Transcript What Else Transfers?

What Else Transfers?
(David Stringer)
An Overview of Variables
Affecting Lexical Transfer
in 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.intransitiveinchoative
Rebecca broke the pencil.transitivecausative
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 Turkish
L2 Turkish, L1 Spanish and L1 English
(1) Spanish
Causative:
El ladron rompio la ventana.
the thief
Inchoative:
La ventana
broke
se
Root:causative
the window.
overt marking
“se”
rompio.
the window ANTICAUS broke
inchoative
The Fundamental Difference
Hypothesis and Its Alternative:L1
Interference Hypothesis
(2) Turkish
Hırsız
pencere-yi
kır-dı.
The thief window- ACC break-PAST
Pencere kır-ıl-dı.
Window
break-PASS(ANTICAUS)-PAST
Root:causative
overt marking
“passive”
inchoative
The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and
Its Alternative:L1 Interference Hypothesis
“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:
Korean:

double-object
dative double-objects,
L1 Japanese and L1 Korean, L2 English:
same for datives but differ in benefactives
Differences between L1 and L2 morphology
benefactives
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’
craindre ‘to fear’
avoir peur ‘to be afraid’
have particular meaning
only in contrast with other
members of the set
mes yeux, mes oreilles, mes bras, mes jambes
‘my eyes, my ears, my arms, my legs’



plural
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”
Interlanguage Item
Re-labelling of the
L1 representation
Same syntax, semantics,
case, participants as L1
L1Senden nefret ediyorum!
L2 ???
L2 I hate from you!
•“Non-target-like argument structures are a product not of transfer of lexical
parameter settings but of lexical transfer.
(Juffs, 1996; Inagaki, 2001)
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’d
3. Differences in transitivity
Ex. (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 patterns
Ex. (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 Transfer
in 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.
• According to studies, there is no difference between both
female and male learners and more and less motivated
learners in terms of lexical transfer.

Lexical transfer is less frequent in writing than in speaking.
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)

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
He lists nine factors interacting with L1 transfer:
Age
Personality, motivation, language attitude
Social, educational and cultural background
Language background (all L1 and L2s)
Type and amount of TL exposure
TL proficiency
Language distance between the L1 and TL
Task type and area of language use
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)
2)
3)
Low level learners
Young learners
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
LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2
PROFICIENCY

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.
LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2
PROFICIENCY

L1 reference framework
Quantitative
Qualitative
Coinages,calques, etc…
Reduce!
Increase!
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

So the transfer shifts from formal-based associations to
more semantically-based ones as the proficiency level
rises.
Form related
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
LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1
BACKGROUND

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?


LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1
BACKGROUND

Psychotypology trend ?
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.

It also supports Arabski (2006) and Ringbom
(2006)…….
LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1
BACKGROUND

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 nonexistence of certain sounds.
LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1
BACKGROUND

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
LEXICAL TRANSFER AND
GENDER

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
LEXICAL TRANSFER AND GENDER
Gender differences
(two main aspects)
Type of task
With each task, there is the
need for various mental
processes
(girls are superior with some
processes while boys are
superior with others)
Social nurture
So with
different
tasks gender
differences
appear
When the learners create
a homogenous
group(social context, prof.
level and especially
learning context), learning
contex is more relevant to
ransfer in writing.
What to consider?

As our task is writing, the lexical transfer is
not mostly under the effect of gender
differences
and 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 SUBJECTS
Larger amount of exposure to FL> More
vocabulary-> fewer L1 lexical transfer
Reasons by Llach and Celaya:
a)The larger lexical repertoire, the less
need for previous linguistic knowledge
b) Different instructional approaches
more meaningful and communicative
rather than a language task
Lexical inventions more
CONCLUSION
1.
2.
3.
4.
L2 Proficiency
Language background
gender
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., 233241. 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 Benefactive
Double 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.