Chapter 8 Lecture

Chapter 8: Cross-Linguistic Influence and Learner Language

In this lecture, we are going to go over a few last things associated with SLA, which we have only mentioned briefly before. The first of those things is the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (pg. 207-208).

The CAH says that if you find the contrasts between two languages, you can predict the interference that will occur, the types of errors students will make, and problem areas they will face as they learn the language. This could potentially be, as we would put it, a “gold mine” for teachers. Things like accent could be predicted also, so pronunciation errors could be avoided or dealt with easier in the classroom, in that teachers would know what areas to focus on.

Within CAH was the idea that if there are more things in common between the L1 and L2, the L2 will be easier to learn. A hierarchy of difficulty could be used to predict the difficulty of an L1. The text gives one such hierarchy with 6 levels (pg. 209-210):

Transfer: something that’s brought over from the L1 to the L2.
Coalescence: learners may have to learn that multiple structures in one language may have only 1 equivalent in the target language.
Underdifferentiation: there is no match-something that’s in the L1 does not exist in the L2.
Reinterpretation: there is a comparison between something in the L1 and something in the L2, but there is a new way of using it or pronouncing it.
Overdifferentiation: something totally new.
Split: one thing in the L1 becomes more than one thing in the L2.

Remember, this is a hierarchy, so obviously level 0-transfer is not as difficult as level 5-split.

There are, of course, some complications with CAH. First, there are many little subtleties that were not taken into account. Second, it’s not “cut and dry” (clearly outlined) as to where each error fits; some can fit into multiple categories. Third, could they actually verify their hypothesis??? Last, it’s too subjective; it’s not scientifically provable.

There is a so-called “weak version” of CAH, which depends upon observation, and you deal with errors as you go along, not try to predict every error a student might make. Today, this is called CLI (cross-linguistic influence), which will be dealt with next in this lecture.

One thing we must realize is that learners of an L2 come to class with a set of linguistic experiences that must be taken into account. They are already experienced language learners with their L1. Their L1 will influence their learning of an L2. This is cross-linguistic influence.

When speaking of the difficulties that students encounter in language learning, on pg. 213-214, there are is a term you need to know: markedness. Markedness is as follows: if you have pairs or categories of linguistic items, like a and an, the textbook states, one will be marked and one unmarked. The marked one is more difficult than the unmarked one, because at least one feature of it is different and not included in the unmarked one. Unmarked items are easier to learn, because they are less complex.

Understanding universal grammar can also be helpful when trying to anticipate the student difficulties in language learning influenced by cross-linguistic influence, because the more we know about the universal linguistic rules that tie languages together, the easier it will be to plan our teaching in order to maximize success.

When it comes to learner language (pg. 215), interlanguage is the in-between; it is the middle between the L1 and the L2. Related to interlanguage is learner language, which is, as the textbook states, “the speech and writing of learners” (pg. 216). One way we can analyze learner language, is through error analysis, because,

“As Corder (1967: 167) 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 language’” (pg. 217).

Error analysis gives us an in-depth look at where learners are at on the road to fluency, and how we can help them get over the bumps they encounter on that road.

There is a difference between mistakes and errors. Mistakes are the “oops’s” of language learning. They will probably be self-corrected if you point them out to the student. Native speakers do this, too. The other day, I found myself saying is instead of are, and I realized my mistake and self-corrected it.

Errors show where the students are at in their language learning process. They show what students don’t yet know. These aren’t self-corrected.

Knowing whether or not a student has made a mistake or an error is subjective to a certain point, because you might hear a learner make one type of mistake/error and then use the correct form at another time. Have you ever encountered this?

In the classroom, there can be a tendency to focus too much on errors and not enough on praise. Make sure that you praise correctness, not just correct errors. What are some ways that you can praise correctness?
Sometimes students avoid using a certain linguistic structure. The tendency is to believe that a student has mastered that structure. Avoidance can equal understanding, but it can also equal hesitancy; they’re not quite sure about it, so they just don’t try. This is something of which we need to be aware.

When it comes to categorizing or describing errors, we could say that there are overt and covert errors. Overt errors are ungrammatical utterances. Covert errors may be grammatical utterances, but they don’t fit the context. Therefore, overt errors are not as major, because the meaning of the utterance is still understood. However, covert errors, though grammatical, may not be understood; therefore, they are more major. Please view Corder’s chart for dealing with errors, found on page 221. There are some helpful steps for dealing with errors in the classroom. After you have reviewed the chart, I would like to know: Corder doesn’t give any ideas after Out 3. Do you have any ideas that could fit there?

On page 222-223, there is a list of “categories for description of errors”. Let’s look at a few things on this list:

First, we have “errors of addition, omission, substitution, and ordering”. Addition errors would be adding something that shouldn’t be there. Omission errors would be leaving something out. Substitution would be using one term instead of another, causing misunderstanding. Ordering would be errors of incorrect word order.

Second, we have “levels of language”, like phonology, orthography, lexicon, grammar, and discourse. When it comes to error correction, you must look at which level the error occurs in order to decide when and how to correct the error. Which level do you think is the least important, and which level do you think is the most important?

Third, we have local and global errors. Local errors don’t affect the meaning of the output. The message is clear. Global errors are incomprehensible; the meaning of the output cannot be determined.

Last, we have two “dimensions” of errors-domain and extent. Domain refers to the place in which the error occurs-from the phoneme level up through the discourse/conversation level. Extent refers to what would have to be done to the error in order for it to be corrected-how complex the error may be.

There are also various sources of error. There is interlingual transfer. We’ve talked about this before. Can you give an example of this from your own learning or from your classroom experience?

There is also intralingual transfer, or overgeneralization, which was discussed in Group 1’s presentation.

The “context of learning” must also be taken into account. As the text states:

“Students often make errors because of a misleading explanation from the teacher, faulty presentation of a structure or word in a textbook, or even because of a pattern that was rotely memorized in a drill, but improperly contextualized” (pg. 226).

These types of errors can also occur incidentally from music, movies, and other forms of media. A connotation might be used in a movie that might be completely inappropriate in everyday conversation. Closely related, communication strategies may also provide sources of error (pg. 227).

Students progress through various stages of development when it comes to the errors they make. This, of course, parallels their language level. The first stage is the “random errors” stage (pg. 227). This is the “wild guess” stage. The second stage is the “emergent stage” (pg. 227-228). This is when learners are attempting to use the language and trying to fit things together, so something may sound logically correct in their minds, but may indeed be an error. The third stage is the “systematic stage” (pg. 228). This is the stage where the student is at a level where they can understand that they made an error and self-correct it with assistance. The fourth stage is the stabilization stage (pg. 228-229). This occurs when students are able to self-correct without assistance. However, fossilization may occur in this stage, so that is something to watch out for.

As we have mentioned before, there is great variability in learner language (see pg. 229-230). The text states:

“One of the most fruitful areas of learner language research has focused on the variation that arises from the disparity between classroom contexts and natural situations outside language classes. As researchers have examined instructed second language acquisition (Ellis 1990b, 1997; Doughty 1991; Buczowska & Weist 1991), it has become apparent not only that instruction makes a difference in learners’ success rates but also that the classroom context itself explains a great deal of variability in learners’ output” (pg. 230).

How does this fit within your context-a non-English speaking country? What happens to the “disparity between classroom contexts and natural situations outside language classes”?

Another consideration in error analysis is fossilization. Fossilization occurs when a learner consistently uses an incorrect form until that form becomes a more permanent part of his/her language output. Have you experienced this? Have any of your students experienced this? Part of the reason fossilization occurs is that the language learner receives positive feedback, both cognitively and affectively even after making an error, causing that error to become fossilized. Knowing that such positive feedback promotes fossilization, how can you try to prevent fossilization in your students?

When focusing on error correction, something to consider is the value of form-focused instruction. According to our textbook, form-focused instruction is: “‘any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly’ (1997:73)” (pg. 233).

The best way to do FFI (form-focused instruction) is to focus on helping students learn the correct forms communicatively and to do error correction, but not overdo it. One suggestion is to avoid interrupting students to correct them, and instead correcting them after the task is finished. Another suggestion is to use explicit instruction with simple stuff and implicit instruction with more complex stuff. This makes sense, because we do not want students to become bogged down with rules. At the end of the day, it all depends on the students. FFI works with some students better than others.

Now we come to the treatment of errors (pg. 235). Here are a few suggestions as to the best way to go about dealing with errors:

Don’t do so much error correction that students just shut down. Don’t do too little, either, or fossilization may occur.

Don’t correct too many local errors. Definitely correct global errors, because those are errors that make the meaning difficult to comprehend.

With error correction, it all depends on the context-what are you focusing on in class? What type of activity is it? What are your lesson objectives and unit goals? Is it a local or a global error? Please see the “Basic Options” and “Possible Features” on page 238 as you consider how to address errors in your classroom. You know your students and what works and what doesn’t work with them. The way you handle error correction depends on the learners’ learning style, the type of error, the context in which the error was uttered, etc. In other words, error correction is not “black and white”.