Final Paper

CROSS LINGUISTIC NEGATIVE TRANSFER IN SECOND LANGUAGE

ACQUISITION
1. INTRODUCTION
This study considers the importance that cross-linguistic influences have on second language
acquisition, trying to analyze how negative transfer affects the process The relationship
between the same two languages in a contact situation was investigated. Since the majority of
studies on cross-linguistic influence were done in either of these two fields, there was a
challenge to incorporate two studies in the framework of the same research and not to damage
its integrity. This paper is structured as follows. fter an account of the literature on cross-
linguistic influence as it is reflected in both fields, recent findings on negative transfer are
reported. brief comparative analysis of semantic differences in Turkish and !nglish is
followed by the results of the study. Then findings from the study are presented.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON CROSS LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE RESEARCH
"ifferent terms and phrases have been used by researchers to refer to the phenomenon
of cross-linguistic influence#$ language mi%ing &Selinker, #'()* +ellerman, #',-., linguistic
interference &Schachter and /utherford, #'('* /ingbom, #',(., language transfer &0ado,
#'1(*
Selinker, #'()* +ellerman, #',-* 2dlin, #','., the role of the mother tongue and native
language influence &3aster, #',(* 3esthrie and "unne, #''4* 5arvis, )444..
The role of cross-linguistic influence &607., or linguistic transfer in second language
acquisition has been a field of e%tensive research in the past few decades &!llis, #''8* 9as and
Selinker, #''8* +ellerman, #''1* 0arsen-:reeman and 0ong, #''#* 2dlin, #','* Selinker,
#'').. Transfer is a traditional term from psychology of learning which means imposition of
previously learned patterns onto a new learning situation. 7n second language acquisition, the
#
knowledge of the native language &0#. in acquisition of a foreign language &0). can indeed
have a facilitation or inhibition effect on the learner;s progress in mastering a new language.
Traditionally, facilitation effect is known as positive transfer, while inhibition is considered
negative transfer. !rroneous performance in 0) ascribed to certain constraints e%isting in the
native language can be the simplest e%ample of negative transfer. The latter seems to be of
concern among scientists working on second language acquisition &S0..
The question of what is more likely to be transferred from 0# to 0) and how the mechanism
of transfer works has given rise to different linguistic models and hypotheses over the last two
decades. 2ne of the earlier hypotheses on 607, the 6ontrastive nalysis <ypothesis &0ado,
#'1(. tried to predict the likelihood of linguistic transfer in second language acquisition based
on the similarities as well as differences between various aspects of 0# and 0). That is,
similarities in linguistic structures in two languages will result in positive transfer, while
differences will create an interference which is known as negative transfer. <owever, the
survey of the recent research on 607 shows that the 6ontrastive nalysis <ypothesis fails to
find significant support and its validity has been questioned by many scholars &9as and
Selinker, #',-* 3c0aughlin, #',8..
nother theory underlying language transfer is a theory of markedness &!ckman, 3oravcsik,
and =irth,#',>* Seliger, #''#.. The core hypothesis of markedness theory concerns
correlations, i.e. pairs of ?marked@ &least distributed. and ?unmarked@ &more distributed.
structural entities in the language. ccording to this theory, those linguistic phenomena in the
target language which are more marked than the corresponding phenomena in the native
language will be more difficult to learn. <owever, there is a problem to apply the markedness
principle to cross-linguistic analyses, which makes it problematic to predict which structures
in 0) would be more likely substituted with the corresponding structures in 0#.
)
side from the above purely linguistic approaches to 607, there is an array of theories
pertaining to a psycholinguistic view on language acquisition. This view has been always
shaped by dominant psychological frameworks, i.e. behaviorist or cognitive. =ithin a
behaviorist framework, which was particularly popular in 84s-14s &:ries, #'81* 0ado, #'1(.,
transfer was seen as a direct result of the influence imposed by 0# structures on corresponding
structures in 0). 2ver the last twenty years a cognitive approach to language transfer, as well
as to other psycholinguistic phenomena, has prevailed in the field of S0 . 2ne of the most
important findings of the time was that 0# directly and indirectly influences 0) acquisition.
7ndirect influence, in turn, reflects underlying organization principles of the language and the
learner;s metalinguistic awareness of that knowledge.
The most revolutionary linguistic theory of the past few decades within the cognitive
framework was that of universal grammar proposed by 6homsky &#'>1.. 7n the light of this
theory, cross-linguistic influence must be predetermined by certain innate constraints e%isting
in any natural language acquisition. ccording to 6homsky, the learner must take a very
limited input in 0) and construct a clean grammar of the language being learned. The final
product would be the language in which redundancies will be minimized at all costs.
The universal grammar theory and its application to the major linguistic fields, including
second language acquisition, have attracted a lot of scientific attention over the last three
decades &e.g. van Auren and Sharwood Smith, #',1* 6order, #'')* :lynn, #',>* =hite,
#'').. <owever, it has also become an issue of debate and has been opposed by the
connectionism theory &9asser, #''4.. /ather than focusing on innate constraints,
connectionists try to look at the ways in which the learner e%tracts regularities from the 0)
input.
7n addition to models and theories which were briefly discussed above, different
psycolinguistic factors, like metalinguistic awareness, processing demands, language
-
proficiency, etc., have been reflected in studies on 607. Studies on these aspects of 607, albeit
infrequent in the field, were mostly concerned with compensatory strategies that 0) learners
use to perform different linguistic tasks &Aialystok, #''4* :aerch and +asper, #',-.. 7n this
respect, the 0# role in 0) acquisition is viewed not as a developmental factor but as a strategy
of using the second language &+ellerman, #''1..
3. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
The data was collected from two different students. The first student was a first grade
student who was under the age of (. <is name was hmet and his native language is Turkish.
<e was e%posed to #4 hours of english in a week. !nglish is e%clusively used in the
classroom. t home he used his mother tongue. The second student was yse. She was also a
first grade student under the age of seven. yse was born raised in Turkey until the age of (.
Then, with her parents she moved to Bew Cork. She continued her education in one of the
primary schools there. t first she did not know a word of !nglish later she developed her
!nglish gradually. Aased on the observations of the two different students, it was understood
that the mistakes or obstacles they face were similar at first yet later yse got rid of 0#
transfer while hmet still continued to do.
. SE!ANTIC TRANSFER
Dsing the theoretical background briefly presented above, semantic errors made by
both students in the compositions, translations and vocabulary tests, were e%tracted and
analayzed. !rrors were studied relative to the differences between Turkish and !nglish
through a contrastive analysis between both languages in problematic semantic areas.
2ccasionally, however, the relationship between some kind of errors and these categories is
difficult to establish as can be seen in the following sections. 7n addition, the importance that
native language transfer has with respect to the total amount of errors and the possible
consequences of that will be presented. The information received from the two different
8
students of learners will also be compared$ "o they make the same kinds of errorsE 7s native
language transfer a clear phenomenon in both students although the learning setting differsE 7s
semantic transfer equally evident in semantic mistakes made by both groupsE 7s there any
significant quantitative or qualitative difference, i.e. of semantic error types, in the semantic
errors produced by Turkish and merian learnersE =hy yse stopped making the same
mistakes as hmet after a whileE They were observed by two different teachers to collect
information on both students.
ccording to many language teachers and linguists similarities and dissimilarities in
word forms, along with similarities and dissimilarities in word meanings are e%tremely
relevant to how quickly a particular foreign language may be learned by speakers of another
language &2dlin, #','$((.. Support for this position comes from e%amples documented in the
data.
The Spanish students were given a test in which they had to guess the meaning of
certain !nglishwords that they were not supposed to know. Students did especially well with
the words on test items that had spelling identical or at least similar to those found in Spanish
forms. <owever,the learners did not answer or answered incorrectly to those words that they
were not supposedto know and whose spellings were not similar to any word in their native
language. :or e%ample, telephone means telefon in Turkish.
"espite the advantages of a large le%icon common to the two languages there are
nevertheless pitfalls in the form of false friends as can be seen from the vocabulary test
results. :or instance,
- Mama means ?pet food@ or ?baby food@ not ?mother.@
- Sempatik means ?nice or kind &personality trait.@ not ?sympathetic.@
- Apartman@ means ?apartment block@ not ?apartment.@
- Cip means ?jeep@ or ?van.@
1
- ?Sef@ means ?boss@, not ?chef@.
- ?Personel@ means ?personnel@ or ?staff@. Turks often confuse this with ?personal@.
- ?Biskvi refers to various snack crackers or cookies, not ?biscuits.@
- ?Miting@ means ?demonstration@ or ?protest@, not ?meeting@.
". DISSI!ILARITIES IN WORD !EANINGS
part from similarities and dissimilarities in word forms, some problems arise with
respect to similarities and dissimilarities in word meanings. The Turkish learners showed
problems with the correct use of some !nglish verbs. :or instance,
-7 make my homework in the afternoon,
-<e made practice his !nglish pronunciarion
-<e is going to make sport tomorrow.
- She needs to make e%ercise more.
These problems may come from the fact that verbs such as do and make share with the
correspondent verb in Turkish yapmak. s a result,. :rom this view, these errors can be
attached to negative transfer due to native language influence.
The second e%ample is related to ?do military service@. 7n !nglish it is ?do military
service@ but Turkish students use it as ?go to soldier@. 7n Turkish we use it with the verb
gitmek therefore, students have hard time in learning the structure ?do his military service@.
-7 have to go to soldier in two months.
- he went to soldier in "iyarbakir.
The third e%ample is very similar to the first one. Turkish has one word for jobFwork
and it is is. Therefore, Turkish students confuse these two words and use them interchangably.
:or instance$
-7 did the work well.
-Bobody likes e%tra works.
>
The fourth e%ample is the difference between say and tell. Turkish has the one word
for say and tell. !nglish ?Say@ is used for general statements that aren;t necessarily used to
address someone or if 7;m not sure of the fact. 9enerally, this is for reported statements
without object pronounsFspeakers. 7t;s also used for direct quotes. :or e%ample$
-She said me it was her birthday.
?Tell@ means ?to inform@ or ?to e%plain@. 7t is used much more often and is for when a
person is told something directly from another speaker. Aasically, if you are including an
object pronounFspeaker then you should definitely use ?tell@. :or instance,
-She told to me it was her birthday.
The fifth e%ample is the acmakF kapamak. 7n Turkish we do not have different words
for acmak or kapamak. 2n the other hand, in !nglish it is used as turn onFturn off for
electronics. :or phones answerFhang up is used. 2penFclose is for things and places.
-6an you close the radioE 7;m trying to study.
-7 tried to open the phone, but the caller had closed it before 7 could get there.
>. 62B60DS72B
:rom the data obtained from the first student hmet, cross linguistic negative transfer
was very obvious. ,4 translations and >4 vocabulary tests were analyzed. G#4 of semantic
errors were documented in the first year. :rom the data obtained from the second student
yse, cross linguistic negative transfer were present. ,4 trasnlations and >4 vocabulary tests
were analyzed. G#4 of semantic errors were documented in the first year.
7n the second year the percentage of the error of the first student stayed the same on
the other hand the second student yse eliminated the errors related to the cross linguistic
negative transfer. G4 of semantic errors were documented.
The results from this study show that native language influence takes places in the
target second language acquisition of the students. 7n fact, errors documented in the data
(
collected contribute to show the importance of native language semantic structure in acquiring
a second language process. Several factors Hlanguage mi%ing, proficiency levels in 0),
literary skills in 0#, social factors, individual variationsH affect the process of second
language learning
#. $I$LIOGRAPH%
Aialystok, !. &#''4.. 6ommunication strategies$ psychological analysis of second language
use. 2%ford$ Aasil Alackwell.
:aerch, 6. I +asper, 9., eds. &#',-.. Strategies in interlanguage communication. 0ondon$
0ongman.
9ass, S. and 5. Schachter &)448.. Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acuisition.
0ondon $ 6ambridge Dniversity Jress.
+ellerman. ! &#',-.. ?Bow you see it, now you don;t@ in S. 9ass 0. Selinker &eds..
Language !ransfer in Language Learning. /owley, 3ass.$ Bewbury <ouse.
0ado, /. &#'1(.. Linguistics Across Cultures Ann. rbor$ Dniversity of 3ichigan Jress.
0arsen-:reeman, ". I 0ong, 3. &#''#.. n introduction to second language research.
0ondon$ 0ongman.
3esthrie, /. I "unne, T. T. &#''4.. ?Syntactic variation in language shift$ the relative clause
in South frican 7ndian !nglish@. Language "ariation and C#ange ).
2dlin, T. &#','.. Language !ransfer$ Cross%linguistic influence in language learning. Bew
Cork$ 6ambridge Dniversity Jress.
/ingbom, <. &#',(.. !#e &ole of t#e 'irst Language in Second Language Learning.
6levedon$ 3ultilingual 3atters.
Selinker, 0. &#'().. ?7nterlanguage.@ (nternational &evie) of Applied Linguistics -$ )4'-)-#.
Schachter, 5. I =. /utherford. &#'('.. ?"iscourse :unction and 0anguage Transfer.@
*orking Papers in Bilingualism #'$ #-#).
,