Principles of Language Learning and Teaching

Chapter 9

Cross-Linguistic influence and Learner Language

The analysis of the language itself as the main component of second language acquisition has had a
historical progression. The era of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis gave way to an era of Error Analysis.

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

The CAH became very popular in the middle of the 20th century.
Essentially, this hypothesis states that the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the
interference of the first language system with the second language system. Therefore, an
accurate taxonomy of the linguistic contrasts between the two languages would enable linguists and
language teachers to predict the difficulties the learner would encounter.
In conclusion, second language learning basically involved the overcoming of the differences between the
two language systems

CAH was deeply rooted in behaviourism and structuralism which were also on trend in those times:
Behaviourism contributed to the notion that human behaviour is the sum of its smallest parts an
components and therefore language learning could be described as the acquisition of all of those discrete
units.
While Structuralism provided the necessary tools of structural linguists to accurately describe the two
languages in contrast.
Moreover learning theories argued that interfering elements were of great importance in the process of
human learning, so if you could avoid interfering by predicting differences, learners would be able to
transfer positively all the items in a language.

Robert Lado stated that by comparing the language and culture to be learnt with the native language
and culture, we can identify the elements that are different and could cause difficulty and those that are
similar and therefore will be easy to learn.
Those elements that are similar will be simple to the learner and those that are different will be difficult.
In other words, the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning lies in the comparison between
native and foreign language.

The hierarchy of difficulty promised a way to predict linguistic difficulty that learners would encounter in
the foreign language. (Scientific description and prediction.)

Clifford Prator categorized the hierarchy of difficulty for both phonological and grammatical systems in
six levels in ascending order of difficult:

Level 0__ Transfer: No difference or contrast is present. The learner can simply transfer positively a
sound or structure or lexical item from L1 to L2. (mortal, intelligent, etc transparent words)

Level 1__ Coalescence: Two items in the native language turn into one in the target language.
(his/her ‘su’ - teach/learn ‘ apprendre’) (porque Why? Because)

Level 2__ Under differentiation: an item in the L1 is absent in L2. (Auxiliaries do/does, ‘whose’)

Level 3__Reinterpretation: in L1 has a new shape or distribution. (initial ‘h’ is silent in Spanish)

Level 4__ Over differentiation: a new item entirely must be learnt. (the use of determiners in
generalized nouns ‘El hombre es mortal’ – Gender in nouns)

Level 5__Split: One item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language.
(to be ser – estar / you vos/uds )

Level 0 = one to one correspondence and transfer Level 5= height of interference

1
Teaching implications: In a communicative classroom, teachers will attend to the potential effects of L1
but will embed (enclose) such attention in meaningful communication.

From the CAH to CLI

CAH demonstrated to have several shortcomings as the process was too much simplified, not all errors
could be predicted and the levels of difficulty were not easily verified.
It was claimed that this strong version of CAH proved to be unrealistic and impracticable.

As a result, a so-called weak version was proposed, based on the way that teachers used in their daily
practice. It consisted in analyzing the grade of difficulty a posteriori (instead of a priori ) , that is to say
as learners make errors, teachers utilize the knowledge about CAH to understand the sources of those
errors.

Nowadays, we know this weak version with the name cross-linguistic influence (CLI) and the
difference with its antecedent is that emphasis is placed on influence rather than prediction.

Moreover, researchers concluded that great difference did not necessarily cause great difficulty and so
intralingual (within one language) errors may lead to greater difficulty than interlingual
(between L1 an L2) errors which at first sight carry the most noticeable differences.

Finally, when we talk about CLI, we must be aware that it implies not only the effect of one’s F1 on a F2
but also the influence of L2 on L1.

Markedness and Universal Grammar

Markedness: in a pair of related forms, there is a ‘marked’ member that has at least one more feature
than the ‘unmarked’ member of the pair. The ‘marked’ member is more complex and therefore learnt
later than the ‘unmarked’ one that also has a wider distribution. So degree of markedness coincides with
degree of difficulty. Connect this with the morphemes sequence of acquisition

Universal Grammar: The rules L1 of acquisition are presumed to be universal, this may imply that there
are universal rules that govern every language. Such rules are a set of limitations and principles. By
discovering these innate linguistic principles we could better describe contrasts between languages and
understand L2 learning difficulties. Connect this with Level 0 in the degree of difficulty.

Competition Model: the use of alternative strategies in order to make sense of L2 once other options of
interpreting meaning by means of L1 fail.

Learner Language

Second Language learning is a process of the creative construction of a system in which learners test
hypotheses about the target language through different sources: knowledge of the native language,
limited knowledge of the target language, knowledge of the communicative functions of language,
knowledge about languages in general and knowledge about life, people and the universe around them.
By a gradual process of trial and error and hypotheses testing learners get slowly closer to the system
used by native speakers.
The term ‘interlanguage’ (Selinker1972) describes the system that has a structurally intermediate
status between the native and target language.
Corder (1971) used the term ‘idiosyncratic dialect’ to connote the idea that the learner’s language is
unique to a particular individual with its own rules governing a system which is not the one of the native
language not of the target language but a system based upon the learners’ best attempt to bring order
and structure to the linguistic stimuli around them.
Learner Language (Lightbown & Spada 1993) is the study of the speech and writings of the learners.

The study of interlanguage is only possible by inferring from verbal and nonverbal responses, by artificial
instruments or by teachers’ and researchers’ intuition. This study is based on the analysis of learners’
errors since correct production provides little information about the actual linguistic system or learners.
Connect this with ‘Avoidance’

2
Error Analysis

Learning is fundamentally a process that involves the making of mistakes. Success comes by profiting
from mistakes, by receiving feedback and by making new attempts.

The mistakes a person makes in the process of constructing a new system of language needs to be
carefully analyzed because they hold in them the keys to understanding the process of SL acquisition.
Corder: ‘ 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’

ERRORS MISTAKES

 They are noticeable deviations from the  They are performance errors.
adult grammar of a native speaker  They are random guesses or slips.
 They are the result of one’s systematic  All people make mistakes in L1 &L2
competence.  They are temporary breakdowns or
 They reflect the competence of the imperfections in speech
learner  They can be self corrected.
 They are idiosyncrasies in the language of  The learner knows the system but fails to
the learner use it.
 The learner’s system is incorrect.

Example: Does John can sing? Example: hesitations, lapses, slips of the
tongue, random ungrammaticalities

Error Analysis is the study, analysis and description of learners’ errors. It distinguishes from CAH in
that it considers errors attributable to all possible sources not just the ones resulting from a negative
transfer of the native language.
Types of errors:
 Interlingual errors interference from the native language
 Intralingual errors within the target language
 The ones connected with the sociolinguistic context, psycholinguistic or cognitive strategies and
affective variables.
(Compare this classification with the one by Lightbown & Spada)
(Interference errors – Developmental errors – Avoidance)

Errors in Error Analysis (Shortcomings in error analysis)

 Teachers are so preoccupied with noticing errors that the correct utterances go unnoticed.
Don’t forget to give positive reinforcement of clearly expressed language which is a product
of the learner’s language progress and development.

 Diminishing errors increase language proficiency but the ultimate goal of SL learning is the
attainment of communicative fluency.
 Comprehension of a language is as important as production.
Listening and reading comprehension give equally important data to teachers and
researchers about SLA

 Errors analysis fails to explain the strategy of avoidance.

3
 The absence or error does not necessarily reflect nativelike competence because learners
may be avoiding those structures that pose difficult for them

Therefore we should better engage in performance analysis or interlanguage analysis.

Identifying and Describing Errors

Second language learners’ linguistic systems cannot be directly observed so teachers should infer
them by analysing both production and comprehension data.

Systems are in constant flux ,this is called variation or instability.

Identification and description of errors is the first step in the process of analysis.

Overt errors are those ungrammatical at sentence level

Covert errors are those grammatically well formed but they are not interpretable in the
context of communication, at discourse level

Example: How old are you? I’m fine, thank you

Corder’s model of error analysis:

A. Is the sentence grammatically correct? YES

B. Does it make sense? YES The sentence is NOT idiosyncratic

NO The sentence is COVERTLY idiosyncratic C

A. Is the sentence grammatically correct? NO The sentence is OVERTLY idiosyncratic

C. Can a possible interpretation put sentence in context? YES

D. Reconstruct the sentence in the target language
E. Compare the reconstructed sentence with the original and establish the differences

C. Can a possible interpretation be put on sentence in context? NO

F. Is the mother tongue known? YES
G. Translate the sentence literally into L1. Is an interpretation in context possible?
YES H Translate the sentence into L2 and E
NO No analysis is possible

Examples: Why did the man kill the cat?

The man did the cat why love.

A: NO the sentence is overtly idiosyncratic
C: YES
D: The man killed the cat because it loved him.
E: The wrong use of aux DID and the coalescence in the use of ‘why’ instead of ‘because’

Because he was drunked.

A: NO the sentence is overtly idiosyncratic

B: YES the sentence is not covertly idiosyncratic
C: YES
D: Because he was drunk.
E: The participle of the verb was incorrect.

4
Errors classification

Addition At phonology Level

Omission At orthography Level
Substitution At lexicon Level
Ordering At grammar level
At discourse Level

Global errors: they hinder communication; they prevent the hearer/reader from comprehending
some aspect of the message.

Local errors: they do not prevent the message from being heard because there is only a minor
violation of one segment of the sentence. “A scissors”

Domain: the rank of linguistic unit taken as the context of error (phoneme, phrase, etc)
Extent: The rank of linguistic unit that would have to be replaced, deleted, supplied or reordered.

Sources of Errors

Why are certain errors made? By trying to identify sources of errors we can take another step toward
understanding how the learner’s cognitive and affective processes relate to the linguistic system and to
have an integrated knowledge of SL acquisition.

*Interlingual Transfer
The beginning stages of learning are more vulnerable to interlingual transfer from the native language or
interference, because the L1 is the only previous linguistic system which learners can draw and they are
not familiar with the target system yet. ‘the book of Jack’ negative transfer. (see examples in the
CDesign pages )

*Intralingual Transfer
The ones that occur within the target language itself and are a major factor in second language learning.
(overgeneralization)
The early stages of language learning are characterized by a predominance of interference (interlingual
transfer) but once learners have begun to acquire parts of the new system, more and more intralingual
transfer –generalization within the target language- is manifested.

Provide examples of the erroneous attempts of learners to produce the main verb following the auxiliary.
Provide examples of intralingual errors in the use of articles

*Context of Learning
“Context” refers to The classroom with its teacher and its materials in the case of school learning
Social situation in the case of untutored second language learning.

In the classroom context, induced errors, as a result of misleading explanation, faulty presentation of
the structure in a text book, patterns well taught but wrongly contextualized, incorrect information given
by the teacher, confusion due to contiguity of presentation, “bookish” language (uncontracted forms)

*Communication strategies
Students use these strategies to get their message across but sometimes they become a source of errors.
Examples: coinage, circumlocution, false cognates, prefabricated patterns.

5
Stages of Learner Language Development
Based on an earlier Corder’s model, Brown proposes four stages in the progression of the learners’
linguistic development.

Pre systematic Stage Emergent Stage Systematic Stage Post systematic Stage

Learners are only Learners begin to Learners are more Also called
vaguely aware of the discern a system and internally self-consistent Stabilization stage.
existence of a internalize certain rules and more closely to the Learners commit few
systematic order, so They improve in target language. errors and master the
they make random consistency in linguistic system at the point that
errors and production. They have already fluency and meanings
inconsistencies. Backsliding, also internalized most of the are not problematic.
This can be called an called U-shaped rules although they may They are able to self
experimentation learning is the still draw to the U- correct their errors.
stage. phenomenon in which shaped learning. Except for those which
Their attempts at learners move from The most salient have not been detected
production are full of correct to incorrect characteristic is that at and manifest
inaccurate guessing. forms and back to this stage learners are fossilization.
correct forms. able to correct their
They are unable to errors when they are
correct errors when pointed out by someone
they are pointed out by else.
someone else.
Avoidance is a
common practice at this
stage.

Remember that production errors alone are inadequate to measure the whole learners’ linguistic
competence. Correct utterances deserve our attention and positive feedback, too.

Fossilization or Stabilization?

Fossilization is the relatively permanent incorporation of incorrect linguistic forms into a person’s
second language competence. It may be manifested phonologically in “foreign accents” specially in
people learning a second language after puberty, or at syntactic and lexical levels in people that have
already learnt a language quite well.
This phenomenon can be described as the result on conditioning, need, motivation,
self-determination and also as a factor of positive or negative affective and cognitive feedback.

A positive affective response is imperative for the learner to continue communicating but cognitive
feedback determines the degree of internalization.
Therefore, fossilized items may be the result of deviant items that received a positive affective feedback
followed by a positive cognitive feedback that reinforced an incorrect form of language.
It is interesting to highlight that the same process in carried out to internalize correct forms of language.
But fossilization may also be the result of internal motivation, of seeking interaction with other people, of
consciously focusing on forms and on each one’s strategic competence.

Long proposes the term Stabilization to better describe the learners’ developing stage that has reached
an apparent “plateau”, non-development or even backsliding status.
All learners experience uneven lines of progress, sometimes these plateaus are rooted in motivational
factors, intrinsic or extrinsic or both and sometimes other variables such as age, aptitude, input, attention
and social context may be determinate.

6
ERRORS IN THE CLASSROOM

Historical overview on error approaches:

1. In the days of Audiolingual Method errors were viewed as phenomema tobe avoided by
overlearning, memorizing and ‘getting it right’ from the start.

2. Other methods such as Community Language Learning and the Natural Approach took a
“laissez-faire” approach to error under the assumption that natural processes within the learner
will eventually lead to acquisition.

3. Communicative Language Teaching advocate for a balance between attention to form (and
errors) and attention to meaning.

Vigil and Oller’s communication feedback model depicts the way errors should be treated.
The message goes through two different ‘filters’ (traffic lights) simultaneously: the Affective Feedback
and the Cognitive Feedback.
The red light of Cognitive Feedback is the point at which error correction enters and causes the learner to
make some kind of alteration in production.
The yellow light shows that something should be adjusted, altered or recycled and to try again
A green light symbolizes non-corrective feedback.
Notice that fossilization may be the result of too many green lights when there should have been some
yellow or red lights.

Too much negative feedback (interruptions, corrections) often leads learners to give up trying to
communicate.
Too much positive cognitive feedback (the teacher lets errors to go uncorrected) serves to reinforce
those errors of the learner resulting in the persistence and the eventual fossilization of such errors.

The task of the teacher is to find a balance between positive and negative cognitive feedback, providing
enough green lights to encourage continue communication, but not so many that crucial errors go
unnoticed, and on the other hand, providing enough red lights to call attention to crucial errors but not
so many that the learner is discouraged from attempting to speak.
Corrective feedback should always be positive and avoid the administration of punitive reinforcement or
correction that may be viewed bye learners as an affective red light (devaluating, dehumanizing or
insulting)

Early research on error correction showed that students in a classroom generally want and expect errors
to be corrected.
Basic options and features for language teachers on error treatment:

 To treat or ignore errors

 To treat now or later
 To stimulate other learners to initiate treatment
 To test for the effectiveness of the treatment
 To simply indicate that an error occurred
 To model a correction
 To indicate the type of error committed

FORM FOCUSED INSTRUCTION (FFI)

Over the past few decades there has been a shift from an emphasis on language forms to attention to
functional language within communicative contexts, so what do we mean by FORM FOCUSED
INSTRUCTION? And what is its place in nowadays approach on the language teaching?

Spada: “FFI is any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to language form
either implicitly or explicitly”
There is a range of approaches to form, on the one side, are the more explicit, discrete-point,
metalinguistic explanations and discussions of rules and exceptions, or curricula governed by
grammatical or phonological categories.

7
On the other end are, implicit, incidental references to form, noticing (the learner paying attention to
specific linguistic features in input) and finally,the incorporation of forms into communicative tasks or
grammar consciousness raising.

Categories of Error Treatment

According to recent research on error treatment and FFI we can define the Types of Feedback and
Learners Responds to feedback as follows:

Types of feedback Responses to Feedback

Recast: an implicit type of corrective feedback that Uptake: a student utterance that
reformulates or expands an ill formed immediately follows the teacher’s feedback

Clarification request: an elicitation of a Repair: as a result of T feedback the

reformulation or repetition from a student. learner corrects an ill-formed utterance
through self repair or peer repair

Metalinguistic feedback: provides comments or

information related to the well formedness of the Repetition: the learner repeats the correct
student utterance form as a result of T feedback and some-
times incorporates it in a longer utterance.
Elicitation: a corrective technique that prompts the
learner to self- correct.

Explicit correction: A clear indication to the student

that the form is incorrect and provision of a correct
form.

Repetition: The teacher repeats the ill-formed part

usually with a change in intonation

Effectiveness of FFI

1. Communicative language instruction can indeed increase learners’ level of attainment.

(achievement, success)
Rate of acquisition and level of ultimate attainment in a language are enhanced by instruction.
Error treatment and focus on language forms appear to be most effective when incorporated into a
communicative, learner-centred curriculum, and least effective when error treatment is a dominant
pedagogical feature

2. When to correct? Teachers should consider what are the more propitious moments to draw learner’s
attention to language form. Depending on the context teachers should interrupt learners, or choose a
recast , decide whether to correct beginner learners less than advanced learners, etc. also consider to
apply FFI before or after communicative practice.

3. Explicit instruction is more appropriate for easily stated grammar rules and implicit instruction is more
successful for more complex rules.

4. Frequency of input and exposure to FFI is worth considering as a factor to achieve proficiency.

5. According to learners’ characteristics, styles and strategies certain learners clearly benefit more than
others from FFI.
Analytic, field-independent, left-brain-oriented learners internalize explicit FFI better than relational, field-
dependent, right-brain-oriented learners.

The teacher needs to develop the intuition through experience and solid eclectic theoretical foundations
for ascertaining what kind of corrective feedback is appropriate at a given moment, and what forms of
uptake should be expected.
8
Conclusion:

Learners are indeed creatively operating on a second language, constructing either consciously or
subconsciously, a system for understanding and producing utterances in the foreign language.
It should no be considered an imperfect system, but a variable, dynamic approximative system,
reasonable to a great degree in the mind of the learners, even though idiosyncratic.
Students are processing language on the basis of knowledge of their own interlanguage, which is a
system lying between two languages.
The teacher’s task is to value learners, prize their attempts to communicate and then, provide optimal
feedback for this system to evolve towards foreign language acquisition.