L1 TRANSFER ON L2 by Hacer Kökcür & Duygu Işık

RESEARCH QUESTION Does first language (L1) influence the acquisition of the second language (L2)in terms of grammar, or not?

AIM To understand whether there is a transfer on L2 from L1 in the aspect of adjective use ( as a similarity) and definite article use (as a difference) To suggest ways of how teachers can benefit our results in their classrooms.

LITERATURE REVIEW

TRANSFER Transfer is defined as “the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired” (Odlin, 2000, p. 27).

TRANSFER Positive transfer Negative transfer  Underproduction: Learners may produce very few or no examples of a target language structure.  Overproduction: Learner produces too many of the same structure violating the norms.  Production errors: Substitutions, use of a L1 form in L2.  Misinterpretation: L1 structures influence the interpretation of messages in L2.

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS “Contrastive analysis (CA) seems to be a hybrid linguistic enterprise … and we might say, CA is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e. contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a CA is always concerned with a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be compared.”

CA “Contrastive analysis assumed that many of the mistakes made by learners are caused by differences between the native and target languages, and led to a large number of extremely valuable language descriptions and pedagogical grammars” (Spolsk, 1979, p. 251).

ERROR ANALYSIS “Error analysis, the technique of examining and categorizing systematic errors of language learners, owes its popularity in part to trends in L1 research, and in part to the inability of existing theories of L2 acquisition to explain some of the phenomena occurring in the speech of L2 learners”. Chun (1980, p. 292)

METHODOLOGY PARTICIPANTS The participants of this study are 80 prep class students( 20 A1, 20 A2, 20 B1 and 20 B2 students). They are all students at Gediz University. Their ages are between nineteen (19) and twenty-two (22). Their proficiency level in English is between elementary to upper- intermediate. All of the participants are native speakers of Turkish and learning English as a foreign language. They do not know any other language nor do they have any constant contact with foreign people.

METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION TOOL We used the students’ writings to collect data. DATA ANALYSIS We counted the expected total usage of each structure and wrote them down. After counting the total usage, we counted the correct and misuse of each structure and wrote them down, too. By comparing the correct, incorrect and omission of each structure, we got the misuse percentage of each structure by all participants, and put them in charts.

RESULTS

A1 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE INCORRECT USAGE8428 OMISSION TOTAL USAGE

A2 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE INCORRECT USAGE51-3 OMISSION TOTAL USAGE

B1 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE INCORRECT USAGE1-413 OMISSION TOTAL USAGE

B2 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE INCORRECT USAGE1-314 OMISSION TOTAL USAGE

A1 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE % 94.52%30.23%24.63%74.02% INCORRECT USAGE % 5.47%9.30%2.89%10.38% OMISSION %-60.46%72.46%15.58% TOTAL USAGE % 100%

A2 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE % 96.35%34.04%31.34%78.12% INCORRECT USAGE % 3.65%2.12%-4.68% OMISSION %-63.82%68.65%17.18% TOTAL USAGE % 100%

B1 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE % 99.57%38.88%44.44%73.58% INCORRECT USAGE % 0.43%-4.93%12.26% OMISSION %-61.12%50.61%14.15% TOTAL USAGE % 100%

B2 LEVEL ADJECTIVESDEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION CORRECT USAGE % 99.62%55.10%53.44%81.60% INCORRECT USAGE % 0.37%-5.17%16.09% OMISSION %-44.89%41.37%2.29% TOTAL USAGE % 100%

GENERAL PERCENTAGES

ADJECTIVES CORRECT USAGE770 (98.08%) INCORRECT USAGE15( 1.91) TOTAL USAGE785( 100%)

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE SUBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE DIRECT OBJECT DEFINITE ARTICLE WITH THE OBJECT OF PREPOSITION THE IN GENERAL CORRECT USAGE 77(39.89 %)105 (38.18 %)256(76.6%)438 (54.61%) INCORRECT USAGE 5(2.59%)9 (3.27%)38(11.37%)52 (6.48%) OMISSION111 (57.51%)161 (58.54%)40 (11.97%)312 (38.90%) TOTAL USAGE193 (24.06%)275(34.28%)334(41.64%)802 (100%)

DISCUSSION We found out that there is a significant difference in the incorrect usage of similar and dissimilar structures.  The similar structure (adjectives) of the two languages (L1= Turkish, L2= English) has a very small percentage of incorrect usage  However the dissimilar structure (definite article) has a significantly big percentage of incorrect usage even in its different usages.

OTHER POSSIBLE REASONS BEHIND THE INCORRECT USAGES The L2- input ( which may be naturalistic and/or classroom based) Innate linguistic knowledge not obviously traceable to either L1- transfer or L2 input

THANKS FOR YOUR LISTENING