Upload
porter-coats
View
221
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Institute for Language and Communication, 1 February 2012
Lea MeriläinenUniversity of Eastern Finland, Joensuu
Meriläinen (2010) Language transfer in the written English of Finnish studentsFocus on lexical and syntactic transfer errors in
the written English examination of Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking Upper Secondary school students
Aims: To chart how L1 influence manifests itself in the
written English of Finnish-speaking students (L1 distant from English)
To track a possible change in error patterns in data from 1990 - 2005 to see if they reflect an improvement in the learners’ English competence (more frequent contacts with English, development of foreign language pedagogy )
The Finnish contextIdeal context for the study of cross-linguistic
influenceFinnish-speaking majority and Swedish-speaking
minority Swedish related and typologically similar to English,
but Finnish distant from both of these languages Similar cultural and educational backgrounds Reliable identification of L1 influence
Previous studies: Ringbom (1987, 2007), Jarvis (2000), Jarvis and Odlin (2000)
Ringbom (1987, 2007): Swedish-speaking Finns profit from cross-linguistic similarities between L1 and L2, but more time and effort required from Finnish-speaking Finns to learn English
Changes in the context for learning English as a foreign language in FinlandDevelopment of learning materials and
language teaching methods Emphasis on communicativeness
Increased use of English in Finnish society English is gaining the status of a second language
in Finland (Leppänen et al. 2008)Improvement in Finnish students’ listening and
reading comprehension skills over the past 30 years (Takala 1998, 2004)
Research questionsWhat types of transfer-induced deviant
patterns occur in the written English of Finnish students?
Have any changes taken place in the quantity and quality of these transfer patterns during 1990–2005, and do they seem to reflect a possible improvement in the students’ written English?
MaterialWritten English compositions from the Finnish
national Matriculation Examination from 1990, 2000 and 2005Finnish-speaking students: altogether 500
compositions (96,789 words)Comparison corpus by Swedish-speaking students:
136 compositions (28,225 words)Different proficiency levels equally represented
MethodIdentification/verification of cross-linguistic
influence (Jarvis 2000)1) Similarities between learners with the same L1 2) Differences between learnes with different L1s3) Connection between the learner’s L1 and TL use
Evidence for CLI in this study:Statistically significant differences between
Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking students
Contrastive analysis of Finnish, Swedish and English
Lexical transfer Nation (2001): L2 learners’ lexical knowledge
Classifying lexical transfer errors according to different aspects of lexical knowledge
Differentiation between lexical and syntactic transfer
3 aspects of L2 learners’ lexical knowledge Word form Word meaning Word use
Word formOrthographic transfer
sosial (social)Ekonomy (economy)
Phonetic transferhoppy (hobby) wort (word)
Word meaning
Loan translationsanimaldoctor (pro vet, cf. Fi. eläinlääkäri)
outlooks (pro appearance, cf. Fi. ulkonäkö)
Semantic extensionscat’s spinning ← Fi. kehrätä = spin, purr movies are rolling ← Fi. pyöriä = roll, run / show
Word useCollocations
do a choice (pro make)
bring up animals (pro rear)
Incorrect use of function wordsa some pet ← cf. joku ’some’ as a marker of
indefiniteness
dog, what is big and angry ← cf. mikä ’what’ as a relative pronoun
Syntactic transferStatistically significant differences
between Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking students
Structural differences between Finnish and English
5 featuresThe passive constructionExpletive pronoun constructionsSubordinate interrogative clauses and that-
clausesExpressions for future time Prepositional constructions
The passive construction
There is a lot of animals in the world, which use an awful way (pro are used, cf. Fi. käyte-TÄ-än ‘use-PAS’)
Pets can’t leave or free because they need people (pro can’t be left or freed, cf. Fi. ei voi jättää tai vapauttaa ‘no-3SG can leave or free’)
Expletive pronoun constructions
In our culture is unusual if some twenty years old women is married (pro it is unusual, cf. Fi. on epätavallista ‘be-3SG unusual-PAR’)
Almost every home is pet (pro there is a pet in almost every home, cf. Fi. melkein joka kodissa on lemmikki ‘almost every home-INE is pet’)
Subordinate interrogative clauses and that-clauses
It is never easy to divorse so it’s same to you are you married or not (pro whether you are married or not cf. Fi. on sama oletko naimisissa vai et ‘is same are-2SG-CL married or not)
We must think that is everything all right (pro if everything is all right, cf. Fi. että onko kaikki kunnossa ‘that is-CL everything all right)
Expressions for future time
Wars are wars also in the future (pro wars will be wars, cf. Fi. sodat ovat sotia myös tulevaisuudessa ‘wars are wars also future-INE’)
I don’t shut out the thought that I live my life alone (pro I will live my life alone, cf. Fi. elän elämäni yksin ‘live-1SG life-ACC-POS alone’)
Prepositional constructions
Watching news from TV (pro on, cf. Fi. katsoa televisiosta, ‘watch television-ELA’)
We live country and we have lot of animals (pro live in the country, cf. Fi. asumme maalla ‘live-3PL country-ADE’)
ConclusionsFor learners whose L1 is genetically and typologically
distant from TL, syntactic transfer may be more persistent than lexical transfer Importance of syntactic transfer underestimated in previous
reserarchIncreased exposure to English has helped Finnish learners
to overcome negative transfer effects in certain areas of their vocabulary knowledge, but not in their use of syntactic structures which differ from the corresponding L1 structures
Communicative language teaching methods may be insufficient for acquiring L2 syntactic structures which differ from the L1 structures?Communicatively efficient but grammatically less accurate
English?
ReferencesJarvis, S. (2000) “Methodological Rigor in the Study of Transfer: Identifying L1 Influence
in the Interlanguage Lexicon”. Language Learning 50 (2): 245-309.Jarvis, S. & Odlin, T. (2000) “Morphological Type, Spatial Reference, and Language
Transfer”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 4 (2000): 535-556. Leppänen, S., Nikula, T. & Kääntä, L. (eds.) (2008) Kolmas kotimainen: Lähikuvia
englannin käytöstä Suomessa. Tietolipas 224. Helsinki: SKS. Meriläinen, L. (2010)Language transfer in the written English of Finnish Students.
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology, no 9. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. Available at: http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-0230-6/
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: CUP.Ringbom, H. (1987) The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ringbom, H. (2007) Cross-linguisitic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Takala, S. (1998) “Englannin kielen taidon taso Suomessa – Hyvää kehitystä” . In
Takala, S. & Sajavaara, K. (toim.) Kielikoulutus Suomessa. Jyväskylä: Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen keskus.
Takala, S. (2004) “Englannin kielitaidon tasosta Suomessa”. In Leimu, K. (toim.) Kansainväliset IEA-tutkimukset – Suomi-kuvaa luomassa. Jyväskylä: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos / Jyväskylän yliopisto.