Role of transfer in second language acquisition - Essay Example

?a. Discuss and evaluate the role of transfer in second language acquisition (1000 words). There is no clear or single definition of the term “transfer” in second language acquisition studies, because it greatly depends on the theoretical foundations of the authors making the definition. “Transfer” can be defined as a fundamental process to language performance, a construction strategy or a communication strategy (Gass and Selinker 1983), or a limitation on the hypotheses that learners will devise about the target language). Transfer can happen from the national language (L1) to L2 or from L2 to L1 (Cook 2002). Most researchers now presuppose that innate principles and transfer interact in L2 development, but researchers have varying positions on how these interactions take place (Gass 1996). This paper explores second language (L2) acquisitions theories and their analysis of the role of transfer. Universal-grammar based approaches contend that transfer has a significant role to play in L2 acquisition through the exercise of innate principles (Universal Grammar or UG) (Gass 1996:330). Two major alternatives explanations have been expressed by studies. First, learners have access to UG either (a) completely, in the way that children do, or (b) partly, in ways that other variables, such as L1 may interrelate with UG and avoid complete access to UG. Second, learners cannot access UG (Gass 1996:330). When exploring these possibilities, the first (UG access) hints that UG is the preliminary access stage for L2 grammar development. In the strong account of UG access, UG limits grammar development through the complete process of L2 acquisition; in the weak account, UG is the initial point, but the L1 is a vital part of the process, successfully stopping the full use of UG (Gass 1996:330). The second likelihood indicates that the L1 is the preliminary point and provides the foundations on which L2s build up (Gass 1996:330). Principles are important in second language acquisition and accessible to all humans during the acquisition of L1.Otsu and Naoi (1986) studied the principle of Structure Dependence, which asserts that linguistic rules work through structural units, through investigating data from Japanese learners (ages 14-15) of English (Gass 1996:330). The focus was on L2 question formation with subjects that have relative clauses (Gass 1996:330). In Japanese, questions are made by adding a particle without changing the word order. This means that from L1, there is lack of available information on how question formation is processed in English (Gass 1996:330). Generally, the subjects observed the limitations of the structure dependency, although by the age of the subjects, the results may not directly shape L2 acquisition as adults (Gass 1996:330). The goal of the study was to establish access to a principle that cannot be found in L1. Nevertheless, White accurately recommends that this principle may still manifest in NL through other structures (Gass 1996:330). If this is true, it is not certain if UG is directly accessible to L2 learners or whether it is accessible through the L1 (Gass 1996:330). Another theory that has recently surfaced is the Full Transfer/Full Access theory (FTFA) (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996), which has greatly influenced the literature. This theory argues that at the beginning of L2 acquisition, the L1 grammar is being transferred in full (except the phonetic structures of lexical items). Consequently, this grammar will be restructured, as limited by the UG (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996). Hence, the L1 provides the foundation for L2 acquisition. It suggests that a Turkish speaker learning English will use grammar based on Turkey, so that the English language can be learned. For instance: 1) I see a red house. 2) Ben k?rm?z? bir ev gorurum. In order to learn number one, Turkish speakers use their L1 grammar. In the Competition Model (Bates and MacWhinney 1981), transfer plays a large role. The model assumes that form and function cannot be detached from one another, which is its main difference from the UG model. Similar to other psycholinguistic models of L2 acquisition, the Competition Model wants to explain how language is used (i.e. performance), instead of examining the identifying the fundamental structure of language (i.e., competence) (Gass 1996:335). A primary concept of the Competition Model is that speakers must have a means to establish relationships among elements in a sentence (Gass 1996:335). For instance: 3) I see a red house. 4) ????? ??? ??????? ?????. A Greek student learning English also need to establish that in translating number 4 to number 3, he/she must know that the house is red outside, not inside. The Competition Model stresses that language processing can be seen as a competition among a variety of cues, each of which adds to a different decision in sentence understanding (Gass 1996:335). Even when the extent of the cues is universal (where the limits of the cues are universally imposed), there is “language-specific instantiation of cues and language-specific strength assigned to cues” (Gass 1996:335). Bates et al. (1982) provides some evidence that the different components of language can demonstrate greater or lesser sensitivity to learning L2. For instance, Italian utilises semantics as a foundation for sentence interpretation, and English depends on syntax to verify grammatical relationships (Gass 1996:335). Some evidence from empirical studies demonstrates the role of transfer in L2 acquisition. Jarvis (2000: 252) conducted a study that shows a probabilistic approach transfer: “L1 influence refers to any instance of learner data where a statistically significant correlation (or probability-based relation) is shown to exist between some feature of learners’ IL performance and their background.” He argues for the “you-know-it-when-you-see-it-phenomenon,” which can also be observed in the resemblance between interlanguage phenomenon and the same phenomenon in the L1 of those speakers is perceived as “evidence” for transfer, but this is not sufficient. Evidence for the transfer can be gleaned from a) the incidence of certain features in the interlanguages of learners of an objective language and the incidence of those particular features among native speakers of that language, and b) the incidence of certain features in the interlanguages of learners with dissimilar L1s. For instance, French learners of English are recognized to construct the following: (1) John eats often apples. The adverb frequently appears between the verb and the direct object, which is likely in French but not in English. (2) Jean mange souvent des pommes. However, comparing these two sentences does not provide evidence that transfer is the reason of the interlanguage production. Lefebvre, White and Jourdan (2006: 10) assert that transfer is not just a preliminary strategy of L2 learners, because it concerned using L1 grammar as the suitable analysis except and until there is confirmation of the opposite. Without this evidence, L1 effects will persevere even in the L2 stable condition. Tidball and Treffers-Daller (in press) offer evidence for this claim in their examination of the statement of Path and Manner by English learners of French. Students regularly construct the subsequent structures: (3) C’est une (sic) homme qui court dans une banque ‘It’s a man who runs into a bank.’ (level 1 French, 363). In French, people cannot utilise the manner verb such as courir “to run” in grouping with a goal satellite, if the agent intersects a border in the event. This termed as the “boundary crossing constraint” (Slobin and Hoiting 1994). Gass (1996: 339) argues that when input to learners is not able to give learners with sufficient information about the L2, there may not be sufficient positive evidence to allow learners to reorganize the parameter, transfer can possibly occur. Still, there should be future studies on how L1 intersects with inputs from L2 and how they also interface with UG to facilitate L2 learning. Reference List Bates, E. and B. MacWhinney, B. (1981) ‘Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies,’ In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences conference on native and foreign language acquisition, ed. H. Winitz (Ed.). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., and S. Smith. (1982) ‘Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study,’ Cognition, Vol. 11, pp. 245-299. Cook, V. (2002) ‘Language teaching methodology and the L2 user perspective,’ in Portraits of the L2 user. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Gass, S. (1996) ‘Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: the role of language transfer,’ in Ritchie, W.C and T.K. Bhatia, Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 317-345). California: Academic Press. Gass, S. and L. Selinker. (1983) Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jarvis, S. (2000) ‘Methodological Rigor in the Study of Transfer: Identifying L1 Influence in the Interlanguage Lexicon,’ Language Learning, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 245-309. Lefebvre, C., White, L. and C. Jourdan. (2006.) L2 acquisition and creole genesis: dialogues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Otsu, Y. and K. Naoi. (1986) ‘Structure-dependence in L2 acquisition. Paper presented at JACET, Keio University, Tokyo, September. Schwartz, B. and R. Sprouse, (1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research, Vol 12, pp. 40-72. Slobin, D.I. and N. Hoiting. (1994) ‘Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: typological considerations,’ In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Vol. 20, pp.487-505 Tidball, F. and J. Treffers-Daller (in press) ‘Variability in the expression of motion events by British learners of French: the role of transfer and simplification,’ in Variations, varietes: Aspects of sociolinguistic variation in contemporary, French Beeching et al (eds.). Benjamins. b. Should students’ first language be avoided in the classroom? Discuss and evaluate (1000 words). Bilingual education has been constantly debated for its value in learning second languages. Different theories of SLA have diverse perspectives on the role of L1. For those using the UG perspective, there is less need for L1 than for those using a connectionist-processing model. In connectionist models, words have connections with other words through phonological similarities, semantic similarities or syntactic connections with L1 and L2 items. Student’s first language should not be avoided in the classroom, because L1 can facilitate L2 learning, although several factors also affect the impact of L1 and L2. Cummins formulated the interdependence hypothesis, which asserts that knowledge of L1 can be transferred to acquiring L2. Several studies provided evidence for the interdependence hypothesis (Cardenas-Hagan et al. 2007; U.S. Department of Education 2004). Dr. Diane August conducted a longitudinal study and studied the development of literacy in 180 Spanish-speaking children from El Paso, Boston, and Chicago (U.S. Department of Education 2004: 17). The study spanned the end of second grade to the end of the fifth grade (U.S. Department of Education 2004: 17). The students were all native Spanish speakers, and three kinds of instructions were used by three classes: 1) English only, 2) Spanish only, and 3) Spanish and English. Findings demonstrated that “Spanish phonemic awareness, Spanish letter identification, and Spanish word reading were reliable predictors of English performance on parallel tasks at the end of fourth grade” (U.S. Department of Education 2004: 18). Also, for Spanish reading (general), students with classes expressed in Spanish and English and in Spanish performed considerably better than students in English-only classes (U.S. Department of Education 2004: 19). Cardenas-Hagan et al. (2007) studied the role of the means of instruction, native language and English language skills, and the cross-linguistic transfer of necessary literacy skills such as phonological awareness for native Spanish speakers. Findings showed that there is an association between L1 abilities and L2 achievement, where Spanish competence assisted the acquisition of the English language. For the three kinds of skills assessed by this study, “early Spanish skills predicted English outcomes at the end of kindergarten after controlling for early English skills” (Cardenas-Hagan et al. 2007: 255). Cook (2002) contends that it is not the number of exposure to L2 that counts, but the quality. Author observed that exposure to L2 do not essentially lead to the acquisition of the second language by the students. Cook (2002) provides a diversity of functions for the L1 in the L2 classroom: describing grammar to students; giving tasks to the students; students using the L1 within classroom activities (code-switching); keeping discipline, and for other cultural and social activities. Koverlman, Baker, and Pettito (2008) examined the effect of the first bilingual language exposure’s age to the reading progress of monolingual and bilingual children. They studied if monolingual students could establish reading advantage, when they are enrolled in bilingual education programs. They hypothesized that bilingual education and reading comprehension can be maximised, because it is probable that there are “sensitive periods” of brain maturation that will help achieve bilingual language development (205). Children, who are developing knowledge of their first language, build up strong linguistic competence by the time they are three years old (Brown 1973 as cited in Koverlman et al. 2008: 205). During this time, brain mylenization development and growth in the brain’s left hemisphere lateralization occur rapidly, and since language development is observed to take place here, it suggests the right age for L2 learning (Diamond, 2002 as cited in Koverlman et al. 2008: 205). Koverlman et al. (2008) studies students of bilingual Spanish–English schools, who come from either from Spanish-speaking backgrounds (not yet familiar with English) or English-speaking backgrounds (not yet familiar with Spanish), and compared them with the English-speaking children in English-only schools. Findings showed that there is a direct association between age of first bilingual exposure and bilingual reading development: “Early bilinguals (before age 3) had excellent, monolingual-like, reading performance in both languages, and later-exposed bilinguals (ages 3-6) had less optimal reading performance in their new language only” (Koverlman et al. 2008: 215). Authors concluded that early bilingual exposure can offer preeminent language competence and that early bilinguals did better than monolinguals and late bilinguals in reading and language tests (Koverlman et al. 2008: 217). Tong, Irby, Lara-Alecio, and Mathes (2008) examined the effectiveness of developmental bilingual education (DBE) programs in advancing the language, literacy, and academic achievement of ELLs. Their study examined if the treatment students (DBE intervention) would exhibit higher language performance than control students in both Spanish (L1) and English (L2) language development. They also studied if the treatment students would exceed control students in Spanish and English literacy development. Their sampling was made of 502 participating students: kindergarten participants= 489 students (experimental n = 302, control n = 187), and second grade respondents= 262 students (experimental n = 141, control n = 121). Findings showed that DBE students surpassed the control group in oral and reading proficiency in English, as well as phonological processing, letter-sound identification, vocabulary knowledge, and comprehension. The effect sizes were .12 and .71, which provided evidence of the effectiveness of the DBE program model. Studies also stressed the importance of duration of bilingual education programs and the student achievement beyond elementary school (dependent variable), predominantly in middle school. Studies showed that successful bilingual immersion programs last four years or more (Hakuta, Butler, and Witt 2000; Quintanar-Sarellana 2004). Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000) studied the length of time essential for ELLs to realize English proficiency. They obtained two data sets from two school districts in the San Francisco Bay Area. The data provided understanding on the different varieties of English proficiency and the significance of period of exposure to English to developing L2 skills. Oral English proficiency was evaluated through the standardized proficiency tests. Findings demonstrated that “oral proficiency takes 3 to 5 years to develop, and academic English proficiency can take 4 to 7 years” (13). In addition, authors indicate that the estimates of the time could be underestimated because of their small sampling (13). It is possible that a new viewpoint on the importance of the non-native teacher (as a role model for the L2 learner) leads to new perspectives on the function of the L1 in the L2 classroom. SLA research provides no justified evidence for avoiding the L1 in the classroom. L1 can be used for many purposes that can directly (i.e. code switching) and indirectly (i.e. enforcing discipline) facilitate L2 learning. Reference List Cardenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C., and S. Pollar-Durodola. (2007) ‘The cross-linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language instruction,’ Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in School, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 249-259. Cook, V. (2002) Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y.G., and D. Witt. (2000) How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?’ The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1. Koverlman, I., Baker, S.A., and L. Pettito (2008) ‘Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development,’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203–223. Tong, F., Irby, B.J., Lara-Alecio, R., and P.G. Mathes. (2008) ‘English and Spanish acquisition by Hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: A 3-Year longitudinal randomized study,’ Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 500-529. U.S. Department of Education. (2004) Childhood bilingualism: Current status and future directions. Mitchell, R. and F. Myles. (2004) Second language learning theories. London : Hodder Arnold. Read More