1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 74, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 74, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In recent studies on the acquisition of a second or foreign language in a non target language environment, environmental factors such as lack of native peer input, a formal language learning situation and pressure on the learner to produce the required target language structures have been considered to have attributed to a high incidence of L1 induced or interlingual errors.

In order to investigate this problem, I collected spontaneous speech samples from some eighty francophone students enrolled at the Faculté de Sciences Economiques and the Ecole de Solvay who were learning English at the Institut de Phonétique at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. The data represented two levels of learning, the first degree level when students entered the course and the third degree level which marked the end of the course. My hypothesis was that given a difference in emphasis within the TL syllabus from that of TL forms (communicative English) to that of TL content (business English) and given also that the same methodological approach was adopted with native teacher input and optimal corrective feedback, students might progress beyond Ll-induced to somewhere approximating TL rule formation.

The error samples were broken down into categories representing syntax, word order, morphology, semantic concepts and lexis. They were examined and compared across levels for examples of interlingual (Ll-induced) and organisational (non Ll-induced) errors.

An anamysis of the data indicated a decrease in interlingual errors but an increase in organisa-tional errors at the third degree level, suggesting the existence of a continuum that accommodates possibilities of fossilization due to lack of native peer input. My data also suggested the role of L1 in its influence on the formation of semantic concepts in TL and in organising, comparing and hypothesizing lexical domains in the two languages.

© 1986 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.74.04hsi
1986-01-01
2025-02-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/itl.74.04hsi
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bruck, M. Lambert W. & Tucker, R.
    (1975): Assessing functional bilingualism within a bilingual program: the St. Lambert Project at grade eight. Paper presented at TESOL Convention, Los Angeles.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Corder, S.P.
    (1983): A role for the mother tongue. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds)Language Transfer in Language Learning. Newbury House Publishers 1983.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. D'Anglejean, A. & Tucker, R.
    (1975): The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. In: Language Learning25, 281–296.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Dulay, H. , Burt, M. & Krashen, S.
    (1982): Language Two. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Krashen, S.
    (1983): Newmark's “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current L2 acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (eds)Language Transfer in Language Learning
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Milon, J.P.
    (1975): Dialect in the TESOL program. If you never you better. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (eds)New Directions in L2 Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education. Washington, D.C., TESOL, 159–167.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Newmark, L.
    (1966): How not to interfere with language learning. InLanguage Learning: the Individual and the Process. International Journal of American Linguistics, 40, 77–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Plann, S.
    (1977): Acquiring a second language in an immersion classroom. In H.D. Brown , C.A. Yorio & R. Crymes (eds)Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice. Washington, D.C.TESOL213–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Saegert, J. Scott M. Perkins, J. & Tucker, G.
    (1974): A note on the relationship between English proficiency, years of language study and medium of instruction. InLanguage Learning24, 99–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Tarone, E.
    (1977): Communication strategies. InOn TESOL'77. Washington D.C.TESOL.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Wong Fillmore, L.
    (1977): Indivudal differences insecond language acquisition. In C. Fillmore , D. Kempier , W. Wang (eds)Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behaviour. Academic Press, N.Y.203–241.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1983): The language learner as an individual: implications of research in individual differences for the ESL teacher. In M. Clarke & J. Handscombe : >On TESOL'82. Pacific perspectives in language learning and Teaching. TESOL Washington, D.C.157–173.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Zobl, H.
    (1980b): Developmental and transfer errors: their common bases and (possibmy) differential effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quartermy, 14, 4, 469–479.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/itl.74.04hsi
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

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