native language interference when learning second … language interference when learning second...
TRANSCRIPT
Native language interference when learning second language writing
Itamar Shatz
Tel Aviv University
Introduction
Crosslinguistic effect:
Transfer of structures from the L1
to the L2.
Negative transfer (interference)
Positive transfer
Awareness of L1 interference
facilitates learning.
Pedagogical Significance
Improved design:
Teaching
Curriculum
Software
This study is limited to the written work of 70 essays of
Form One Chinese students who are studying in one
public school. The written essays collected are from a
specific topic only. Therefore, the study will not be able
to give conclusive evidence regarding other Form One
Chinese students from other proficiency levels…
(Darus & Ching, p. 252)
Limitations (Previous Research)
Multiple L1s
Multiple proficiency levels
Large, heterogeneous sample
The Corpus
EFCAMDAT:
The Education-First Cambridge
Open Language Database
532,940 texts
83,385 learners
137 nationalities
Placement test
Proficiency level
Lessons
Symbol Error
AR Article
C Capitalization
MW Missing Word
VT Verb Tense
WO Word Order
Methodology
L1 Number of learners
Portuguese 27,359 (49.2%)
Russian 7,346 (13.2%)
Spanish 5,998 (10.8%)
German 5,155 (9.3%)
French 4,195 (7.5%)
Italian 3,731 (6.7%)
Japanese 1,847 (3.3%)
Total 55,631
Proficiency
level
Original
levels
CEFR level
1 1-3 A1
2 4-6 A2
3 7-9 B1
4 10-12 B2
5 13-15 C1
WALS:
World Atlas of Language Structures
Error types:
Articles
Plurality
Prepositions
Capitalization
MANOVA / ANOVAs
Pairwise comparisons
Correlations
Data analysis
Results
MANOVA:
Learners’ L1 significantly affected
their interlanguage error patterns.
F(24, 3197288) = 487.5, p < .0005, η2 = .003
Article errors:
Significantly affected by L1.
F(6, 916503) = 1098.25, p < .0005, η2 = .007
Feature English Portuguese,
Spanish,
German,
French,
Italian
Russian Japanese
Definite
articles
Distinct from
demonstrative
None None
Indefinite
articles
Distinct from 'one' Same
as 'one'
None
Plurality errors:
Significantly affected by L1.
F(6, 916503) = 95.01, p < .0005, η2 = .001
Feature English Portuguese,
Italian
Russian,
French
Spanish German Japanese
Coding of
nominal
pluralityPlural suffix
Occurrence
of nominal
plurality
All nouns,
always
obligatory
Only human
nouns,
optional
Plurality in
independent
personal
pronouns
Person-
number
stem
Missing value
in WALS
Person-
number stem
+ nominal
plural affix
Person-
number stem
+ pronominal
plural
affix
Person stem
+ nominal
plural affix
The
associative
plural
No
associative
plural
Unique
periphrastic
associative plural
Associative
same as
additive
plural
Preposition errors:
Significantly affected by L1.
F(6, 916503) = 63.01, p < .0005, η2 < .0005
Feature English Portuguese,
Russian,
Spanish, French,
Italian
German Japanese
Order of
adposition and
noun phrase
Prepositions Postpositions
Relationship
between the
order of object
and verb and the
order of
adposition and
noun phrase
VO and
prepositions
Lacks a dominant
order
OV and
postpositions
Different errors
Absent features
Proportion analysis
Additional linguistic factors
Capitalization errors:
Significantly affected by L1.
F(6, 916503) = 836.06, p < .0005, η2 = .005
English Portuguese,
Spanish,
French,
Italian
German Russian Japanese
Script Latin LatinLatin
Cyrillic Mixed
Capitalization
Large
number
of word
classes
To a smaller
degree All nouns
To a
smaller
degree
Appears in
Romanized
versions
Discussion
The study explored effects of learners’
L1 on their L2 writing errors.
Conclusions
L1 significantly affects L2 acquisition:
Varies by error.
Affected by structural relationship.
Depends on L2 proficiency.
More error types.
Quantitative analysis of features.
Expanded error analysis.
Future Directions
Selected References
ReferencesBeaufays, F., & Strope, B. (2013). Language model capitalization. In ICASSP, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,
Speech and Signal Processing - Proceedings (pp. 6749–6752). doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6638968
Bennui, P. (2008). A Study of L1 Intereference in the Writing of Thai EFL Students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72–104.
Benson, C. (2002). Transfer / Cross-linguistic influence. ELT Journal, 56(1), 68–70.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage. International Education Journal, 1(1), 22–31.
Darus, S., & Ching, K. H. (2009). Common Errors in Written English Essays of Form One Chinese Students : A Case Study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 242–253.
Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (2013). The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://wals.info
Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, T., & Korhonen, A. (2014). Automatic Linguistic Annotation of Large Scale L2 Databases: The EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCamDat). In R. T. Miller & E. Al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 240–254). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Huang, L. S. (2009). The potential influence of L1 (Chinese) on L2 (English) communication. ELT Journal, 64(2), 155–164. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp039
Jiang, X., Guo, Y., Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, D., Sun, L., & Korhonen, A. (2014). Native Language Identification Using Large , Longitudinal Data. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14)(pp. 3309–3312). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., & Hanique, I. (2010). Native language effects in learning second-language grammatical gender: A training study. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 150–158. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.06.001
Yuan, H.-C. (2014). A Corpus-based Study on the Influence of L1 on EFL Learners’ Use of Prepositions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(12), 2513–2521. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.12.2513-2521