Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Cross Linguistic Influence & Learner Language

No description
by

Katia Barrera

on 30 April 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Cross Linguistic Influence & Learner Language

Cross Linguistic Influence & Learner Language
CAH
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
What is CAH?
The stockpile of comparative and contrastive data on a multitude of pairs of languages
The principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language system with the second language
According to Fries's slot filler grammar would enable a linguist to accurately describe the two languages in question and to match those two description against each other to determine valid contrast, difference, etc.

Charles C. Fries
Cross-Linguistic Influence
From CAH to CLI
Predicted the difficulties that a language could generate (a priori).
STRONG VERSION


WEAK VERSION
Used the categories of difficulty to interpret the errors made by a learner (a posteriori).
The weak version is what we
TODAY
know as Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI)
(Wardraugh)
We all recognize the significant role that previous experience plays in any learning act, and that the influence of the native language as previous experience must not be
overlooked
.
CLI
Markedness and Universal Grammar
FRED ECKMAN
Markedness method
Celse-Murcia and Hawking
A
AN
It distinguishes members of a pair of related forms or structures by assuming that the marked member of a pair contains at least one more feature than the unmarked one. In addition, the unmarked (neutral) member has a wider range of distribution than the marked one.
Less difficult
More difficult
ERROR ANALYSIS
MISTAKE
FEEDBACK
LANGUAGE LEARNING
Mistake
Refers to a performance error, a "slip", and can be self-corrected.
Errors
Reflects the competence of the learner, and cannot be self-corrected
"PEOPLE IS"
ANALYZING ERRORS
Strategy of avoidance

To analyze errors we need to follow 3 steps
Identifying and describing errors
Corder: proposed a model to identify errors.
OVERT: Erroneous utterances ungrammatically at the sentence level.
COVERT: Grammatically well-formed, but not according to context of communication.
Des
cribe the
error
L
enno
n (1991)
Diff
erent c
ategories for descr
iption
of errors.
- Generalized: additio
n, o
mission, substitution, word o
rder.
- Level of langua
ge
- Global or L
ocal.
Source of errors
- Domai
n and extent.
Yesterday, my the brain I lost.
Human learning theories described
interfering
elements of learning, concluding that where no interference could be predicted, if we could
transfer
positively all the other items in a language.
Stockwell, Bowen and Martin proposed in 1965 a
hierarchy of difficulty
, in order to teachers or linguists could make a prediction of the relative difficulty of a given aspect of the target language.
Level 0
TRANSFER
The learner can simply transfer a sound ,structure, or lexical item from the native language to the target language.

Level 1
COALESCENCE
Two items in the native language become coalesced into essentially one item in the target language.

Level 2
UNDERDIFFERENTIATION
An item in the native language is absent in the target language.

Level 3
REINTERPRETATION
An item that exits in the native language is given a new shape or distribution

Level 4
OVERDIFFERENTATION
A new item entirely, bearing little if any similarity to the native language item, must be learned.

Level 5.
SPLIT
one item in the native language becomes two or more item in the target language, requiring the learner to make a new distinction.

In
terlingual
Trans
fer: “
the book of Jack”
instead of “ Jack’s book”
Intralingu
al Tr
ansfer:
Overgeneralization

“Does John can sing?”

Context of Learning:
Classroom or a social situation (untutored second language learning)

Students often make errors because of:

Misleading explanation from the teacher
Faulty presentation of a structure or word in a textbook
Teacher may provide incorrect information
The sociolinguistic context of natural may itself be a source of error
* Idiosyncratic dialect

STAGES OF LEARNER LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
Brown proposed 4 stages based on a early model of Corder.


1. Random errors:
"John cans sing"
or
"John can to sing"
GUESSING

2. Emergent
L : I go New York
NS: You're going to New York?
L: What?
NS: You will go to New York
L: Yes
NS: When?
L: 1792
NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1972
L: Yes, I go 1972.

3. Systematic

"Many fish are in the lake.These fish are serving in the restaurants near the lake"

Manifest more consistency in producing the second language
The learner understand and correct his errors when they are pointed out.
4. Stabilization

The learner mastered the second language system.
Fluency and intended meaning are not problematic
The learner have the ability to self correct without waiting for a feedback.
Variability in learning language
"it has to be you” or "it must to be you”
One of the controversial current debates in SLA is which variability can be systematically explained.
speaking and writing
variation
According to Tarone “capability continuum paradigm”
1. Variation according to linguistic context
2. Variation according to psychological processing factors
3. Variation according to social context
4. Variation according to language function

Variation's sources
context
style
gender
type of task
modal
auxiliary
verb
Fossilization
The relatively permanent incorporation of incorrect linguistic forms into a person's second language competence
Affective feedback

Positive: Keep talking, I'm listening.
Neutral: I'm not sure I want to maintain this conversation.
Negative: This conversation is over

Cognitive feedback

Positive: I understand your message; it's clear.
Neutral: I'm not sure if I understand you or not.
Negative: I don't understand what you're saying; it's not clear
FFI
Form-focused instruction
"Any pedagogical pedagogical effort which is used
draw the learner's attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly"
Spada
Error treatment
According to Vigil and Oller's theory cognitive feedback must be optimal to be effective.
Message
Affective feedback
Green light
Yellow light
Red Light
Abort
}
Continue
}
Recicle
Continue
Cognitive feedback
Error treatment options (Bailey)
Basic options:
1. To treat or to ignore
2. To treat immediately or to delay
3. To transfer treatment or not
4. To transfer to another individual, a subgroup or the whole class
5. To return, or not, to original error maker after treatment
6. To permit other learners to initiate treatment
7. To test for efficacy of the treatment
Possible features:
1. Fact of error indicated
2. Location indicated
3. Opportunity for a new attempt given
4. Model provided
5. Error type indicated
6. Remedy indicated
7. Improvement indicated
8. Praise indicated
Deviant utterance
Type
Source
Linguistic complexity
Local or Global
Mistake or Error
Learner's affective state
Learner's linguistic stage
Pedagogical focus
Communicative context
Teacher style
Treat
Ignore
Full transcript