Chapter 9. Cross Linguistic Influence and Learner language - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

chapter 9 cross linguistic influence and learner language n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Chapter 9. Cross Linguistic Influence and Learner language PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Chapter 9. Cross Linguistic Influence and Learner language

play fullscreen
1 / 47
Chapter 9. Cross Linguistic Influence and Learner language
876 Views
Download Presentation
tremain
Download Presentation

Chapter 9. Cross Linguistic Influence and Learner language

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 9. Cross Linguistic Influence and Learner language • Chapter 9. (pp. 248-284)Brown, D. H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Prepared by: John YangProfessor: Dr. Ming-Lung Yang (Roger) Date: Oct 2, 2010

  2. The contrastive analysis hypothesis ( CAH) From the CAH to CLI (cross-linguistic influence) Markedness and universal grammar Learner language Error analysis Mistakes and errors Errors in error analysis Identifying and describing errors Sources of errors Interlingual transfers Intralingual transfers Context of learning Stages of learner language development Variation in learner language Fossilization or Stabilization? Form-focused instruction Categories of Error treatment A model for error treatment (in the classroom) Preview

  3. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis • The CAH claimed that the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of L1 system with the L2 system.(第一語言系統對第二語言系統的干擾) • A scientific- structural analysis will develop a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them(兩種語言間的對照分類) which will enable the linguist to predict the difficulties. For example: Mark Twain”s The Innocents Aboard (p.249 line 21)

  4. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis • “Those elements that are similar to native language will be simple for him and those elements that are different will be difficult” (Robert Lado 1957) (Banathy, Trager, and Waddle, 1966) (p.249 line 34) • Clifford Prator (1967) captured the essence of the grammatical hierarchy in six categories of difficulty. (Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin, 1965 called it hierarchy of difficulty)

  5. Level 0-Transfer轉換. No difference or contrast is present between the two languages. The learner can simply transfer a sound, structure, or lexical item from the native language to the target language. Level 1 –coalescence 結合 two items in the native language become coalesced into essentially one item in the target language. Example: English 3rd p. possessives require gender distinction (his/her) and in Spanish they do not (su) Level 2 Underdifferentiation 分化不足 –an item in the native language is absent in the target language. 用do表時態,wh字的所有格(whose),學西班牙文時要忘記它 Level 3 Reinterpretation 重新詮釋 –an item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or distribution. Example: 學法語時要學會鼻音化母音 (p.250) Six categories of hierarchy of difficulty (a native English speaker learning Spanish as L2)

  6. Cont. • Level 4. Overdifferentiation 過度分化–a new item entirely, bearing any similarity to the native language item, must be learned. Example: English speakers must learn the use of determiners in Spanish –man is mortal/El hombre es mortal. • Level 5. Split 分裂–one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language requiring the learner to make a new distinction. English speakers must learn the distinction between (ser) and (estar)

  7. From the CAH to CLI (cross-linguistic influence)

  8. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis 對照分析假說預測學習遭遇的困難明顯有缺點,第一,整個過程過於簡單,第二,即使有六大分級,也很難歸屬哪一類,第三,困難等級預測是否可被證實,也有爭議。 (Wardhaugh, 1970) –稱這種以對照分析來預測困難等級的方法為對照分析強勢版本(the strong version of the CAH ) Wardhaugh 將對照分析解釋可以觀察到困難的方式稱之為對照分析弱勢版本(the weak version of the CAH) Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI)跨語言影響(Odlin, 2003; Kellerman, 1995) “influence” is more important than “prediction”

  9. CAH to CLI • The so-called weak version of the CAH is what remains today under the label cross-linguistic influence (CLI) . • Syntactic , lexical, and semantic interference show far more variation among learners than psycho-motor-based pronunciation interference. • Example:法國人說英文“I am in New York since January”

  10. CAH to CLI • Whitman and Jackson (1972), Participant: 2500 Japanese Result: no support for the predictions of the contrastive analyses • Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970), “subtle difference” version Roman script v.s. non- Roman script

  11. Markedness and universal grammar顯著性與共通語法 • Eckman (2004, 1981, 1977) proposed a useful method for determining directionality of difficulty-markedness theory(語言明顯差異理論). • It accounted for degrees of principles of universal grammar.Eckman showed that marked items in a language will be more difficult to acquire than unmarked, and that degree of markedness will correspond to degrees of difficulty.

  12. Markedness • Celse-Murcia and Hawkins (1985,p.66) sum up markedness theory: (p.254 line 19) It distinguishes members of a pair of related forms or structures by assuming that the marked member of a pair contains at least one more feature than the unmarked one. In addition, the unmarked (neutral) member has a wider range of distribution than the marked one. In the English indefinite articles (a and an) an is the more complex or marked form.

  13. Markedness theory: • Universal Grammar: • Competition Model: • CAH To CLI (p.255 line 28) Teachers of foreign languages can benefit from UG and markedness research, but even in this hope-filled avenue of research, an instant map predicting learner difficulties is not right around the corner.

  14. Learner language • Learners are consciously testing hypotheses about the target language from many possible sources of knowledge. 1. knowledge of the native language 2. limited knowledge of the target language itself 3. knowledge of communicative functions of language 4. knowledge about language in general 5. knowledge about life, human beings, and the universe. • Learners act upon the environment and construct what to them is a legitimate system of language in its own right.

  15. Learner language(p.256) • “interlingual” (Weinreich, 1953) • “interlanguage”(Selinker, 1972) 中介語言─語言學習者自身發展起來的一種語言體系,結合所學語言與母語語言的特點。 • “approximative system”相似的體系(Nemser, 1971) • “idiosyncratic dialect” 個人特有方言(Corder, 1971)

  16. Learner language(p.256) • The most obvious approach to analyzing interlanguage is to study the speech and writing of learners –learner language 學習者語言(Lightbown & Spada 1993; James, 1990) • Production data is publicly observable and is presumably reflective of a learner’s underlying competence. • It follows that the study of the speech and writing of learners is largely the study of the errors of learners. “Correct”production yields little information about the actual linguistic system of learners. Error analysis

  17. Error analysis(p.257) • Human learning is fundamentally a process that involves the making of mistakes. • Learning to swim, to play tennis, to type by profiting from mistakes.(p.257 line 7) • L2 learning is a process that is clearly not unlike L1 learning in its trial-and-error nature. Inevitably, learners will make mistakes in the process of acquisition, and that process will be impeded if they do not commit errors and then benefit from various forms of feedback on those errors. • Corder (1967) noted: “a learner’s errors are significant in that they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language.”

  18. Mistakes and errors(p.258 line10) • Mistake失誤–performance error (the learner knows the system but fails to use it) • Error 錯誤–errors of one’s systematic competence (The learner’s system is incorrect).

  19. Question • Can you tell the difference between an error and a mistake?

  20. Question Can you tell the difference between an error and a mistake? Self-correct 1.John cans sing / John can sing 2.John cans sing / John wills sing / John mays come

  21. Mistakes and errors • The fact that learners do make errors, and these errors can be analyzed, led to a surge of study of learners’ errors, called error analysis. • Error analysis became distinguished from contrastive analysis by its examination of errors attributable to all possible sources, not just those resulting from negative transfer of the native language.

  22. Errors in error analysis (p.259 line18) • There is a danger in too much attention to learner’s errors. • A classroom teacher can become so preoccupiedwith noticing errors that the correct utterances in L2 go unnoticed. • While the diminishing of errors is an important criterion for increasing language proficiency, the ultimate goal of L2 learning is the attainment of communicative fluency.

  23. Errors in error analysis (p.259-260) • Error analysis fail to account for the strategy of avoidance (Gass & Selinker, 2001; Ellis, 2000; James, 1998; Tarone, 1981;, Kleinmann, 1997) • Schachter (1974) found, for example: Relative clause errors- native Japanese- native-Persian • Conclusion: Production errors are only a subset of the overall performance of the learner 錯誤產生只是學習者整體表現的一小部分

  24. Identifying and describing errors • One of the most common difficulties in understanding the linguistic systems of both L1 and L2 is the fact that such systems cannot be directly observed–they must be inferred by means of analyzing production and comprehension data. • The first step in the process of analysis is the identification and description of errors. Corder (1971) provided a model for identifying erroneous or idiosyncratic utterances in a second language. (Figure 9.1) (p. 261) • A major distinction is made between overt andcovert errors.

  25. Discussion • What is the difference between overt errors and covert errors? (p. 260) • Talk about some of the errors you are making (made) in learning a foreign language. • Analyze where those errors come from.

  26. (p. 260) a. overt明顯的–erroneous utterances ungrammatically at the sentence level • (p. 260) b. covert隱藏的–grammatically well-formed but not according to context of communication.

  27. Does John can sing? A. NO C. YES D. Can John sing? E. original sentence contained pre-posed do auxiliary applicable to most verbs, but not to verbs with auxiliaries. OUT 2 examples (p. 262)

  28. Categories for description of errors(p. 262-263) (Lennon 1991) 1.Errors of addition, omission, substitution, and ordering (math) 增加,省略,替換,排序 *Does can he sing? *I went to movie. *I lost my road. *I to the store went. 2.Phonology or orthography, lexicon, grammar, and discourse音韻,拼字,語彙,文法及篇章結構

  29. Categories for description of errors (p. 262-263) 3.Global or local 總體或局部 總體性的錯誤會阻礙溝通(p. 263 line 9) (a scissors)是一種局部性的錯誤,並不會阻礙訊息的傳遞 4.Domain and extent 範疇與範圍 (a scissors)它的範疇為詞組,範圍是屬不定冠詞

  30. Sources of ErrorInterlingual transfer • Interlingual (L1 and L2) transfer is a significant source of error for all learners. For example: say “sheep” for “ship” or “the book of Jack” instead of “Jackbook” * ? when the Japanese speaker learns the English /r/ …. “Richard” “Peter” “waiter”

  31. Intralingual transfer • It is now clear that intralingual transfer (within the target language itself) is a major factor in L2 learning. It is referred to as overgeneralization過度類化. “Does John can sing?” “He goed,” “I don’t know what time is it” • see examples on p. 264 line 38, nine different types of error: • Table 9.1. Typical English intralingual errors in the use of articles

  32. Contexts of learning • Context refers, for example, to the classroom with its teacher and its materials in the case of school learning or the social situation in the case of untutored second language learning. • In a classroom context the teacher or the textbook can lead to the learner to make faulty hypotheses. Richards (1971) called it “false concepts錯誤觀念” Stenson(1974) termed “induced errors誘導式錯誤”

  33. Stages of learner language development • Corder (1973) 1.1st stage –random errors隨機錯誤, Corder called pre-systematic系統前錯誤 “John cans sing,”“John can to sing,” “John can singing,” 2.2nd stage –(emergent) stage. 浮現階段 Conversation between (L) and (NS) (p. 267 line 23 )

  34. L: I go New York. NS: You’re going to New York? L: (doesn’t understand) What? NS: You will go to New York? L: Yes. NS: When? L: 1972 NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1972. L: Yes, I go 1972.

  35. Stages of learner language development 3. 3rd stage –truly systematic stage真正系統化階段(p. 268 line 3 ) L: Many fish are in the lake. These fish are serving in the restaurants near the lake. NS: [laughing] The fish are serving? L: [laughing] Oh, no, the fish are being served in the restaurants.

  36. Stages of learner language development 4. Final stage –stabilization stage 穩定化階段階段; Corder (1973) called it postsystematic後系統化stage. This fourth stage is characterized by the learner’s ability to self-correct.

  37. Variation in learner language • Notable among models of variability are Elaine Tarone's capability continuum paradigm and Rod Ellis's variable competence model • Tarone (1988) suggested four categories of variation: 1. linguistic context 2. psychological processing factors 3. social context 4. language function

  38. Variation in learner language • Rod Ellis: situation context Linguistic context 吃飯皇帝大 VS 煮飯火氣大 planned and unplanned discourse He buys her a bunch of flower. He visits her every day and buy her a bunch of flowers.

  39. FeedbackVigil and Oller (1976) provided the following model: Affective (positive) Keep talking; I’m listening (neutral ) I’m not sure I want to continue this conversation. (negative) This conversation is over Cognitive (pos.) I understand your message; it’s clear. (neutral) I’m not sure if I correctly understand you or not. I don’t understand what you are saying; it’s not clear.

  40. Affective/cognitive feedback for error treatment (p. 273 )Vigil and Oller (1976) red (-) abort (X) recycle Messageyellow (0) continue green (+) continue affective cognitive feedback feedback

  41. Fossilization The relative permanent incorporation of incorrect linguistic forms into a person’s L2 competence Oller (1976) provided a formal account of fossilization as a factor of positive and negativeaffectiveand cognitive feedback

  42. Fossilization may be the result of too many green lights when there should have been some yellow or red lights.

  43. BASIC OPTIONS To treat or to ignore To treat immediately or delay To transfer treatment (other learners) or not To transfer to another individual, subgroup or the whole class To return , or not, to original error maker after treatment To allow other learners to initiate treatment To test for efficacy of the treatment POSSIBLE FEATURES Fact or error indicated Location indicated Opportunity for new attempt given Model provided Error type indicated Remedy indicated Improvement indicated Praise indicated Bailey (1985) recommended a useful taxonomy for error treatment classification; 7 basic options complemented by 7 possible features

  44. Form-focused instruction (FFI) • What is “Form” ? • Definition (Spada, 1997,) “Any pedagogical effort which is used to draw learner’s attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly”

  45. Categories of error treatment • A. Types of feedback 1. Recast L: I lost my road. T: Oh, yeah, I see, you lost your way. And then what happen? 2. Clarification request 要求澄清 L: I want practice today, today. (grammatical error) T: I’m sorry? (clarification request) 3. Metalinguistic feedback 後設語言回饋 L: I am here since January. T: Well, ok, but remember we talked about the present perfect tense?

  46. Categories of error treatment 4. Elicitation誘出 L: [to another student] What mean this word? T: Uh, Luis, how do we say that in English? What does…? L: Ah, What does this word mean? 5. Explicit correction 明確更正 L: When I have 12 years old….. T: No, not have. You mean,” When I was 12 years old….. ” 6. Repetition L: When I have 12 years old….. T: When I was 12 years old…..

  47. The End