Developmental Progression in Interlanguage

Fu-hsing Su

Department of Foreign Languages National Chiayi University, Taiwan

Influences on an Interlanguage Grammar

(Archibald, 1997, p. 504)

Interlanguage Grammar

L1 L2

Selinker (1972: 214)

IL is “a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learner’s attempted production of a TL norm.”

Archibald (1997: 504 )“…second language learners have a systematic interlanguage (IL) grammar--so-called because it is influenced by both the first and the second language and has features of each.”

Gradual separation of two languages (Gawlitzek-Maiwald & Tracy, 1996)

Time AOne lexicon, one syntax, no translation equivalents

syntaxTime BDifferentiation of lexicon, acquisition of equivalents, one syntax

Time C Two systems

Three types of errors (Richards, 1974)

1.interference errors--caused by the structure of the native language

Ex: (L1 Spanish speakers of L2 English: (I) no speak English

2. intra-lingual errors--originating in the structure of the TL

Ex: dummy do for question formation in L2 English: Did he talked)

Three types of errors (Richards, 1974)

3. developmental errors--reflecting the strategies employed to acquire the TL

Ex. is as a present tense marker in L2 English: She is speaks Japanese).

Error patterns predicted by the Ontogeny

Model (Archibald, 1997, p. 506)

Number of errors

Time Transfer Time Development

Number of errors

Intra-lingual or interference errors of Chinese learners of English

(Schachter & Celce-Murcia, 1977)

(a) There are so many Taiwan people *live around the lake.

(b) …and there is a mountain *separate two lakes.

The topic-comment analysis would constitute an interference error caused by the structure of Chinese, the native language

Corder (1967:167) “[Errors] provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using (i.e. has learned) at a particular point…”

Selinker (1972:221) on fossilization

“Many IL linguistic structures are never really eradicated for most second language learners; manifestations of these structures regularly reappear in IL productive performance, especially under conditions of anxiety, shifting attention, and second language performance on subject matter which is new to the learner.”

Ellis (1982:20)

“The systematicity of interlanguage can only be adequately described in terms of variable rules which capture the context-dependency of the learner’s use of his internalized grammar.”

Interlingual Identifications Mechanism

(Selinker, 1972)

Interlingual

Identifications

Mechanism

native language target language

interlanguage

Related Literature

Variety and difficulty in processing syllables--the syllable as a very vague notion: Gussmann (2002) Examples of sound replacement: Bybee (2001)

1. nasalized vowels *non-nasalized 2. front rounded vowels *front unrounded

3. fricatives *stops

Related Literature

Factors influencing syllabic awareness and sensitivity

1. Distribution of stress pattern (heavy vs. light syllables)

--heavy syllables: CV, CVV, CVC, CVVC, or CVCC etc.)

--change of vowel value or duration (e.g., bit vs. bee and beat)

Related Literature

Influencing factors 1. Pattern of phonotactic distribution--constituent parts of a broken word should

form individual syllables (mo-ther but not *mot-her) [Gussmann, 2002]

--syllables can be broken into smaller units of onsets, rhymes, and phonemes [Treiman & Chafetz, 1987]

Related Literature

Influencing factors 1. Pattern of phonotactic distribution--constituent parts of a broken word should

form individual syllables (mo-ther but not *mot-her) [Gussmann, 2002]

--syllables can be broken into smaller units of onsets, rhymes, and phonemes [Treiman & Chafetz, 1987]

Components of syllable

Syllable

Onset

Nucleus

Rime

Coda

k i p

Methods

Subjects

Two classes of 62 school children from a city area in southern Taiwan

Instrument

--The Syllable Doubling Task (SDT)

--A modified adaptation of Fallows (1981)

Instrument

--It contained bisyllabic stimuli (Part 1) and trisyllabic stimuli (Part 2), 20 items in each

-It required first and final syllable doubling

Instrument

Sequence of first syllable doubling S1+S2S1S1+S2, e.g., a.long a.a.long S1+S2+S3S1S1+S2+S3, e.g., e.le.ven e.e.le.ven

Sequence of final syllable doublingS1+S2S1+S2S2, e.g., so.fa sofa.fa S1+S2+S3S1+S2+S3S3, e.g., um.bre.lla um.bre.lla.lla

Data Analysis

Quantitative analyses

--descriptive statistics and a pair-samples t-test

Qualitative analyses

--intended to pinpoint their strength and weakness in processing items with different featuristic displays

Results

A. Findings of quantitative analyses Descriptive statistics of SDT performance

_________________________________________________________________________

M SD---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Part 1 (bisyllabic items) 13.81 3.24 Part 2 (trisyllabic items) 13.48 3.26

__________________________________________________________________________

t = 0.91, p> .05

Results

B. Findings of qualitative analyses 1.Relative success in processing items

with/without clear syllabic boundary

--bisyllabic items (63.14% as compared to 53.76% )

--trisyllabic items (61.70% as compared to 34.31% )

Results

B. Findings of qualitative analyses2.Relative success in processing items

with different degrees of structural complexity

--In Part 1: high correct percentage for finish (67.74%), decide (75.81%), July (83.87%) [overall % of 72.26]

Results

B. Findings of qualitative analyses--In Part 2: high correct percentage for

potato (70.97%), believer (59.68%), furniture (61.29%), holiday and telephone (87.10%) [overall % of 71.78 ]

Results

B. Findings of qualitative analyses4.Tendency to make sound omission,

reduction, or substitution

--deletion of syllable-final obstruents or nasals: invite, repeat, unlike, decide, and include, diamond include, along, disgusting, etc.

Results

B. Findings of qualitative analyses--widespread problem of replacement: [r]

for [v] in invite, [] or [t] for [] in courage, [] for [] in money, unlike, customer, etc.

Conclusion and Discussion

The subjects’ syllabification behaviors varied due to the influence of of syllable-internal factors (syllable weight, ambisyllabicity, structural complexity)

The study speaks against the widely believed easiness in processing English syllables by native speakers

Conclusion and Discussion

A need to work with a greater variety of Chinese-speaking children to test the generalizability of the present findings

A dire necessity to design different English syllable measures

Questions? Comments