1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The performance of six adult intermediate second-language learners on an oral task was examined. The subjects, sharing a number of characteristics, e.g. the source language (Polish), performed the same task twice, with two different interlocutors, in two different settings (familiar vs. ‘real-life’). The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of the familiarity of the setting/ interlocutor factors on the subjects’ performance. To analyse the surface structure errors obtained from the two interviews, Selinker’s (1972) error taxonomy was employed, thus yielding five error categories: language transfer, overgeneralization, simplification, communication based and teaching induced errors. The findings revealed that the unfamiliar, ‘real-life’ setting elicited significantly higher proportion of language transfer errors than the same task performed in the familiar environment. It is argued that adult, intermediate second-language learners, in a new, ‘real-life’ social setting, when confronted with an unfamiliar native speaker of the target language, revert to their native language, fall back on their prior knowledge to facilitate the task demands.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.18.1.08cho
1995-01-01
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arabski, J.
    (1979) Errors as indications of the development of interlanguage. Review. Language Learning30,2:505–507.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beebe, L.M.
    (ed.) (1988) Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beebe, L. and H. Giles
    (1984) Speech accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of second language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language46: 5–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell, A.
    (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society13: 145–204. doi: 10.1017/S004740450001037X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
  5. Bialystok, E. and M. Sharwood-Smith
    (1985) Interlanguage is not a state of mind. Applied Linguistics6, 2: 101–117. doi: 10.1093/applin/6.2.101
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.2.101 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dickerson, L.J.
    (1975) The learner’s interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly9, 4: 401–407. doi: 10.2307/3585624
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3585624 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dulay, H. , M. Burt , and S. Krashen
    (1982) Language two. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellis, R.
    (1987) Second language acquisition in context. London, Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1992) Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gass, S. and J. Schachter
    (eds) (1989) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. New York, Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524544
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524544 [Google Scholar]
  11. Jordens, P.
    (1986) Production rules in interlanguage: evidence from case errors in L2 German. In Kellerman and Sharwood-Smith (eds).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kellerman, E. and M. Sharwood-Smith
    (eds) (1986) Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford, Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Long, M.
    (1991) Measuring classroom language change. MS, University of Hawai’i.
  14. Morrow, K.
    (1979) Communicative language testing: revolution or evolution?In C. J. Brumfit and K. Johnson (eds) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Sajavaara, K.
    (1986) Transfer and second language speech processing. In Kellerman (1986).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Sharwood-Smith, M.
    (1990) Input from within: Utrecht research into cross-linguistic influence in formal language learning environments. In H. W. Dechert (ed.) Current trends in European second language acquisition research. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters: 219–229.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Selinker, L.
    (1972) Interlanguage. IRAL10, 3: 209–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1992) Rediscovering interlanguage. London, Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Tarone, E.
    (1979) Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning29, 1: 181–191. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1979.tb01058.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01058.x [Google Scholar]
  20. (1988) Variation in interlanguage. London, Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1989) Accounting for style-shifting in interlanguage. In S. Gass , C. Madden , D. Preston and L. Selinker (eds) Variation in second language acquisition. Vol.2. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters: 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tarone, E. and G. Yule
    (1989) Focus on language learner. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Taylor, B.
    (1975) The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning25, 1: 73–107. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1975.tb00110.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00110.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.18.1.08cho
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error