Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Chapter 8. Cross Linguistic Influence and Learner language. Chapter 8. (pp. 207-243) Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. (4 th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
From the CAH to CLI (cross-linguistic influence)
Markedness and universal grammar
Mistakes and errors
Errors in error analysis
Identifying and describing errors (chart)
Sources of errors
Interlingual and intralingual transfers
Context of learning
Stages of learner language development
Variability in learner language
A model for error treatment (in the classroom)Preview
Level 1 –coalescence two items in the native language become coalesced into essentially one item in the target language. Example: English 3rd p. possessives require gender distinction (his/her) and in Spanish they do not (su)
Level 2 Underdifferentiation –an item in the native language is absent in the target language. The learner must avoid that item. Example: (adjectives in Spanish require gender (alto/alta)
Level 3 Reinterpretation –an item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or distribution. Example: new phonemes require new distribution of speech articulators -/r/, etc.Six categories of hierarchy of difficulty (a native English speaker learning Spanish as L2)
It distinguishes members of a pair of related forms or structures by assuming that the marked member of a pair contains at least one more feature than the unmarked one. In addition, the unmarked (neutral) member has a wider range of distribution than the marked one. In the English indefinite articles (a and an) an is the more complex or marked form. Verbs are the classic example for this pattern.
1. knowledge of the native language
2. limited knowledge of the target language itself
3. knowledge of communicative functions of language
4. knowledge about language in general
5. knowledge about life, human beings, and the universe.
a. overt –erroneous utterances ungrammatically at the sentence level
b. covert –grammatically well-formed but not according to context of
D. Can John sing?
E. original sentence contained pre-posed do auxiliary applicable to most verbs, but not to verbs with auxiliaries. OUT 2
I saw their department.
B. NO (context about living quarters in Mexico)
F. YES, Spanish
G. Yo vi su departamento.
H. I saw their apartment.
E. Departamento was translated to false cognate department. OUT 2examples
3. 3rd stage –truly systematic stage in which the learner is now able to manifest more consistency in producing the second language. The most salient difference between the 2nd and the 3rd stages is the ability of learners to correct their errors when they are pointed out.
4. Final stage –stabilization stage; Corder (1973) called it postsystematic stage. Here the learner has relatively few errors and has mastered the system to the point that fluency and intended meanings are not problematic. This fourth stage is characterized by the learner’s ability to self-correct.
1. according to linguistic context
2. according to psychological processing factors
3. according to social context
4. according to language function
Does John can sing?
red (-) abort(X)recycle
green (+) continue continue
(positive) Keep talking; I’m listening
(neutral ) I’m not sure I want to continue this conversation.
(negative) This conversation is over
(pos.) I understand your message; it’s clear.
(neutral) I’m not sure if I correctly understand you or not.
I don’t understand what you are saying; it’s not clear.Feedback
To treat or to ignore
To treat immediately or delay
To transfer treatment (other learners) or not
To transfer to another individual, subgroup or the whole class
To return , or not, to original error maker after treatment
To allow other learners to initiate treatment
To test for efficacy of the treatment
Fact or error indicated
Opportunity for new attempt given
Error type indicated
Praise indicatedBailey (1985) recommended a useful taxonomy for error treatment classification; 7 basic options complemented by 7 possible features