What Else Transfers? Introduction

What Else Transfers?(David Stringer)

An Overview of VariablesAffecting Lexical Transferin Writing: A Review Study

(María Pilar Agustín Llach)

Ece DÜŞER Fatma GÜNEY Kadriye DEMİRCİ Maria Joy PEACE

Tuba YILMAZ

What Else Transfers?Introduction

Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition

The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

HYPOTHESES LEARNING MECHANISMS

L1 ACQUISITION Universal Grammar Language Acquisition Device (LAD)

L2 ACQUISITION L1 knowledge General problem-solving skills

(Bley-Vroman,1990)

What is Causative-inchoative:pairs of verbs

Example:

English

The pencil broke.intransitiveinchoative

Rebecca broke the pencil.transitivecausative

Turkish

Ali sütü döktü. “dök-”:causative (innately)

Süt dök-ül-dü.İnchoative

As the root, “dök-”, is causative, to make it inchoative Turkish uses overt morphology. In this case, passive morpheme (-ül)

is used.

The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and Its Alternative:L1 Interference Hypothesis

“Having an L1 already represented in the mind either impedes or renders impossible “complete success” in L2 acquisition.”

L1 Interference reconsidered: Initial interlanguage=full transfer of L1 grammar What else transfers?

Example: (Montrul,2000)

”causative/inchoative” L2 Spanish, L1 English and L1 TurkishL2 Turkish, L1 Spanish and L1 English

(1) Spanish

Causative:El ladron rompio la ventana. Root:causativethe thief broke the window.

Inchoative:La ventana se rompio.the window ANTICAUS broke inchoative

overt marking

“se”


(2) Turkish

Hırsız pencere-yi kır-dı. Root:causativeThe thief window- ACC break-PAST

Pencere kır-ıl-dı.Window break-PASS(ANTICAUS)-PAST inchoative

overt marking

“passive”


“Learners do not transfer argument structures from L1 verbs but rather they are sensitive as to whether the L2 has overt

morphology.”

“For both L2s, learners whose L1s overtly marked the inchoative performed liked native speakers in rejecting sentences without overt morphology, while learners whose L1 lacked such morphology accepted non-target-like forms without the appropriate morphemes.”

The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and Its Alternative:L1 Interference Hypothesis (cont’d)

Evidence for transfer of lexical semantic representations: “predicate-argument structure”

Japanese: double-object

Korean: dative double-objects, benefactives

L1 Japanese and L1 Korean, L2 English:

same for datives but differ in benefactives

Differences between L1 and L2 morphology

The Lexical Relativity Hypothesis (Lost in Translation)

‘…although in general a difference presupposes positive terms between which the difference holds, in a language there are only differences, and no positive terms’- Saussare (1983 [1916])

Ex. redouter ‘to dread’ have particular meaning

craindre ‘to fear’ only in contrast with other

avoir peur ‘to be afraid’ members of the set

mes yeux, mes oreilles, mes bras, mes jambes plural

‘my eyes, my ears, my arms, my legs’ dual

Thus the semantic value of the French plural morpheme does not correspond

exactly to that of the Sanskrit plural: the meaning of the latter is determined relative to the existence of the dual .

Lexical Relativity, cont’d

However, as Bloom (2000: 73) notes, opposition in and of itself is insufficient to characterize lexical meaning. It is unclear how such groupings could be made without reference to positive aspects of meaning.

Stringer’s Categorization of Lexical Relativity in Positive Terms:

1) Lexical relativity in the denotational properties of nouns and verbs (open-class)

Ex. Sink for washing dishes and hands

évier washing dishes BUT: washbasin and handbasin

lavabo washing hands could be used in English

Drink = Universal Human activity

BUT in Turkish it is used to smoke, in Japanese it can mean taking pills even without liquid, while in English it only is used for beverages.

2) Lexical Relativity at the interface with syntax

For example, the English preposition across in Japanese may be translated by the verb wataru or the verb yokogiru. The former is used when the crossing of a principal axis is conceived of as along a PATH with its own legitimate axial flow .The latter is used when the path is seen as ‘cutting across’ in the absence of a legitimate cross-axial flow

Full Lexical Transfer

“What transfers is not only L1 parameter settings but the L1 lexicon with all phonological and semantic features.” (Sprouse,2006)

Relexification Model Of Creole Genesis: (Lefebre,1998)

model of L2 acquisition of lexicon

“When L2 analogue is identified, lexical items can be transfered.”

Full Lexical Transfer (cont’d)L1: “nefret etmek” L2: “to hate”

Re-labelling of the L1 representation

Same syntax, semantics, case, participants as L1

•“Non-target-like argument structures are a product not of transfer of lexical parameter settings but of lexical transfer. (Juffs, 1996; Inagaki, 2001)

Interlanguage Item

L1Senden nefret ediyorum!

L2 I hate from you!L2 ???

Specific types of L1-L2 lexical mapping problems

1. Differences in inherent semantic features

Ex. There is no equivalent of the verb put in Korean. Korean uses kkita ‘to fit tightly’, nehta ‘to fit loosely’, nohta ‘to put on a horiziontal surface’, pwuchita ‘to juxtapose surfaces’ or ssuta ‘to put clothing on the head’ (Bowerman and Choi, 2001: 483).

2. Differences in syntactic subcategorization

Ex. ‘enter’-selects a direct subject; ‘put’- mandates an indirect obj.

In French ‘entrer’ selects a PP; ‘mettre’- indirect obj. is optional

An interesting question is whether transfer is equally strongly in both directions: from optional to obligatory and vice-versa (thanks to Shigenori Wakabayashi for raising this issue).

Specific types of L1-L2 lexical mapping problems, cont’d3. Differences in transitivityEx. (13) Uchi ni asobi-ni-kite kudasai

house Ploc play-Part-come please

Literally: ‘Please come and play at my house.’

Intended meaning: ‘It would be lovely (fun) if you could visit me sometime.’

4. Differences in syntactic alternation patternsEx. (14) a. Taro-ga o-sake de gurasu-o mitashita.

Taro-NOM HON-sake with glass ACC filled ‘Taro filled the glass with sake.’

b. Taro-ga gurasu ni o-sake o mitashita.

Taro-NOM glass LOC HON-sake ACC filled ‘Taro filled sake into the glass.’

(15) a. Taro filled the glass with sake. b. *Taro filled sake into the glass.

As a final example, a verb that participates in a syntactic alternation in the L1 may map onto a verb

that does not alternate in the L2. The Japanese verb mitasu ‘fill’ may select either the moved element

(FIGURE) or the location (GROUND) as in the direct object. Its usual English analogue, fill, strictly

maps the GROUND onto the direct object position.

CONCLUSION

At the end of the study we realized the need to supplement influential work on transfer of syntax and phonology.

The twin assumptions of (i) Lexical Relativity and (ii) Full Lexical Transfer go a significant way toward explaining the ‘fundamental difference’ between L1A and L2A, continued access to Universal Grammar notwithstanding. On this account, even though universal principles and domain-specific learning procedures might remain in place, the chances of complete convergence on the target language are slim, as lexical acquisition requires an abundance of appropriate input and a daunting expanse of time.

An Overview of Variables Affecting Lexical Transferin Writing: A Review Study

International Journal of Linguistics

2010, Vol. 2, No. 1: E2

María Pilar Agustín Llach (Corresponding author)

Dpt. Of Modern Philologies, University of La Rioja

C/ San José de Calasanz s/n, 26004, Logroño, la

Rioja, Spain

This study is a review of some of the variables influencing the process of cross-linguistic influence in lexis. The factors addressed in this paper are:

L2 proficiency L1 background Gender Motivation Learning context

Learners whose L1 is related to the TL are more inclined to resort to their L1 for lexical transfer.

According to study; however, learners from different L1 backgrounds seem to undergo the same process as well.

• Learners may resort to their L1 to ask for information about lexical items in the TL. This is referred to as pragmatic function of L1.

Lexical transfer is less frequent in writing than in speaking.

• According to studies, there is no difference between both female and male learners and more and less motivated learners in terms of lexical transfer.

KELLERMAN (1977)

He found out that learners transfer only those structures or lexical items that they regard as transferable due to the similarities with the TL. They decide what is transferable and what is not on the basis of the distance between the languages. This is known as psychotypological perspective.

• According to studies, L3 learners do not transfer from their L1 but from the language which is closer to the L3. It may be L1 or Ln. This phenomenon is described as cross-linguistic influence.

• French-English

JARVIS (2000)

He lists nine factors interacting with L1 transfer:

1) Age

2) Personality, motivation, language attitude

3) Social, educational and cultural background

4) Language background (all L1 and L2s)

5) Type and amount of TL exposure

6) TL proficiency

7) Language distance between the L1 and TL

8) Task type and area of language use

9) Prototypicality and markedness of the langauge feature

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The phenomenon of loanwords was discussed by linguists in the 19th century.

• WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY

“LEXICAL TRANSFER”?

1) Lexical borrowing or loanwords

2) Coinages or adaptations of L1 words to the phonographemic rules of the L2

3) False friends (words that look very similar in two languages,but mean different things)

4) Calques (literal translations of L1 words or expressions into L2 structures)

5) Cognates (words that look and mean similar in two languages)

6) Lexical reference or lexical choice

TYPES OF LEXICAL TRANSFER

From a procedural perspective, there are two types of lexical transfer:

1) Transfer of form: the use of L1 words in producing L2 (code-mixing)

Example: At 8 o’clock, I go to okul.

2) Transfer of meaning: transfer of semantic patterns of L1 into the target language words.(calques and semantic extensions)

Example: carte mére, mother card, anakart

WHEN DO WE TRANSFER FROM L1?

Lack of vocabulary in the L2

• Incomplete word knowledge

• Non-automatized; therefore,not available lexical knowledge

• A task that is cognitively too demanding

Compensatory strategy

WHO TRANSFERS MORE FREQUENTLY?

According to research,

1) Low level learners

2) Young learners

3) Learners with low linguistic awareness

transfer lexical items more frequently.

LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2 PROFICIENCY

A lot of studies show that amount of L1 influence/ transfer (especially negative) decreases as the proficiency level in the new language increases.

- The reason behind: the need of low level learners for filling lexical gaps


Odlin(1989):

Positive transfer increase with proficiency

Jarvis(2000), Lecumberri and Gallardo(2003): States that the transfer is a general strategy for all

learners so there is no decrease with high proficiency.


L1 reference framework

LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2 PROFICIENCY Naves(2005) and Celaya(2007):

Borrowings decrease…

As they learn much more words, they do not need to directly borrow but lexical inventions increase

Meaning related Form related

So the transfer shifts from formal-based associations to more semantically-based ones as the proficiency level rises.

LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1 BACKGROUND

Coming from different L1 backgrounds(mother tongue) learners have various difficulties in their learning processes.

Only several studies focus on lexical acquisition of learners having different L1 background (e.g. Jarvis (2000), Yu (1996), etc….

typological distance


Agustin Llach (2006): Study Spanish and German speakers learning

English Spanish: fewer lexical errors in writing German: much more lexical errors in writing

Why? Can you explain?


Psychotypology trend ?

It also supports Arabski (2006) and Ringbom (2006)…….

If there is lexical similarity, learners are more intended to transfer which ends up with some lexical errors: spelling errors, semantic confusions or distribution errors.


However, the similarity between NL and TL will allow more positive transfer after a certain level of proficiency.

Main cause of lexical errors? Lack of correspondence between L1 and L2

phonographically such as clusters, differences between spelling and pronunciation or non-existence of certain sounds.


Borrowing, foreignizing, adaptation or literal translation common to learners of different backgrounds

Agustin Llach(2006), Celaya and Torras(2001), Bouvy(2000)

Universal lexical transfer BUT also there are identical strategies of

each particular language group.

LEXICAL TRANSFER AND GENDER

Inconclusive results???

Girls superior to boys in quantitative and qualitative terms

Very few studies dealing with the role of gender differences in terms of lexical transfer


Agustin Llach no gender differences in lexical transfer across grades.

But in other studies by Fontecha(2010) and Catalan(2003) boys and girls differ in elicited(available) production of vocabulary, in vocabulary strategy use or in motivation in vocabulary learning


So with different tasks gender differences appear

What to consider?

As our task is writing, the lexical transfer is not mostly under the effect of gender differencesand different L1 backgrounds are not prominent factors in lexical transfer

LEXICAL TRANSFER and MOTIVATION

Study in the field: rare

Motivation language achievement

POSITIVE

Fernandez Fontecha’s research

a)Highly motivated learners have higher vocabulary knowledge.

Lower degree of lexical transfer because of larger productive vocabularies

b)They are better language tasks producers irrespective of their true lexical knowledge.

Results concerning lexical transfer

? more motivated and more

task producer: more lexical transfer in order to accomplish the task.

Another study by Fernandez and Llach

Suggests lexical transfer independent of motivation.

Motivation affects:

task performance

lexical competence

linguistic competence

Transfer : a communication strategy rather than a constraint in SLA

LEXICAL TRANSFER and LEARNING CONTENT

TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION ENGLISH AS A SUBJECT

Borrowing most frequent lexical transfer

CLIL INSTRUCTION ENGLISH AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR OTHER SUBJECTSLarger amount of exposure to FL> More vocabulary-> fewer L1 lexical transferReasons by Llach and Celaya:a)The larger lexical repertoire, the less need for previous linguistic knowledgeb) Different instructional approaches more meaningful and communicative rather than a language task

Lexical inventions more

CONCLUSION

1. L2 Proficiency2. Language background3. gender4. Motivation

Lexical transfer different for non-CLIL and CLIL learners.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:On word class and word frequency

More frequent words and content words : more likely to transfer

REFERENCES

Stringer,David. (2008). What Else Transfers? Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

Conference (GASLA 2007), ed. Roumyana Slabakova et al., 233-241. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Retrieved from: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/9/paper1641.pdf on 28th November,2010.

klj

REFERENCES Bley-Vroman, Robert. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49.

Bloom, Paul. (2000). How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Inagaki, Shunji (2001). Motion Verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23: 153-170.

Juffs, Alan (1996). Learnability and the Lexicon: Theories and Second Language Acquisition Research . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Piñón, Christopher. (2001). A Finer Look at the Causative-Inchoative Alternation, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory.

Retrieved from: http://pinon.sdf-eu.org/papers/pinon_flcia.pdf on 28th November,2010.

Oh, E & Zubizarreta, M. (2004). The Asymmetric Behavior of Goal and BenefactiveDouble Objects in the English Interlanguage of Adult L1 Korean and L1 Japanese Speakers. Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004) Retrieved from: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/7/paper1166.pdf on 29th November,2010.

Saussure, Ferdinand de (1983 [1916]). Course in General Linguistics (translated and annotated by R. Harris). London: Duckworth.

Sprouse, Rex, A. (2006). Full transfer and relexification: Second language acquisition and creole genesis. In C.Jourdain, C. Lefebvre and L. White (eds.), Montreal Dialogues: Processes in L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

What Else Transfers? Introduction

Documents

Transcript of What Else Transfers? Introduction