Native language interference when learning second … language interference when learning second language writing Itamar Shatz Tel Aviv University

Native language interference when learning second language writing

Itamar Shatz

Tel Aviv University

Introduction

Crosslinguistic effect:

Transfer of structures from the L1

to the L2.

Negative transfer (interference)

Positive transfer

Awareness of L1 interference

facilitates learning.

Pedagogical Significance

Improved design:

Teaching

Curriculum

Software

This study is limited to the written work of 70 essays of

Form One Chinese students who are studying in one

public school. The written essays collected are from a

specific topic only. Therefore, the study will not be able

to give conclusive evidence regarding other Form One

Chinese students from other proficiency levels…

(Darus & Ching, p. 252)

Limitations (Previous Research)

Multiple L1s

Multiple proficiency levels

Large, heterogeneous sample

The Corpus

EFCAMDAT:

The Education-First Cambridge

Open Language Database

532,940 texts

83,385 learners

137 nationalities

Placement test

Proficiency level

Lessons

Symbol Error

AR Article

C Capitalization

MW Missing Word

VT Verb Tense

WO Word Order

Methodology

L1 Number of learners

Portuguese 27,359 (49.2%)

Russian 7,346 (13.2%)

Spanish 5,998 (10.8%)

German 5,155 (9.3%)

French 4,195 (7.5%)

Italian 3,731 (6.7%)

Japanese 1,847 (3.3%)

Total 55,631

Proficiency

level

Original

levels

CEFR level

1 1-3 A1

2 4-6 A2

3 7-9 B1

4 10-12 B2

5 13-15 C1

WALS:

World Atlas of Language Structures

Error types:

Articles

Plurality

Prepositions

Capitalization

MANOVA / ANOVAs

Pairwise comparisons

Correlations

Data analysis

Results

MANOVA:

Learners’ L1 significantly affected

their interlanguage error patterns.

F(24, 3197288) = 487.5, p < .0005, η2 = .003

Article errors:

Significantly affected by L1.

F(6, 916503) = 1098.25, p < .0005, η2 = .007

Feature English Portuguese,

Spanish,

German,

French,

Italian

Russian Japanese

Definite

articles

Distinct from

demonstrative

None None

Indefinite

articles

Distinct from 'one' Same

as 'one'

None

Plurality errors:

Significantly affected by L1.

F(6, 916503) = 95.01, p < .0005, η2 = .001

Feature English Portuguese,

Italian

Russian,

French

Spanish German Japanese

Coding of

nominal

pluralityPlural suffix

Occurrence

of nominal

plurality

All nouns,

always

obligatory

Only human

nouns,

optional

Plurality in

independent

personal

pronouns

Person-

number

stem

Missing value

in WALS

Person-

number stem

+ nominal

plural affix

Person-

number stem

+ pronominal

plural

affix

Person stem

+ nominal

plural affix

The

associative

plural

No

associative

plural

Unique

periphrastic

associative plural

Associative

same as

additive

plural

Preposition errors:

Significantly affected by L1.

F(6, 916503) = 63.01, p < .0005, η2 < .0005

Feature English Portuguese,

Russian,

Spanish, French,

Italian

German Japanese

Order of

adposition and

noun phrase

Prepositions Postpositions

Relationship

between the

order of object

and verb and the

order of

adposition and

noun phrase

VO and

prepositions

Lacks a dominant

order

OV and

postpositions

Different errors

Absent features

Proportion analysis

Additional linguistic factors

Capitalization errors:

Significantly affected by L1.

F(6, 916503) = 836.06, p < .0005, η2 = .005

English Portuguese,

Spanish,

French,

Italian

German Russian Japanese

Script Latin LatinLatin

Cyrillic Mixed

Capitalization

Large

number

of word

classes

To a smaller

degree All nouns

To a

smaller

degree

Appears in

Romanized

versions

Discussion

The study explored effects of learners’

L1 on their L2 writing errors.

Conclusions

L1 significantly affects L2 acquisition:

Varies by error.

Affected by structural relationship.

Depends on L2 proficiency.

More error types.

Quantitative analysis of features.

Expanded error analysis.

Future Directions

Thank you for listening.

itamarshatz.me

Selected References

ReferencesBeaufays, F., & Strope, B. (2013). Language model capitalization. In ICASSP, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,

Speech and Signal Processing - Proceedings (pp. 6749–6752). doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6638968

Bennui, P. (2008). A Study of L1 Intereference in the Writing of Thai EFL Students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72–104.

Benson, C. (2002). Transfer / Cross-linguistic influence. ELT Journal, 56(1), 68–70.

Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage. International Education Journal, 1(1), 22–31.

Darus, S., & Ching, K. H. (2009). Common Errors in Written English Essays of Form One Chinese Students : A Case Study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 242–253.

Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (2013). The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://wals.info

Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, T., & Korhonen, A. (2014). Automatic Linguistic Annotation of Large Scale L2 Databases: The EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCamDat). In R. T. Miller & E. Al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 240–254). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Huang, L. S. (2009). The potential influence of L1 (Chinese) on L2 (English) communication. ELT Journal, 64(2), 155–164. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp039

Jiang, X., Guo, Y., Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, D., Sun, L., & Korhonen, A. (2014). Native Language Identification Using Large , Longitudinal Data. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14)(pp. 3309–3312). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., & Hanique, I. (2010). Native language effects in learning second-language grammatical gender: A training study. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 150–158. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.06.001

Yuan, H.-C. (2014). A Corpus-based Study on the Influence of L1 on EFL Learners’ Use of Prepositions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(12), 2513–2521. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.12.2513-2521