L1 transfer in Second Language
Acquisition (SLA)
Adapted from Franceschina (2003)
What is transfer?
“[transfer is evidenced as] those instances
of deviation from the norms of either
language which occur in the speech of
bilinguals as a result of their familiarity
with more than one language”
Weinreich (1953: 1)
“[transfer is] the use of the native language (or
other language) information in the acquisition
of an L2 (or additional language)”
Gass (1996: 321)
“[transfer is] influence that the learner’s L1
exerts on the acquisition of an L2”
Ellis (1997: 51)
Other terms





Transfer
Mother tongue influence (Corder, 1967)
Native language influence (Gass, 1996)
Cross-linguistic influence (Kellerman and
Sharwood-Smith, 1986; Odlin, 1989)
Cross-linguistic generalization (Zobl, 1984)
Early research




1950s-1960s
Behaviourism
Lado (1957), Fries (1945)
Positive transfer (facilitation)
vs
Negative transfer (interference)

Contrastive Analysis

Methodology (strong version of CAH):
1. Find out what the differences are between
pairs of languages
2. On the basis of 1, you can predict areas in
which L2 learners will have difficulties and
those where they won’t

Pedagogical uses
Contrastive Analysis (cont’d)



Difference = difficulty
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
(Lado 1957) include steps of description,
selection, comparison, and prediction
Types/hierarchy of difficulty in L2:
(more difficult) split — new — absent —
coalesced (two items in L1 become coalesced (come
together) into essentially one item in L2) —
correspondence (less difficult) (p. 307)
Contrastive Analysis Hypotheses





1. Strong form: errors can be predicted
2. Weak form: some are traceable;
a posteriori explanation
Strong form: theoretically untenable
Work form: impractical/inadequate
Lost ground to error analysis in the 1970s
Problems with CAH
CAH was empirically unsupported:
–
It predicted some difficulties that were not
observed in L2 learners
–
It failed to predict some difficulties that were
observed in L2 learners
Error Analysis



Corder (1967)
Mistake vs Error
EA methodology:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Collect data
Identify errors
Classify errors
Quantify errors
Identify source
Remedy
Classifying errors
Source or errors:
–
Interlingual
–
Intralingual
Problems with E.A.

Total reliance on errors (not the whole picture)

Difficulties identifying source of errors
Morpheme order studies

Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974)
Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974)

Claim: there is little or no influence of the L1 in
L2 development
Problems with no-L1-influence-onSLA views

There IS empirical evidence of L1 influence

Methodological drawbacks of morphemes
studies
Krashen’s account of L1 transfer

No L1 influence in the acquired system

L1 influence is a communication strategy
(Krashen, 1982, 1985)
Current views on transfer
General consensus: the L1 and general
developmental processes shape SLA.
No agreement on what exactly each
contributes, or how.
Transfer may be realised as:



Errors
Facilitation
Avoidance strategies
Where can transfer manifest itself?




Rate of acquisition
Route of development
Frequency of occurrence of errors/omissions
Perception and production
Recent developments

Transfer in L3 acquisition (Cenoz and Jessner,
2000)

L2 effects on the L1 (Cook, 2003)
References











Bailey, N., C. G. Madden and S. D. Krashen. 1974: Is there a ‘natural sequence’ in adult second language
learning? Language Learning 24, 235-243.
Cenoz, J. and U. Jessner. (eds.) 2000: English in Europe: the acquisition of a third language. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Corder, P. 1967: The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL) 5, 2/3:
161-170.
Cook, V. J. (ed.) 2003: Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1973: Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245-258.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt.1974: Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24,
37-53.
Ellis, R. 1997: Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fries, C. 1945: Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Gass, S. M. 1996: Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: the role of language transfer, in W. C.
Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia, eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.
Pp. 317-345.
Kellerman, E. 1979: Transfer and non-transfer: where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
2, 37-57.
Kellerman, E. and M. Sharwood Smith. 1986: Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
References




Krashen, S. D. 1982: Principles and practice in SLA. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. 1985: The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lado, R. 1957: Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Odlin, T. 1989: Language transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Reading
Gass, S. 1996: Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: the
role of language transfer. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.): Handbook
of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp. 317345.

FRICODAN S.A. CATÁLOGO ASIÁTICO FRICODAN 2015

First and Second language Acquisition Theories -

第4回ROBO-剣参加者向け開発ツール講習会