I have found

it useful

to think in terms

of

four stages,

based

on

observations

ofwhat the

learner <loes in

tenns of

errors

alone.

l.

The first is a , ~ t · ~ g e of _ 3 : ~ _ d o 1 n

errors,

a srage that

Corder

called

"presystematic," in \Vhich the learner is only vaguely ª 'vare that

thCre

is

son1e systematic order ro a particular class of iterns, The

\Vritten utterance

The

different ciry is another one

in

the

another two'' surely comes

out of

a random

error

srage

in

which

the

Iearner

is

making r.-nher wild guesses at what to '\vrite.

I n c o n s i s t e n c i e s - ~ f i k e · j ó h n cans sing,""John can

to

sing;· :lnd John

can singing," all said by the same learner within a shnrt period of

time, might indicare a stage

of

experitnentation

and inaccurare

guessing.

2.

The second,

or emergent, stage of

learner

language finds the



228 CHAPffW 8 Cross-Linguistic lnflucnu_ nd Lea111er Lmguage

lcarner growing in consistency

in

linguistic production.

The

learner has bcgun to

discern

a systc1n anJ to internalizc certain

rules.

These rules may not be correct

by

target language stan

dar<ls,

but thcy are nevertheless legitimate

in

thc nünd of the

learner. This stage is characterízed

by sorne

backsliding,'· in

v.·hich

the learner

seems to havc grasped a rule

or principie

and

then

regresses to sorne previous stage. In general the

learner

is

still, at t i ~ stage, unable

to

correct errors

\vhen

they are pointed

out by

sorneone else.

Avoidance

of structures and tapies is typ

icaL

Considcr thc

folkrv..-ing conversation

bctween

a lcarncr (L)

an<l a

native

spt:aker

(NS)

of

English:

L: 1 go

New York.

NS: You're

going

to

NewYork?

l.: [<loesn't un<lcrstand] \Vhat?

NS: You will go to NewYork?

L:

Yes.

NS: When?

L:

1972.

NS:

Oh, you

went to Ne\i.rYork ín 1972_

L: Yes.lgo 1972.

Such a conversation is reminiscent

of those

mentioned

in

Chapter 2 wherc

children in first Ianguage

situations

could

not

discern

any error

in their

speech.

3.

A

thir<l

stage

is a

truly

systematic

stage in

which the lcarner is

now able

to n1anifest more consistency in producing the

second

language. \\'hile those

rules

that

are

stored

in the learncr·s

brain

are still

not

atl w e l l ~ f o r m e d

they

are n1ore internally_self.-consis

tent

and, of course, they more closely

approxin1ate

the target lan

guage

systcm. The

most

salient

difference between the second

an<l thir<l stt:gc is the ability of icarrh.::ls

tu

,.;011ecr thcir errors

when they

are pointed out-evcn

very subtly-to

thetn.

Consider

the English learnt.'r rho described a popuLtr fishing-resort area.

L: í\lany fish are in the lake.These fish

are

serving in

the

rt:;laur.ants near the lake.

NS: [laughingJ

The fisb are

serving?

L: (laughing] Oh, no,

the

fish are serued in the

restaurants

4. A final

stage,

which I

will

call

the stabilization stage. in the

CHAP7ER

8

Cross Linguistic lnfluence

and /.earner Language

229

development

of learner language systems is akin to what Corder

(1973) called a "postsystematic" stage. Here the learner has rela

tively fe\V crrors and has mastered the system to

the point

that

fluency and intended

n1eanings are

not

problematic. This

fourth

stage ts characterized by the learner's ability to self-correct. Thc

syste111 is

complete

enough that attention can be paid to those

few errors

that

occur an<l corrections be n1ade without \Vaiting

for feedback from someone clse. At

this

point learners can stabi

lize

too

fast, allo\ving minor errors

to

slip

by

undetected,

and thus

manifcst

fossiliz tion

of

their language, a

concept that

will

be

tlefined

and

discussed later in this

chapter

(see Selinker and

Lamendel1a 1979).

lt should

be

made clear that the four

stages

of

systernaticity outlined

abovc do

not

describe a learner's total second

language

systeni. We "\Vould

find it hard to assert, for exa1npie, that a learner is

in

an e1nergent stage,

globally, for ali of the linguistic subsystems of

language.

One might be in a

second

stagc "\Vith

respect to, say,

the perfect

tense systcm, and in

the third

or füurth stage when it

comes

to

simple present and

past

tenses. Nor do

these stages, which are bascd on

error

analysis, adequately

account

for soci

olinguistic, functional, pragmatic

(see

Kasper 1998), or nonverbal strate

gies, ali of

which

are

important

in assessing the total competence of the

second language

learner.

Finally, '\V'C need to remember that

production

errors

alone

are

inadequare measures of

overall

competence.

They

happen

to be

salient features of

second

language learners' interlanguage

and

present

us "\Vith grist for error-analysis nlills, but

corrcct

utterances \varrant

our attention and,

especially in

the

teaching-learning

process, deserve pos

itive reinforcetnent.

VARIABIDTY Il'l LEARNER LANGUAGE

Lest you be tempted to assume that all learner language is

orderly

and sys

tematic, a caT.-eat

is

in

ordcr.

A great deal of ::i.ttcntior:. 1J..S bccn giYen to

th-::

variabílity of

interlanguage

development (Baylcy & Preston

1996:

James

1990;

Tarone

1988; Ellis 1987; Littlewood 1981).Just as native speakers

of

a language vacillate betv•:een e..xpressions like It has to

be

you" and

It

must

be you, learners

also

exhibit variation, sometimes within the parameters of

acceptable

norms, somerimes

not. Sorne variability in learner language

can

be explained by what

Gatbonton

(1983)

described as the gradual diffu

sion" of incorrcct forms of language in en1ergent

and systematic

stages of

development. First,

incorrect

forms coexist \Vith correct; then, the incorre et

are

expunged. Context has also been

identified

as a source of variation.

In

classrooms,

the

type

of

task

can

affect variation

(I'arone

& Parrish 1988).



O

n-1APTFR 8 Cross"Linguistic lnl ucnce

nd

l.carner Languaµe

And

variability

can be

affected, in both

tutored

and untutored learning,

by

the

exposure that a learner gets

to

norn1s.

\Vhile one sünply must expect a good proportion oí

ltarner

language

data

to fall beyond our capacity for systen1atic categ.orization,

one of

the

inore

controversial

current debates in

SLA

theory centers

on the

exrent to

which variability can

indeed

be systematically explained.

The essence

of

the problem is

that learners

can and do exhibit a tren1endous degree of

variation in

the

way

they speak (and write)

secon<l languages. Is

that

varia

tion predictable?

Can

\VC explain

it?

()r do we dismiss ít a as '·free varia

tion"?

Notable

an1ong mo<lels ofvariability

are ElajneTarone's (1988) capa

bility continuu1n paradigm

and

Rod Ellis"s (1994, 1986) variable com

petence

modcl,

both

of

\Vhich havc inspire<l others to carry out

research

on the

issue

(see

Foster

Skehan 1996;

Bayley Preston

1996;

Preston

1996;

Crookes

1989;

Adamson

1988; Young 1988; for

<éXample).

Tarone (1988) granted

that

non-systematic free variation

and indi

vidual variation do indeed exist, but

chose to

focus her research on con

textu l variability, that is, the extent to which both linguistic

and

situational

contexts may help to systematically

describe

\Vhat 1uight otherwise

appear

simply

as

unexplained variation.

'farone suggested four categories of

varia

tion:

l . variation

according

to linguistlc context

2. variation

according to psychological

processing factors

3. variation according to social context

4. variation according to language function

The en1phasis on context led us to look carefully at the

conditions

under which certain linguistic forn1s vary. For

example,

suppose a

learner

at one point in

time

says (a)

He

must paid for the insurance,"

and

at another

tin1e says (b) "I-le must pay the

parking

fee." An exan1ination of the lin

guistic (and conceptual) context (the first of Tarone's c:Hegories) nlight

explain the

variation.

In this case,

sentence (a) was uttered

in the context

of

describing

an event

in t ~ e past, and sentencc

(b)

rcferr::d

to the

prese::ir

1non1ent. Thus the apparent free variation

of

the main

verb

t()rn1 in

a

inodal

auxiliary

context

is

explained.

One of the moSL fruir.ful arcas of learner language research

has focused

on the

variation that arises from the disparity

b ( ~ C T v e e n classroon-z

contexts

and n tur l

situations outsi<le language classes._¡\S re.'.->earchers have cxam

ined

instructed

second language acquisition (Ellis 1990b, 1997; f)oughty

1991; Buczowska Weist 1991), it has become apparent not only thar

instruction 1uakes

a

dil11:rence in learners'

success

rates but also that the

classroorn context itself

explains a

great deal of variability in lean1ers'

outpul.

CHAlTER 8 C m s s ~ L i n g u i s t i c lnf uence nd Leamec Language

231

Rod Ellis (1994b,

1986)

has

drawn

a

n1nre

"interna " picture

of

the

learner

in his variahle competence model. f)r:l\Ving on Bialystok"s (1978)

earlier work, Ellis

hypothesized

a storehouse

of

""·:iriahle interlanguage

rules" (p.

269)

depending

on h o ~ · aurom:i.tic and how

analyzed the rules

are.

He drew

a sharp

distinction

b e t ~ e e n planned and

unpbnned

dis

course in

order to

examine

variation. The fonner impHes leo;s auton1aücity,

and

therefore

requires

the

learner

to cal upon a certatn. c ~ i t e g o r y of

learner

Janguage

niles,

while the

latter,

more

autom:nic

production,

predisposes

the learner to

dip

into another set of rules.

Both models

garoered criticism. Gregg

(1990)

quarreled with bot.h

Tarone's

and Ellis's

rejection of Chomsky's h c ~ m o g e n e o u s competence par·

a<lign1 (see the discussion in

Chapter

2 of this book :ibont competen ce

and

performance). \X.'hy

should

the fact

that

a learner's competence changes

over time lead us to reject the standard concept of co1upetencc?" argue<l

Gregg

(1990: 367). lt

V.-'ould appear fron1

Ellis's argun1ents

that Clion1sh.·y's

"performance variab les" n1ay

be better

thought

of

as

part of

one's •variable

con1petence"and therefore not attributable

to mere

"slips" in

perfonnance.

Such arguments and counter-argumenrs (see responses to Gregg by Ellis

1990a

andTarone

1990)

will conti.nue, but

one

lesson we are learning

in

all

this

is apparent: even the

tiniest of

the bits and pieces

of

learner language.

howeVer

random

or"variable"

they

may

appear to

be at

first

blnsh,

cuuld be

quite

"systetnatic" if we only

keep

on looking. It is often te111pting as a

teacher

oras

a

researcher to dismiss a good deal of learners' production as a

tnystery beyond our capacity to explain.Short of engaging in an absurcl gan1e

of straining at gnats, we must guard

against

yielding

to

that

temptation.

' '

, D5 ::i

\

a x

ze.1-

)

011

'

FOSSILIZATION;

It is quite

corrunon

to

encounter in a

learner·s

language various

erroneous

features that

persist

despite what is othenvise a reasonably f1uent con1-

mand of the b.ng11age. This phenomenon is most salientlv n1aslifested

phonOlogically in "foreign accenrs·· in the_ speech

of

n1any of those \Vho

have _learned a second language

after

puberry, as

v..- e saw

in Chapter

.3.

We

also

frequently-observe syntactic and

,Jexical

errors persisting

in the speech

of tho.se who have

learned

a \anguage

quite

welL The reiarJvc1y pern1ane11t

inc_orpúration ófinc9rrect lingui_stic fpr111s Jnto_a ,person's secónd 1úngüage

compete11ce hus been referred to as:fósslli.zad.0-n. fos.sili1;1tion is a normal

and natnr:il stage for many learners, and shon d not

be

vie;,ved as son1e sort

of

terminal illness. in

spite

of the forbidding nletaphor that suggests an

unchange:-ible situ:tt1on etched in s1one.

_¡

better

n1et;1phor

rnight

be

sotne

thing like ·'cryogenation" t he

process

of frcezing 1natter ar very

lo\Y

tc-n1-



232 ( di Ti R 8 Cros5 Línguistic lnfluence and Lcarne1 Langu. ige

peratures;

we woul<l then have a picture of a

situation

that could

be

reversed (given sorne ' \\\lnnth, of

coursel).

llow

do

itcms

bccun 1c fo.ssilizcd? Fossili'.l.ation

can

be

seen

as consis

tcnt

with

principles of

hun1an

learning

already

discussed

in thiS book: con

ditioning, reínforce1nent,

need,

rnotivation, SCif-deternünation, and othcrs.

Vii?H

and

OUer \

1976)

pro\-lJed a for111al account of í08silization

as a

factot

of poSitiVe an<l negative affectJve and cognitive feedback. They

noted

that

there are nvo kinds

of infbrination

tt'J.11sn1ittetl benveen sourccs (learners)

and audiences (in

this case, native speakers): infúr1nation

about the

ajfec-

tiue

relationship

between source and ~ i u J i e ü c e , an<l cognitiue infor1na

tion-facts, suppositions, beliefs. Affective inforn1ation is

prirüarily

encoded in

tcrn1s

of kincsic n1echan.isms such as gestures, tone of VoiCe,

and

facíal

e x p r e ~ : s i o n s ,

\Vllile cognitive -irtfürmation

is usually

co-nveyed

by

n11,;'ans of linguistic <levices-

(sounds,

phrases,

structures, discourse).

The

feedback

learners get frorn thcir audience

can be eíther

positivc,

neutral,

soinewhere in between, or negutiVe. The two types and levels of feedback

are

charted belovv:

Aff( .ctive Feedback:

Positive:

Neutral:

Negative:

Keep

talking; I'm listening.

I'n1 not sure

I

\Vant to n1aintain this conversation.

This convcrsation is over.

Coghitive.Fecdback:

Positive:

I

understand

your m e s s a g ~

ít's clear.

Neutral:

I

m

not sure i I

correctly

understand you or not.

Negative:

I don't

understand w hat you are saying; it's not c ear.

Various co1nbinati0ns

of

the

nvo

111ajor

types of feedback are

possible,

For exa1nplc, a pcrson can indica e positive a t i e c : t i v t ~ feedback ("l affirrn

you and vatue

what

you are trying to conu:nunicate") but give neutral or

negatLvc cognitive

feedback

to

indicare that the n1essa:ge itself is unclear.

1-\cgative a f f ~ c t i v e

feeUback,

h.Jwev er, r.:::gardless

ofrhe

degree of

cognirive

feedback, will likcly result in

the abortion

of the con11ntnlication. This is,

of

course, consislent v1dth

the overriding affCctíve nature of hun1an interac

tion: if people

are

not at least affinne<l in their anc1_npts

to

comn1unicate,

there is litt e reasou for continuing. So, one of the first requirements for

n1caníngful con11nunication, as has been pointed out ín

earlier

chapters, is

an affcclive a1firn1allon by the other

person.

Vigil and Oller":c;

rnuJcl thus

holJs

that

a positive affective

response

is

in1pe-r'dtive

to

the learner's desire to continue attempts

to

con1mu11icate.

CognitiYe feedback then deternlines the degree of internalization. Negative

or neutral teedback in the cognitivc din1cnsion will, with the prcrequi.site

CHAPTER

8

C c o 5 ~ L i n g u i ; N c

lnf/uence and Leamec Language 233

positive affective feedback, encourage learners to try again, to restate, to

reformulate,

or to draw

a different

hypothesis about

a rule. Positive feed

back

in

the

cognitive

dimension will

potentially result in reinforcen1ent

of

the forms used and a conclusion on the p a ~ t of

learners

that their speech

is well-forn1ed. FossHized item_s, acco.rding

tii>'-this

model, are those deviant

Uems_in,

the s _ p é e ~ ~

Qf

a

l e a t ~ e _ r

th.lt·

irst

gain

positiVe -affectivc fe edback

("Keeptalktilg")then.positiye cognitive feedback ("l understand'),. rein·

f o r c f n g - ~ n ittcurrt:ct.fortl1 of language.

It

is

interesting that this internalization of incorrect forms takes

place

by means of the sarne processes as the internalization of correct forms . \Ve

refer to the latter. of course, as "learning," but the same elements of input,

interaction,

and feedback are present. \Vhen correct

forms are

pfoduced,

feedback that

says

"I understand

you perlectly" reinforces

those

forms.

Having d i ~ c u s s e d Vigil and OHer's model in

sorne

detail, we

need

to

exercise caution

in

its

interpretation.

\VhUe it is n1ost helpful, for cxainplc,

in understanding models of

error

correction, as

we

shall see in the next sec

tion,

there are

flaws in

attributing such importance to

feedback alone.

Selinker 1nd Lamcndella

(1979)-noted

thatVigil an<l

OUer'S

1nodel relied on

the notion of extrinst c feedback, and that other factors internal to the

learner affect fossilization. Learners

are

not n1erely pawns at the

merey

of

bigger

pieces in the chess game

of language learning.

Successful language

learners tenú to-take charge of their

own

attainment,

proactively·seeking

means

fDr-acqúisition. So, fossilízation ·coukl be

the' result of

the--presence

or absence

of

nterna 1notivating factors, of

seeking

interaction \Vith other

people, of conscious1y JOcusi.ng

on

forms; and

uf

one's strategic in\-estment

ín the learning process. s teachers,

we

may, and rightly, attach great ilnpor

t ~ m c e to

the feedback we give

to

students,

but

we

must

recogrtize that there

are other forces at

work

in

the process

of internalizing a

second

language.

FOR:t"l-FOCUSED NSTRUCfION

1\ s die focus

of

...:lassruv1n

i n s t r c ~ : ~ i o n has

shifted

over

the

past

fevv·

deca<le:-

fron1

an emphasis

on language forms to

attention to

functional language

within con1municative

contexts,

the question of the place of \\'hat has

come to

be

caUed "form-focused instruction"'(FF'I) has become n1ore

and

more important. \Vhat <lo we n1ean, exactly, by FFI? A number of varying

definitions have

emerged (Doughty

Williams 1998),

but f?r t h ~ sake

of

simplifying a

complex pedagogical

issue, lct us rely on

Spa_da>'s

nicely

worded definition: ~ a n y pedagogféal

effort

whích is used tó' <lraw the'

le-arners' attention to 'language forrn either irriplicitlY or explicitly"' (1997 :

73). In1plied in the definition is a range of approaches to form. On one side

of

a

long

continuum are explicit,

discrete-point

metalínguistic

explanations



4

r / IAPTEI? 8 Cross l_inguist1c lnf/uence nd Learner Language

and discussions of rules an<l exceptions,

or

curricula governed and

sequenced

by

gra111n1atical

or

phonological

categories.

On the

other end of

the

continuun1

are (a) implicit, peripheral references to form; (b)

noticing

(Ellis 1997: 119),

that

is,

the

learner's

paying

attention to

specific linguistic

features in input; and e) the incorporation o

forms

into con1n1unicative

tasks, or what Ellis (1997) calls gramn1ar consciousness raising.

The research on this

issue

(l)oughty

{_

\X''illian1s

1998;

Long

Robinson 1998; Spada 1997;

El ís

1997; Lightbown Spada 1990; Long

1988, to

cite

only

a

few

sources)

addresses

a

number of

questions

that

must

be

answered

before

one can conclude

whether

or not FFI is beneficia :

1. Are son1e

types of

FFI more

beneficial than

others?

2. Is there an optimal tin1e to provi<le FFI?

3.

Are

particular

linguistic fearures more affected by FFI?

4. Do

particular

srudents benefit n1ore fron1 FFI?

It is difficult to generalize

the diverse

findings

on

FFI

over the

years, but it

may be reasonable

to conclude the following:

la. Most of the

research

suggests that

FFI

can indeed

increase

learners'

levels

of

attain1nent,

but that the

"Neanderthal" (Long

1988: 136) practices (grammatical

explanations, discussion of

rules, rote practice)

of

bygone years is clearly not justified.

Error

treatment and

focus on language

forros

appear

to

be

most effec

tive when incorporated

into

a

communicative. learner-centered

curriculun1, and least effective

when

error correction is a domi

nant pedagogical feature, occupying the focal attention

of

st11-

dents in the

classroom.

2a. Very

few

research

studies have been able

to identify particular

stages in \Vhich

learners are

rnore

ready

than others

to

inter

nalize

FFI.

r 1nore ünportant question (Spada 1997: 80) is per

haps "y;rhether there are more propitious peda,cogical moments

to draw learners' attention to language form." Should a teacher

intcrrupt

learners

in the

middle

of

an

attempt

ro comn1l1nicate?

One

study

(lighd)O\Vn

Spada 1990)

suggested the ans\ver

to

this

question

is "no." Should FFI come before

or

after con1mu

nicative practice?'fo111asello

and

I·Ierron (1989)

found

evidence

to support giving corrective

feedback

after a conm1unicative task.

3a. 1'he possible

number of

linguistic

featun:s

in a Ianguage and fhe

many

potential contexts

of iearning make

this question in1pos

sible to

a n ~ w e r One

tantalizingly

suggestion,

ho\vever, was sup

ported in I)eKeyser's (1995) finding

that

explicit

instruction

- ~ v a s

n1ore appropriate for c-asily stated gr;in1n1ar rules and in1plicit

CHAPTE \

8 Cro5s Linguistic lnflu ence

nd

Learner Lzrngua¡;c

35

instruction was n1ore successful for more complex rules.

4a.

The \Vide-ranging

research

on learner

characterístícs,

styles,

and

strategies supports

the conclusion that certain

learners

clearly

benefit

more than others from

FFI.

.A_f1alyric, ficld-independent.

l e f t - b r a i n ~ o r i e n t e d

learners

internalize

explicit

FFI better than

relational, field-dept:ndent, right-brain-oriented learners

Gamieson 1992).Visual input will favor visual

learners

(Reid

1987).

Students wbo

are

"js" and

1 ~ s on

the l'v1yers-Briggs scale

will n1ore readily be able tu focus on form (Ehrn1an 1989).

ERROR TR.EAT1\1ENT

One

of

the

n1ajor issues involved in carrying out FFI is

the

manner in \Vhich

teachers

deal with student errors. Should

errors

be treated? Iiow

should

they be treated?

\"'V'hen?

For a tentative ansv..·er to these questions, as rhey

apply ro spoken (not written)

errors,

let us first

look

again at the feedback

n1ode

offered by

Vigil and Oller (1976). Figure 8.2

metaphorically depicts

what

happens

in that modeL

The "green light" of the affective feedback 1nod.e allows

the sender

to

continue attempting to get

a

message

across; a

"red

light"

causes

the sender

to abort such attempts. ( fhe metaphorical nature

of

such a chart is e\·ident

in

the

fact that affective

feedback

doe.s not precede cognitiYe feedback, as

this chart

may lead

you to belif-ve; both

n1odes

can

take

place

sin1ultane

ously.) The traffic signal of cognitive feedback is the point ar \Vhich error

correction enters. A green light here symbolizes noncorrective feedback

that says "I understand your message." A red light sy1nbolizes correcrive

feedback that takes on

a n1yriad

of possible

forms (outlined helo\v)

and

causes the

learner

to make sorne kind

of

alteration

in production.To push

the metaphor further, a yellow light could represent

those

Yarious shades

of color tha.t a1-e interpreted by the earner as fa.lling sc111e\\-here in

between a cornplete green light and a red light, causing the learner to

adjust, to alter, to recycle, to try again in so111e way. Note

that

fossilization

may

be the

result

of

too

n1any

green

lights vvhen

rherc should

have

been

sorne yellow

or

red

lights.

'The

most

useful implication ofVigil

and

Olier's

inodel

for a theory

of

error treatn1ent is that cognitive feedback rnust

be

optima in order to be

effective. Too much negative cugnitive feedback-a barrage of interrup

tions,

corrections,

and overt attention to

n1alforn1ations-often

leads

learners

to shu1 off thcir

anempts at

con1n1unication.They

perceive that

so

n1uch is \Vrong with

their

production

that there is litt e hope

to

get

any

thing

right.

C)n

the other hand,

too

n1uch positive cognitive feedback-\vill

ingness

of

the teacher-hearer 1 0 et errors go uncorrec1t"<.L to indic:ite



236 CHAl TER B

Cross Linguistic lnfluence and Learner Language

understanding when understanding may not have

occurred-serves

to

reinforce the

errors

of the speaker-lcarner.

The

result is the

persistence,

and perhaps the eventual fossilization, of such errors. The

task of

the

teacher is to

discern the

optimal tension hetween positive and negative

cognitive feedback: providing enough green

lights to

encourage continued

comn1unication,but

not ;<;o many that crucial

errors go

unnoticed,

and

pro

viding enough

red

lights to call

attention

to

those

crucial errors, but not so

n1any

that the learner is discouraged fron1 attempting to speak at ali.

We do well to recall at

this

poínt the application

of

Skinner's

opera.nt

conditioning

n1odel

of

lcarning

<liscussed

in

Chapter

4.

The

affective

an<l

cognitive

1nodes of feedback are reinforcers to speakers' responses. As

speakers perceive ·'positive" reinforcement, or the "green lights" of

Figure

8.2, thcy will be

leJ

to internalize certain speech patterns. Correctivc t e e l ~

hack can still be

"positivc" in

thc Skinnerian scnse,

as Vv e shall see

below.

Hü\Yever,

ignoring erroncous

behavior has

the effect of

a

positive

rein

forcer; thercforc teachers tnust

be

very

careful

to discern

the

possible rein

forcing

conscquences

of neutral feedback.

What

we 1nust avoid at all costs

is the administration

of

punitive reinforcement,

or

correction that is viewed

by learners asan affective red

l ight-devaluing,dehuinanizing,

or

insulting

thcn1.

Against thts theoretical

backdrop

\VC can evaluate son1e

possibilities

of

when

and

how to treat

errors

in the

language

classroon1. Long

(1977:

288)

suggested that

the

question

of when

to treat

an error

(that

is,

which errors

to

pro,·ide

sorne sort

of

feedback

on)

has no simple answer.

1

i

Having noticed an error, the first (an<l, I "\Vould argue, crucial)

decision the teacher makes is whether

or

not to treat it at all. In

or<ler to n1akc the decision

the tcacher

may ha

ve recourse

to fac-

o

Abort

•

}

ed

H

X

Recyde

Message

V>

o

Yel ow

O)}

Contínue

o

Contlnue

Y

0

0

reen

+)

Affective

Cognitive

Feedback

Feedback

Figure 8.1. Affective and cognitive feedback

Cl·f PTER 8 Cross Lmguistic lnf/uence nd Learner Language

237

tors with iinn1ediate,

ten1porary

bearing, such

as the

importance

of the

error

to

the currcnt pedagogical focus of

the lesson, the

teachcr's

perception of the

chance

uf

eliciting

correct

perforn1-

ance from the stu<lent if negative feedback is given, and so on.

Consideration

of

these

ephemeral

factors n1ay be preempted,

however,

by

the teacher's beliefs (conscious or unconscious) as to

what

a

language

is

and

ho\v a

new

oPe

is learned. These

beliefs

n1ay have

been

formed years

bcfore

the

lesson

in question.

In a very practica

article

on error treatn1ent, 1-Ien<lrickson ( 1980)

advisetl

teachcrs to try

to

<liscern

the

difference between

glob l

and loc l

errotS, already <lescribed

earlier

ín this

chapter.

Once, a learner

of

English

was

describing a quaint ol<l hotel in

Europe and

said, "There is

a French

widow

in evcry bedroom."

The

local error is clearly, and hun1orously, rec

ognized.

I·lendrickson

recomn1ended that local errors usually need not be

correcte<l

since the message is

clear

and correction 1night interrupt

a

learner

in the

flow

of productive con1munication. Glohal errors need to be

treated in son1e way since

the

message may otherv,rise remain garbled.

"The different cíty is

another one

in the another two is a

sentence

that

would certainly nee<l treatment because it is incomprehensible as is. ~ a n y

utterances

are

not clearly

global

or iocal, and it is <lifficult

to

discern the

necessity

for corrective

feedback.

A learner

once wrote,

"The

granunar

is

the basement

of

every langu.ige:' \Vbile this witty little proclan1ation may

indeed sound more like Chon1sky than Chomslry does, it bchooves the

teacher to ascertain

just

\vhat the learner meant here (no doubt "basis··

rather than

"basement"), and to provide sorne feedback to clarify

the

dif

ference

between

the rv.-o.The

bottom

Une is

that

v.'e simply must

not

stifle

our students'

attempts

at

production

by sn1othering them

with correcti,·e

feedback.

The matter of oiu to correct errors is exceedingly con1plex.

Research

on error

correction

methods is not at all conclusive about

the

n1ost effec

tive

method

or

technique

for

error

correction. t seen1s quitf'"

clear

that stu

dents

in ~ h e

classroom

generally \vant

and expect errors

to be corrected

(Cathcart & Olsen

1976). Nevertheless,

sorne

methods

recornmend no

direct treatment

of

error at ali (Krashen &Terrell

1983).

In "natural.'· untu

tored

environn1ents,

non·native speakers are

usually

corrcctecl by

native

spcakers

on only

a small percentage

of

errors

that

they make (Chun

et

al.

1982); nativc speakers will attend basically onJy to global errors and then

usually not

in

the form of interruptions but at t1ansition points in

conver

sations (Day et al.

1984). Balancing

these various perspectives, 1 think \\ e

can safely conclude

that

a sensitive and perceptive

language teacher should

make

the

language

classroom

a happy optin1um bet\.veen so1ne of

the

o,·er·



_ o

o-JAPTER 8 Cross Linguistic lnfluenn_•

and

/ earner Language

politeness of the real world and the cxpectations that learners bring

\Vith

then1

to

the

classroom.

Error

treatinent

options

can

be classified in a nu1nher

of possible ways

(see G::ües 1983; Long

1977),

but one useful taxono1ny

was recomn1ended

bv Bailey

(1985),

who drew from

the

work of Allwright (1975).Seven"'basic

olJttons" are

complemented

by eight possihle features" 'vithin each option

(Bailcy 1985: 111).

Ba._,,;;ic Options:

1. To

treat

or

to ignore

2. To

treat

irnmediately or to delay

3. To

transfer

treatment [to, say, other

learners)

or not

4. To transfer to another individual, a subgroup, or the whole class

5. To

return, or not,

to original

error maker after treattnent

6.

To permit otl1er

learners to

initiate treatment

7. To test for

the

efficacy of the treatn1ent

Possible

Features:

1. Fact of

error

indicated

2.

Location

indicated

3. Opportunity for new atten1pt given

4.

Model provided

5. Error rype indicated

6. Re1nedy

indícated

7. In1provement indicated

8. Praise indicated

All of the

basic

options

and

features

within each option

are

conceiv

ably viable

modes of

error correction in the classroon1.l 'he teacher needs

to develop

the

intuition,

through experience

and

solid

eclectic

t h e ~ r e t i c ~ l

foundati0ns, for a<>certaining which option or con1bination of

opuons

is

appropriate at

a

given moment. Principies

of

optimal

arfe.ctiv_e anti cogni

tive feedb:1ck,

of

reinforcement

theory,

and

of

con11nun1cauve L1nguage

teaching

all combine

to form those theoretical

foundations. ,

At east one general

conclusion that can

be

drawn

fron1 the

study of

errors in the linguistic syste:ms of

learners

is that

learners are

indeed cre

atively operatíng on a sccond language-constructing, e i ~ h e r conscious_ly

or

subconsciously, a systcm for understanding and produc1ng utterances

the

Ianguage.

That

systen1

should not

necessarily be

treated

an in1perfect

system; it is such only insofar as nativc

speakers

compare the1r own knowl

edge of Lhe

language to

th;:it of the learners.

lt should

rather be looked

upon as a variable,

dynanlic,

approximative systen1,

reasonable

to a great

CH. .FTER 8 Cros.1-Linguistic lnf uence and Learner L;inguage

239

<legree in the n1ind of

the learners,

albeit idiosyncratic. Learners are pro

cessing language

on

the basis

of

knowledge

of

their o\Vn interlanguage,

\Vhich,

as

a system

lying betv.reen t\VO languages,

ought

not to ha\·e

the

value judgn1ents of either language

placed

upon

it.Thc tcacher's

task is to

value

learners,

prize their attemprs to comn1unlcate, and then

provide

optilnal feedback for thc syste1n to evolve in

successive

srages until

learners are

co1nn1unicating n1eaningfully

and

un-an1biguously in

the

seconJ

language.

In

the Classroom: A Model for Error Treatment

In

these enC-of-chapter vignettes,

an

attempt has been made to

provide sorne pedagogical inforrnatlon

of

historica or impl cat onal

interest. This chapter has focused strongiy on the concept

of

error

in

the deve cping learner anguage

of

students

of

second languages,

and the

last sections above honed

ín

on

error treatment in form

focused instruction. Therefore, one more step will

be

taken here: to

offer

a conceptual rnodel of

error treatrnent

that lncorporates sorne

of what has been covered in the chapter.

Figure 8.3 i lustrates what I would c aim are the split-second

series

of

decisions

that

a

teacher

rnakes when a

student

has

uttered

sorne

deviant

form of the foreign language in queSt on. In those feV>t

nanoseconds, inforrnation is accessed, processed, and evaluated,

with a decision forthcomíng on what the teacher is going to do about

the deviant form. Imagine that you are the teacher and let me walk

you

through

the flow chart.

Sorne ~ r t of deviant utterance is rnade by a student. Instantly,

you run

th1s

speech event through a nurnber of nearly sirnultaneous

screens: (1)

You

identify the type

of

deviation (lexical, pho_nological,

etc.), and

(2)

often,

but

not always, you identify its source, the

latter of

which will be useful in determining how you rnight treat the

deviation.

(3) Next, the

complexity

of the deviation rnay

determine

not.o_nly whether to treat or ignore,

but

how to treat if that ls

your

dec1s1on In sorne cases a deviatlon

may

require

so

rnuch exp ana

tion, or so rnuch interruption of the task at ha0ci, that it

isn't

worth

treating. (4) Your

most

crucíal and possibly the very first decision

among these ten factors is to qulckly decide whether the utterance

is interpretable (local)

or

not (g oba ). Local er rors can s ometimeS

be

ignored far the sake of rnaintaining a flow of cornmunication.

Global errors by definition very ohen cal for sorne sort

of

treatrnent

even f only in the forrn

of

a clarification request. Then, from

y o u ~

previous know edge of this student,

(5)

you make a guess at

whether

it is a performance slip (rnistake) or a competence error.

This

Is

not

always easy to do,

but

you rnay

be

surprised to know that

a

teacher's

intuition on

this

factor

vvill

often

be

correct.

Mlstakes



1

DEV ANT UTTERANCE

1

1.

Type

-

2. Source

lexical, phonological, grammatical,

L

1 L2 tec1cher-induced,

discourse, µragmatic, sociocultural

other Ss,

outside l.2 input,

A/V/print/e ectronic media

3. Linguislic coruplexity

4.

local

or

Glob"al 1

lntricate

&

invo\ved or

casy to explain/deal with

6. Learner's affective state

¡s.

Mistake or Error

f--

- - -

anguage ego fragility, anxiety,

confidence, receptiveness

7. learner

1

s ingulslic stage 8. Pedagogical focus

cmergent, presystcrnatic,

f.-----+

immecliate task goals,

systematíc, postsy-,te1natic

¡. . --

lesson objectives,

cCJurse

gud .s/µurposes

9. Co1n1nunicative

context

1O. Teacher style

convers<1tio11Jl

flow

facturs,

¡ . . , - -

director indirect,

individual, group,

or

w h o e ~ d a s s work,

S-S or S-T exchange

interventionist, aissez-falre

~

JTREAT

I

IGNORE

OUT

WHEN?

in1mediate y

end of utterance

rnuch ater

WHO?

T

another S

whole

class

self

HOWl

fact

ocatlon

correctlon

type/source

meta inguistic

a. input to S

indicated

indicated

modeled

indicated

explanation

b. manner

ind

irc;t·t,'

un 1ntrusiv2

dlrect/intrusivc

c.

S's output

non e

rephrasc utterance

d. follow-up

none

"okay"

"good"

[gushl

º affective

. cognitive non e

acknow edge

verbalize

further

clariíication

Figure 8.3. A modd for classroon1

treatment A speech

errors

240

CH PTER

ross·Lmguistic lnfluence

and

Learner anguage

241

rarely

call

for treatment,

while

errors more frequently demand

sorne

sort

of teacher response.

Ali the above

information

is quickly stored as you perhaps simul

taneously

run

through the next

five possible considerations. (6)

From

your

knowledge

about

this learner, you

make

a series of

instant

judgments about

the

learner's language ego fragi ity, anxiety

leve , confidence, and willingness to accept correctlon.

If,

far

example, the learner rarely says anything at ali, shows high anxiety

and

lo1iv

confidence 1ivhen

attempting

to speak, you may, on this

count alone, decide to ignore the deviant utterance. (7) Then, the

earner's linguíst c stage of development, which you must discern

within thls litt e

microsecond, will tell

you something about

how to

treat the deviation. (8) Your own pedagogical focus at the moment

(Is this a form-focused task to begin with? Does this lesson focus on

the form that was deviant? What are the overa objectives

of

the

lesson

or

task?) wil help you to decide

whether ar

not to

treat. (9)

The

communicative context

of

the

deviation (Was the

student

in

the

middle

of a

productive

f ow of anguage? How easily could you

inter

rupt?)

is also considered.

(10)

Somewhere in

this rapid-fire

pro

cessing, your own style as a teacher comes

into

play: Are you

generally

an

interventionist? laissez-faire?

Jf,

far example, you tend

as a rule to

make very few

error

treatments,

a treatment now on a

minor devlation wou d be out of character, and possibly interpreted

by the student as a response

to

a grievous shortcomlng.

You are now ready

to

decide whether

to

treat or ignore the devi

ation f

you decide

to

do

nothlng

1

then

you

simply move

on.

But if

you decide to do somethirig in the way of

treatment,

you have a

number

of treatment options, as discussed earlier. You have to

decide when to treat, who will treat, and how to

treat,

and each of

those decisions offers a range of possibilities as indicated in the

chart. Notice that you, the teacher, do

not

always have to be the

person who provldes

the treatment.

Manner of treatment varies

according

to the input to

the

student, the

directness of

the treat

ment, the student's output,

and

your

follow-up.

After

one

very

quick

deviant

utterance

by

a

student,

you have

made

an amazing number of observations and evaluations that go

into

the

process of

error treatment.

New teachers \.\'ll find such a

prospect

daunting,

perhaps,

but with

experience,

many

of these

considerations wlll become automatic.

principles of language learning and teaching (longman) – chapter 8: cross linguistic influence and...

Documents