Linguistic Factors

Done by:
Alemán, Pedro
Mariscal, Aurora

UNIVERSIDAD PEDAGÓGICA EXPERIMENTAL LIBERTADOR
INSTITUTO PEDAGÓGICO DE CARACAS
Subdirección de Investigación y Postgrado
Subprograma de Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera

Second Language Acquisition

The most salient component in SLA

•The Language itself

Page  2

Page  3

• Acquisition of
input
• Interaction
• Feedback• Awareness
• Error treatment

Effect of classroom
instruction

The effect on:

Error analysis:
Interlanguage
(learner language)

Contrast L1 vs. L2
Effect of L1 on L2

Historical progression

Focus on form

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Two languages in contrast
Success in SLL

involves

master differences
between L1 and L2
Page  4

The ContrastiveAnalysis Hypothesis

rrors
represent
negative transfer
from L1 to L2
Page  5

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

The patterns that caused difficulty could be
predicted and described.
(Lado, in Brown, 2007).

Page  6

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Model of prediction of Practor (1967)
Hierarchy of difficulty
• 6 categories of difficulty in ascending order
• applicable toboth grammatical and phonological features
of language.
5

“Zero”´= one-to-one
correspondence and
transfer
“Fifth” = the height of
interference
Page  7

4
3

2
1
0

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Transfer
• No difference or contrast is present between L1 and L2.
• Positive transfer of a sound, structure or lexical item from
L1 to L2.
e.g. English & Spanish cardinalvowels

Page  8

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Coalescence
Two items in L1 become coalesced (come together) into
essentially one item in L2.
e.g. English 3rd-person possessives require gender
distinction
and in Spanish they do not
2

Page  9

1

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Underdifferentiation
• An item in L1 is absent in L2.
• The learner must avoid thatitem.
e.g. adjectives in Spanish require gender (alto/alta)

Page  10

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Reinterpretation
An item that exists in L1 is given a new shape
or distribution.

e.g. new phonemes require new
distribution of speech articulators
-/r/, etc.

Page  11

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Overdifferentiation
A new item entirely, bearing anysimilarity to L1 item, must be learned.
e.g. English speakers must learn the
use of determiners in Spanish
man is mortal / El hombre es mortal.

Page  12

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Split
• One item in L1 becomes two or
more in L2.
• The learner has to make a new
distinction.
e.g. English speakers must learn
the distinction between (ser) and
(estar)
Page  13

From the CAHto CLI
From Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
to
Cross-linguistic influence

Page  14

From the CAH to CLI
Wardhaugh (in Brown, 2007)

Strong version of CAH

change

Page  15

in the
language
behavior
of a
foreign
language
student

can be
equated

differences
between L1
language
structure
and culture
vs.
L2
language
structure
and culture

From the CAH to CLIWeak version of CAH

Page  16

From the CAH to CLI

Today
Weak version = Cross-linguistic influence (CLI)

Page  17

From the CAH to CLI
Prior experience has a significant role in
any learning act

The influence
of L1

as prior
experience

must not be
overlooked
Page  18

Markedness and Universal Gramar
Eckman (in Brown, 2007)
Method for determiningdirectionality
of difficulty

Page  19

Markedness and Universal Gramar
Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Markedness Theory)

Explains relative degrees of
difficulty

by means
of
Page  20

principles
of Universal
Grammar

Markedness and Universal Gramar
Members of a pair of related forms or structures

an

marked
form

a

Contains at least one more feature
Page  21...