Sep. 2005, Volume 2, No.9 (Serial No.21) Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN1539-8072,USA The Role of the Native Language in Second Language Acquisition Ning Guo * Zhejiang Gongshang University Abstract: The role that a learner s native language plays in his or her second language acquisition (SLA) has been the focus of many researchers in the past few decades. The article provides a brief review of the literature on the importance and the factors of native language influence in SLA. Key words: language transfer Contrastive Analysis structural factors 1. Introduction It seems common that people would try to guess a speaker s background from his or her foreign accent. And it is also believed that a second language would be easier to learn if it is similar to the learner s native language (L1). For example, it would be easier for a Chinese to learn Japanese, or a British to learn French. Such cases reveal the awareness, however unconscious, that the native language of a speaker can somewhat influence the learning of another language. Then what is the role of the native language? This has been the focus of a number of second language acquisition (SLA) researches, and had its swings and pendulum in the course of SLA research. Some argue that two language systems can never co-exist peacefully in the learner and the constant warfare between them exist not only at the moment of cognition but during the period of storing new language knowledge (Marton, 1981), while others try to minimize the role of L1 in SLA and suggest that the notion of interference as a natural and unavoidable phenomenon in SLA be abandoned (Felix, 1980). This paper provides a rough review of the literature relevant to the importance and the factors of L1 influence in SLA. 2. A Historical Survey 2.1 Transfer In his influential book Linguistics across Cultures, Lado claimed: Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture---both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture, and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as practiced by natives. (Lado, 1957: 2) The work of Lado and many others was a major inspiration for subsequent research in the field of language transfer, a subfield of SLA. Language transfer is closely related to behaviourist theories of L2 learning, which was predominant in the 1950s and 1960s. According to behaviourist theories, the process of language learning is a process of habit formation, and the old habits formed when learning L1 would get in the way of learning new habits in L2, thus leading to errors. These behaviourist views, however, have been challenged by other researchers, among whom is Chomsky (1959). And the term transfer has been considered problematic during its * Ning Guo (1976- ), female, assistant of Zhejiang Gongshang University, M.Ed in TESOL at the University of Sydney, Australia; Address: Department of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, P.R. China; Postcode: 310012; Tel: 0571-86965929; E-mail: kat_guo@yahoo.com. 16
long-standing use. Some scholars even suggested replacing this term or restricting it to certain processes. One of the other terms suggested is crosslinguistic influence, which is theory-neutral and permits discussion of the incorporation of elements from one language into another (Kellerman & Smith, 1986). Yet the term transfer has persisted and its definition has been greatly broadened. Now, it is well accepted that transfer is not simply a consequence of habit formation. Nor is transfer simply interference or a falling back on the native language. Nor is transfer always native language influence (Odlin, 1989). Transfer can be defined as the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired (Odlin, 1989: 27). Most studies on transfer focus on the influence of native language on SLA, though it is true that L2 may influence L1 and the acquis ition of other languages. Given the focus of this paper, L1 transfer will be used to refer to the role native language plays in SLA. Transfer can be positive or negative. When the language patterns of L1 and L2 are identical, learning could take place easily through positive transfer of the L1 pattern, but when they are different learning would be difficult and errors may arise as the result of negative transfer or interference (Ellis, 1994). There are a number of manifestations of transfer, though the res earch focus of language transfer has been put on the errors that learners produce. Errors (negative transfer) Facilitation (positive transfer): The learner s L1 can facilitate L2 learning. Facilitation doesn t mean the total absence of errors, but a reduced number of errors and the higher rate of learning. Avoidance: Learners may avoid using linguistic structures which they find difficult because of differences between L1 and L2. It s a complicated phenomenon, and Kellerman (1992) s attempt to classify it into three types indicates that apart from the learner s L1 knowledge, the learner s knowledge of L2 and the learner s attitudes toward his or her own culture and the target language culture act as determinants of avoidance behaviour. Over-use: Learners may demonstrate a preference of certain grammatical forms, words and discourse types in L2, as the result of the avoidance or underproduction of some difficult structure or improper expression. 2.2 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) (Ellis, 1994) Based on the behaviourist view of learning as a habit-forming process, and the assumption that differences between two languages are the major source of errors, contrastive analysis, through comparison of languages, seeks to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a L2 learning situation (Gass & Selinker, 1994). Lado (1957) claims that difficulty and ease in learning L2 are determined respectively by differences and similarities between L1 and L2, and such differences lead to the distortions that are predictable. His views laid out the theoretical bases of the CAH, which enjoyed great popularity in the 1960s. The strong (priori/predictive) form of CAH maintained that L2 errors could be predicted by comparing L1 and L2, but this form soon became out of favour as many researches provided opposite empirical evidence---many errors were not the result of transfer (Dulay & Burt, 1974) and many errors predicted by contrastive analysis didn t occur (Jackson & Whitnam, 1971). Then the weak (posteriori/explanatory) form was proposed, which starts with an analysis of learners errors and attempts to explain them on the basis of L1-L2 differences (Gass & Selinker, 1994). CAH has gradually become the target of many criticisms since the 1970s. The greatest challenge came from the recognition of the inadequacies of the behaviourist learning theory, the theoretical underpinnings of CAH. 17
Language is no longer seen as a set of habits that can be developed by imitating, but a set of structured rules that are grasped by formulating them on the basis of innate principles and exposure to L2 (Gass & Selinker, 1994). Another weakness of CAH is its tenet that differences equal to difficulty (errors), which is a confusion of the product (i.e. differences, based on formal descriptions of linguistic units) with the process (i.e. difficulty---learners struggle with L2) (Gass & Selinker, 1994). In short, CAH is too restrictive and too simplistic. However, it does not mean it should be abandoned. CAH, if carefully revised and extended, can serve as a good tool for SLA research. 2.3 Problems in the study of L1 transfer Apart from the problem of definition as mentioned above, the study of transfer has many other theoretical and practical problems, some of which are explored by Odlin (1989). They are problems of comparison, prediction and generalization. Problems of comparison: The study of transfer relies, to a great extent, on the systematic comparisons of L1 and L2 provided by contrastive analysis. Even though many contrastive analyses provide useful information about L1 and L2, none meets the full criteria of an ideal contrastive analysis---descriptive and theoretical adequacy. Contrastive descriptions may be distorted when there is too much idealization, and few of them take into consideration the interaction of various linguistic subsystems. Moreover, explanations based only on contrastive analyses can be misleading because of the lack in comparing the performances of speakers of at least two different native languages. Problems of prediction: Contrastive analysis aims at the prediction of the learner s errors, but in reality that prediction is often derived after the data about learner performances already known to a linguist. Problems of generalization: To discover valid generalizations about transfer, it is necessary to discover valid generalizations about the nature of language, i.e., about language universals. Despite the great efforts made in this field, there are few claims about linguistic structure which hold for all human languages. 3. Structural and Nonstructural Factors in L1 Transfer 3.1 Structural factors: 3.1.1 Phonetic and phonological transfer (Odlin, 1989) Undoubtedly, L1 phonetics and phonology have powerful influences on L2 pronunciation. The fact that most people can readily detect the linguistic origin of a L2 speaker from the accent implies that sounds of a language transfer. This explains why it is difficult for Chinese learners to pronounce interdental consonants in English. On the other hand, there is evidence that learners attempt to transfer their L1 syllable structure to L2. When L2 permits syllable structures not permitted in L1, learners tend to make errors that involve changing these structures to those that would be permitted in L1 (Broselow, 1987). Another study by Beebe (1980) shows that the social values of sounds in L1 affect transfer as well. 3.1.2 Syntax Syntactic transfer has been a controversial issue, and word order has been a most intensively studied syntactic property. Odlin (1989, 1990) provides a review of the research that has looked at the extent to which word order in interlanguage is affected by L1. And he maintains that transfer is an important factor in the 18
acquisition of syntax, but it often occurs together with other acquisition processes. 3.1.3 Semantics Odlin (1989) discusses the study of semantic transfer in two categories: prepositional semantics and lexical semantics, and concludes that lexical similarities in L1 and L2 can significantly influence comprehension and production in L2, and that the importance of linguistic relativism is less clear. 3.1.4 Discourse Contrastive analysis in discourse may be the most challenging, because discourse analysis involves nonstructural as well as structural characteristics (Odlin, 1989). As cross-linguistic differences in discourse may affect production and comprehension in L2, the study of discourse transfer is essential. Odlin (1989) holds that misunderstandings caused by cross-linguistic differences in discourse can be dangerous, especially in the areas of politeness and coherence. When a learner interprets L2 discourse in terms of L1 norms, he or she may mistakenly believe that native speakers are being improper in situations where they are actually behaving appropriately according to their norms. A learner may also have difficulty in seeing the coherence of L2 discourse, resulting in the failure to get its point or to produce something acceptable according to the discourse norms of L2 (Odlin, 1989). A case in point comes from the ESL writing of Chinese students. Writing in English is supposed to be direct and to the point, while writing in Chinese tends to be more indirect. This difference leads to the difficulty for Chinese students to produce satisfactory English writings. 3.2 Nonstructural factors It is generally believed that a purely structural contrastive analysis is not enough to account for cross-linguistic differences. Transfer involves many other non- structural factors, which interact with transfer. A brief review of nonstructural factors affecting transfer is given by Odlin (1989). Among them are individual variation (e.g. personality, proficiency, aptitude for phonetic mimicry, etc.), age, social context, and linguistic awareness. 4. Conclusion As is seen above, the role of L1 in SLA is a complex and controversial field of linguistic studies. Although L1 transfer and CAH are problematic in certain aspects, it is impossible to deny their existence. In fact, in recent years there has a successful reappraisal of the role of L1 in SLA. On the one hand, the nature of L1 trans fer was re- examined. On the other hand, L1 knowledge was viewed as a resource or a strategy which learners can use, both consciously and subconsciously, to overcome their limitations (Ellis, 1985). It is hard to assess exactly how important the L1 s role is in SLA, but just as Ellis (1985: 40) puts it: The learner s L1 is an important determinant of SLA. It is not the only determinant, however, and may not be the most important. But it is theoretically unsound to attempt a precise specification of its contribution or even try to compare its contribution with that of other factors. References: 1. Beebe, L. Sociolinguistic Variation and Style Shifting in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning. 1980, 30: 433-447. 2. Broselow, E. An Investigation of Transfer in Second Language Phonology. In Loup, G. & Weinberger, S. (Eds.). Interlanguage Phonology (pp. 261-278). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. 1987. 3. Chomsky, N. Review of Verbal Behavior by B.F. Skinner. Language.1959, 35: 26-58. 4. Dulay, H. & Burt, M. Goofing: An Indicator of Children s Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning. 1974, 22: 235-252. 19
5. Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1985. 6. Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994. 7. Felix, S. Interference, Interlanguage and Related Issues. In Felix, S. (Ed.). Second Language Development: Trends and Issues. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. 1980. Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. 1994. 8. Jackson, K. & Whitnam, R. Evaluation of the Predictive Power of Contrastive Analyses of Japanese and English. Final report; Contract No. CEC-0-7 0-5046(-823), US Office of Health, Education and Welfare. 1971. 9. Kellerman, E. & Smith, M. S. (eds.). Cross-linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. 1986. 10. Kellerman, E. Another Look at an Old Classic; Schachter s Avoidance. Lecture notes, Tokyo: Temple University Japan. 1992. 11. Lado, R. Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1957. 12. Marton, W. Contrastive Analysis in the Classroom. In Fisiak, J. (Ed.). Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon. 1981. 13. Odlin, T. Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989. 14. Odlin, T. Word-order Transfer, Metalinguistic Awareness and Constraints in Foreign Language Learning. In VanPatten, B. & Lee, J. (Eds.). Second Language Acquisition---Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 1990. (Edited by Wei Zhang, Jianshan Chen, Zhilu Lv and Jasmine) 20