LANGUAGE TRANSFER SRI SURYANTI

WORD ORDER STUDIES OF TRANSFER ODLIN (1989;1990) UNIVERSAL POSITION WHAT EXTENT WORD ORDER IN INTERLANGUAGE IS AFFECTED BY THE L1 MUYSKEN (1984) OV PATTERN OV PATTERNS ARE THE RESULT OF “STYLIST CONSIDERATIONS”

BASIC WORD ORDER TRANSFER (ODLIN, 1990)  THE RELATIVE LACK OF RESEARCH ON BEGINNER LEARNERS  LEARNERS ARE LIKELY TO BE HIGHLY CONSCIOUS OF WORD ORDER REPORTS: KOREAN – ENGLISH & SPANISH – ENGLISH BILINGUALS WERE MUCH MORE CONSISTENT IN JUDGJING WORD ORDER ERRORS THAN ARTICLE ERRORS.

WORD ORDER STUDIES OF TRANSFER ZOBL (1986) TRANSFER POSITION DUTCH – GERMAN SVO: IN MAIN CLAUSE SOV: IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSE) RUTHERFORD (1983) TRANSFER POSITION JAPANESE LEARNERS OF ENGLISH DON’T AT ANY TIME PRODUCE WRITING IN WHICH THE VERB IS WRONGLY PLACED SENTENCE (SOV vs SVO)

MINIMALIST THEORETICAL POSITIONS ON TRANSFER NEWMARK & REIBEL (1968) IGNORANCE HYPOTHESIS To acquire a language structure by structure, proceeding from the simplest to the complex KRASHEN (1983) COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT The learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence

MINIMALIST THEORETICAL POSITIONS ON TRANSFER DULAY & BURT (1972) GENERAL PROCESSING STRATEGIES Identified a number of general production strategies to account for the various types of errors ERVIN & TRIPP (1974) CLAIMED NEWMARK’S IDEA Interference was more likely in context where the L2 was not part of the learner’s larger social milieu and the use of tasks, such as translation, that predisposed learners to refer their L1

CONSTRAINTS ON TRANSFER LANGUAGE LEVEL (PHONOLOGY, LEXIS, GRAMMAR & DISCOURSE) DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS (NATURAL PROCESSES OF INTERLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT) MARKEDNESS (THE EXTENT TO WHICH SPECIFIC LINGUISTICS FEATURES ARE ‘SPECIAL’ IN SOME WAY) LANGUAGE DISTANCE & PSYCHOTYPOLOGY (THE PERCEPTIONS OF SPEAKERS THAT HAVE SIMILARITY & DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LANGUAGE PROTOTYPICALITY (THE EXTENT TO WHICH SPECIFIC MEANING OF WORD – CORE OR BASIC) SOCIAL FACTORS (THE EFFECT OF ADDRESSEE & DIFFERENT LEARNING CONTEXTS ON TRANSFER)

LANGUAGE LEVEL THE L1 OF LEARNERS SERVES AS THE BEST PREDICTOR OF NATIVE SPEAKERS’ EVALUATIONS OF THEIR SPEECH (Purcell and Suter,1980)

LANGUAGE LEVEL THE MAJORITY OF LEXICAL ERRORS MADE BY SWEDISH & FINNISH LEARNERS OF L2 ENGLISH COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE TRANSFER OF PARTIAL TRANSLATION EQUIVALENTS (Ringbom,1978)

LANGUAGE LEVEL SWEDISH LEARNERS OF L2 ENGLISH DID BETTER IN VOCABULARY LEARNING THAN FINNISH LEARNERS, SWEDISH BEING CLOSER THAN FINNISH TO ENGLISH (Sjoholm,1976)

IN FACT VERY DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY THE EXTENT OF TRANSFER IN THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE LEVEL

IN FACT MOST LEARNERS HAVE A MUCH MORE HIGHLY DEVELOPED METALINGUAL AWARENESS OF GRAMMATICAL PROPERTIES THAN OF PHONOLOGICAL OR DISCOURSE/PRAGMATIC PROPERTIES

SOCIOLINGUISTIC FACTORS THE EFFECTS OF :  SOCIAL CONTEXT  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SPEAKER AND THE ADDRESSEE ON TRANSFER

SOCIAL CONTEXT THE EXTENT TO WHICH TRANSFER OCCURS INFLUENCE

Odlin (1989; 1990) NEGATIVE TRANSFER IS LESS LIKELY IN FOCUSED CONTEXTS, WHERE THERE IS CONCERN TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARDNESS OF LANGUAGES, THAN IN UNFOCUSED CONTEXTS. Le Page & Tabouret-Kellar (1985) DISTINCTION BETWEEN FOCUSED AND UNFOCUSED CONTEXT

MARKEDNESS MARKED RULES UNMARKED & MARKED RULES CORE PERIPHERY

CORE RULES  THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF GENERAL, ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE STRUCTURE (CHOMSKY & OTHER GENERATIVE LINGUISTS)

PERIPHERAL RULES  RULES THAT ARE NOT GOVERNED BY UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES; THEY ARE IDIOSYNCRATIC, REFLECTING THEIR UNIQUE HISTORICAL ORIGINS  PERIPHERAL RULES ARE MARKED.

PROTOTYPICALITY  Kellerman : prototypical meaning of a lexical meaning “breken”  Points out : standard & non standard varieties of the target language  There is interaction between natural tendencies and the native language

THANK YOU....!