What Else Transfers? Introduction

1. What Else Transfers?(David Stringer)An Overview of VariablesAffecting Lexical Transferin Writing: A Review Study(María Pilar Agustín Llach) Ece DÜŞER Fatma GÜNEY Kadriye DEMİRCİ Maria Joy PEACE Tuba YILMAZ

2. What Else Transfers?Introduction Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition • The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman,1990)

3. What is Causative-inchoative:pairs of verbs Example: English The pencil broke.intransitiveinchoative Rebecca broke the pencil.transitivecausative Turkish Ali sütü döktü. “dök-”:causative (innately) Süt dök-ül-dü.İnchoative As the root, “dök-”, is causative, to make it inchoative Turkish uses overt morphology. In this case, passive morpheme (-ül) is used.

4. The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and Its Alternative:L1 Interference Hypothesis • “Having an L1 already represented in the mind either impedes or renders impossible “complete success” in L2 acquisition.” L1 Interference reconsidered: • Initial interlanguage=full transfer of L1 grammar • What else transfers? Example: (Montrul,2000) ”causative/inchoative” L2 Spanish, L1 English and L1 Turkish L2 Turkish, L1 Spanish and L1 English (1) Spanish Causative: El ladron rompio la ventana. Root:causative the thief broke the window. Inchoative: La ventana se rompio. the window ANTICAUS broke inchoative overt marking “se”

5. The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and Its Alternative:L1 Interference Hypothesis (2) Turkish Hırsız pencere-yi kır-dı. Root:causative The thief window- ACC break-PAST Pencere kır-ıl-dı. Window break-PASS(ANTICAUS)-PASTinchoative overt marking “passive”

6. The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and Its Alternative:L1 Interference Hypothesis • “Learners do not transfer argument structures from L1 verbs but rather they are sensitive as to whether the L2 has overt morphology.” • “For both L2s, learners whose L1s overtly marked the inchoative performed liked native speakers in rejecting sentences without overt morphology, while learners whose L1 lacked such morphology accepted non-target-like forms without the appropriate morphemes.”

7. The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and Its Alternative:L1 Interference Hypothesis (cont’d) • Evidence for transfer of lexical semantic representations: “predicate-argument structure” Japanese: double-object Korean: dative double-objects, benefactives • L1 Japanese and L1 Korean, L2 English: same for datives but differ in benefactives Differences between L1 and L2 morphology

8. The Lexical Relativity Hypothesis (Lost in Translation) ‘…although in general a difference presupposes positive terms between which the difference holds, in a language there are only differences, and no positive terms’- Saussare (1983 [1916]) Ex. redouter ‘to dread’ have particular meaning craindre ‘to fear’ only in contrast with other avoir peur ‘to be afraid’ members of the set mes yeux, mes oreilles, mes bras, mes jambes  plural ‘my eyes, my ears, my arms, my legs’  dual Thus the semantic value of the French plural morpheme does not correspond exactly to that of the Sanskrit plural: the meaning of the latter is determined relative to the existence of the dual .

9. Lexical Relativity, cont’d However, as Bloom (2000: 73) notes, opposition in and of itself is insufficient to characterize lexical meaning. It is unclear how such groupings could be made without reference to positive aspects of meaning. Stringer’s Categorization of Lexical Relativity in Positive Terms: • Lexical relativity in the denotational properties of nouns and verbs (open-class) Ex. Sink for washing dishes and hands évier  washing dishes BUT: washbasin and handbasin lavabo  washing hands could be used in English Drink = Universal Human activity BUT in Turkish it is used to smoke, in Japanese it can mean taking pills even without liquid, while in English it only is used for beverages. 2) Lexical Relativity at the interface with syntax For example, the English preposition across in Japanese may be translated by the verb wataru or the verb yokogiru. The former is used when the crossing of a principal axis is conceived of as along a PATH with its own legitimate axial flow .The latter is used when the path is seen as ‘cutting across’ in the absence of a legitimate cross-axial flow

10. Full Lexical Transfer • “What transfers is not only L1 parameter settings but the L1 lexicon with all phonological and semantic features.” (Sprouse,2006) • Relexification Model Of Creole Genesis: (Lefebre,1998) model of L2 acquisition of lexicon “When L2 analogue is identified, lexical items can be transfered.”

11. Full Lexical Transfer (cont’d) L1: “nefret etmek” L2: “to hate” Interlanguage Item Re-labelling of the L1 representation Same syntax, semantics, case, participants as L1 L1Senden nefret ediyorum! L2 ??? L2 I hate from you! • “Non-target-like argument structures are a product not of transfer of lexical parameter settings but of lexical transfer. • (Juffs, 1996; Inagaki, 2001)

12. Specific types of L1-L2 lexical mapping problems 1. Differences in inherent semantic features Ex. There is no equivalent of the verb put in Korean. Korean uses kkita ‘to fit tightly’, nehta ‘to fit loosely’, nohta ‘to put on a horiziontal surface’, pwuchita ‘to juxtapose surfaces’ or ssuta ‘to put clothing on the head’ (Bowerman and Choi, 2001: 483). 2. Differences in syntactic subcategorization Ex. ‘enter’-selects a direct subject; ‘put’- mandates an indirect obj. In French ‘entrer’ selects a PP; ‘mettre’- indirect obj. is optional An interesting question is whether transfer is equally strongly in both directions: from optional to obligatory and vice-versa (thanks to Shigenori Wakabayashi for raising this issue).

13. Specific types of L1-L2 lexical mapping problems, cont’d 3. Differences in transitivity Ex. (13) Uchi ni asobi-ni-kite kudasai house Ploc play-Part-come please Literally: ‘Please come and play at my house.’ Intended meaning: ‘It would be lovely (fun) if you could visit me sometime.’ 4. Differences in syntactic alternation patterns Ex. (14) a. Taro-ga o-sake de gurasu-o mitashita. Taro-NOM HON-sake with glass ACC filled ‘Taro filled the glass with sake.’ b. Taro-ga gurasu ni o-sake o mitashita. Taro-NOM glass LOC HON-sake ACC filled ‘Taro filled sake into the glass.’ (15) a. Taro filled the glass with sake. b. *Taro filled sake into the glass. As a final example, a verb that participates in a syntactic alternation in the L1 may map onto a verb that does not alternate in the L2. The Japanese verb mitasu ‘fill’ may select either the moved element (FIGURE) or the location (GROUND) as in the direct object. Its usual English analogue, fill, strictly maps the GROUND onto the direct object position.

14. CONCLUSION At the end of the study we realized the need to supplement influential work on transfer of syntax and phonology. The twin assumptions of (i) Lexical Relativity and (ii) Full Lexical Transfer go a significant way toward explaining the ‘fundamental difference’ between L1A and L2A, continued access to Universal Grammar notwithstanding. On this account, even though universal principles and domain-specific learning procedures might remain in place, the chances of complete convergence on the target language are slim, as lexical acquisition requires an abundance of appropriate input and a daunting expanse of time.

15. An Overview of Variables Affecting Lexical Transferin Writing: A Review Study International Journal of Linguistics 2010, Vol. 2, No. 1: E2 María Pilar Agustín Llach (Corresponding author) Dpt. Of Modern Philologies, University of La Rioja C/ San José de Calasanz s/n, 26004, Logroño, la Rioja, Spain

16. This study is a review of some of the variables influencing the process of cross-linguistic influence in lexis. The factors addressed in this paper are: • L2 proficiency • L1 background • Gender • Motivation • Learning context

17. Learners may resort to their L1 to ask for information about lexical items in the TL. This is referred to as pragmatic function of L1. Learners whose L1 is related to the TL are more inclined to resort to their L1 for lexical transfer. According to study; however, learners from different L1 backgrounds seem to undergo the same process as well.

18. According to studies, there is no difference between both female and male learners and more and less motivated learners in terms of lexical transfer. Lexical transfer is less frequent in writing than in speaking.

19. KELLERMAN (1977) • According to studies, L3 learners do not transfer from their L1 but from the language which is closer to the L3. It may be L1 or Ln. This phenomenon is described as cross-linguistic influence. • French-English • He found out that learners transfer only those structures or lexical items that they regard as transferabledue to the similarities with the TL. They decide what is transferable and what is not on the basis of the distance between the languages. This is known as psychotypological perspective.

20. JARVIS (2000) He lists nine factors interacting with L1 transfer: Age Personality, motivation, language attitude Social, educational and cultural background Language background (all L1 and L2s) Type and amount of TL exposure TL proficiency Language distance between the L1 and TL Task type and area of language use Prototypicality and markedness of the langauge feature

21. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE • WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY “LEXICAL TRANSFER”? The phenomenon of loanwords was discussed by linguists in the 19th century.

22. 2) Coinages or adaptations of L1 words to the phonographemic rules of the L2 3) False friends (words that look very similar in two languages,but mean different things) 4) Calques (literal translations of L1 words or expressions into L2 structures) 5) Cognates (words that look and mean similar in two languages) 6) Lexical reference or lexical choice 1) Lexical borrowing or loanwords

23. TYPES OF LEXICAL TRANSFER Transfer of form: the use of L1 words in producing L2 (code-mixing) Example: At 8 o’clock, I go to okul. 2) Transfer of meaning: transfer of semantic patterns of L1 into the target language words.(calques and semantic extensions) Example: carte mére, mother card, anakart From a procedural perspective, there are two types of lexical transfer:

24. WHEN DO WE TRANSFER FROM L1? • Incomplete word knowledge • Non-automatized; therefore,not available lexical knowledge • A task that is cognitively too demanding • Compensatory strategy Lack of vocabulary in the L2

25. WHO TRANSFERS MORE FREQUENTLY? • According to research, • Low level learners • Young learners • Learners with low linguistic awareness transfer lexical items more frequently.

26. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2 PROFICIENCY - The reason behind: the need of low level learners for filling lexical gaps A lot of studies show that amount of L1 influence/ transfer (especially negative) decreases as the proficiency level in the new language increases.

27. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2 PROFICIENCY • Odlin(1989): • Positive transfer increase with proficiency • Jarvis(2000), Lecumberri and Gallardo(2003): • States that the transfer is a general strategy for all learners so there is no decrease with high proficiency.

28. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2 PROFICIENCY L1 reference framework

29. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L2 PROFICIENCY • Naves(2005) and Celaya(2007): • Borrowings decrease… • As they learn much more words, they do not need to directly borrow but lexical inventions increase • Meaning related Form related • So the transfer shifts from formal-based associations to more semantically-based ones as the proficiency level rises.

30. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1 BACKGROUND typological distance Coming from different L1 backgrounds(mother tongue) learners have various difficulties in their learning processes. Only several studies focus on lexical acquisition of learners having different L1 background (e.g. Jarvis (2000), Yu (1996), etc….

31. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1 BACKGROUND • Agustin Llach (2006): • Study Spanish and German speakers learning English • Spanish: fewer lexical errors in writing • German: much more lexical errors in writing • Why? Can you explain?

32. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1 BACKGROUND If there is lexical similarity, learners are more intended to transfer which ends up with some lexical errors: spelling errors, semantic confusions or distribution errors. Psychotypology trend ? It also supports Arabski (2006) and Ringbom (2006)…….

33. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1 BACKGROUND • However, the similarity between NL and TL will allow more positive transfer after a certain level of proficiency. • Main cause of lexical errors? • Lack of correspondence between L1 and L2 phonographically such as clusters, differences between spelling and pronunciation or non-existence of certain sounds.

34. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND L1 BACKGROUND • Borrowing, foreignizing, adaptation or literal translation common to learners of different backgrounds • Agustin Llach(2006), Celaya and Torras(2001), Bouvy(2000) • Universal lexical transfer • BUT also there are identical strategies of each particular language group.

35. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND GENDER Inconclusive results??? Girls superior to boys in quantitative and qualitative terms Very few studies dealing with the role of gender differences in terms of lexical transfer

36. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND GENDER Agustin Llach no gender differences in lexical transfer across grades. But in other studies by Fontecha(2010) and Catalan(2003) boys and girls differ in elicited(available) production of vocabulary, in vocabulary strategy use or in motivation in vocabulary learning

37. LEXICAL TRANSFER AND GENDER So with different tasks gender differences appear

38. What to consider? As our task is writing, the lexical transfer is not mostly under the effect of gender differences and different L1 backgrounds are not prominent factors in lexical transfer

39. LEXICAL TRANSFER and MOTIVATION Study in the field: rare Motivation language achievement POSITIVE

40. Fernandez Fontecha’s research a)Highly motivated learners have higher vocabulary knowledge. b)They are better language tasks producers irrespective of their true lexical knowledge. Lower degree of lexical transfer because of larger productive vocabularies Results concerning lexical transfer ? more motivated and more task producer: more lexical transfer in order to accomplish the task.

41. Another study by Fernandez and Llach Transfer : a communication strategy rather than a constraint in SLA Suggests lexical transfer independent of motivation. Motivation affects: task performance lexical competence linguistic competence

42. LEXICAL TRANSFER and LEARNING CONTENT

43. TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION ENGLISH AS A SUBJECT Borrowing most frequent lexical transfer • CLIL INSTRUCTION ENGLISH AS THE • INSTRUMENT FOR OTHER SUBJECTS • Larger amount of exposure to FL> More vocabulary-> fewer L1 lexical transfer • Reasons by Llach and Celaya: • The larger lexical repertoire, the less need for previous linguistic knowledge • b) Different instructional approaches • more meaningful and communicative rather than a language task • Lexical inventions more

44. CONCLUSION L2 Proficiency Language background gender Motivation Lexical transfer different for non-CLIL and CLIL learners. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: On word class and word frequency More frequent words and content words : more likely to transfer

45. REFERENCES • Stringer,David. (2008).What Else Transfers? Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2007), ed. Roumyana Slabakova et al., 233- 241. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla ProceedingsProject. Retrieved from: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/9/paper1641.pdf on 28th November,2010. • klj

46. REFERENCES • Bley-Vroman, Robert. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49. • Bloom, Paul. (2000). How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Inagaki, Shunji (2001). Motion Verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 23: 153-170. • Juffs, Alan (1996). Learnability and the Lexicon: Theories and Second Language Acquisition Research.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Piñón, Christopher. (2001). A Finer Look at the Causative-Inchoative Alternation, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Retrieved from:http://pinon.sdf-eu.org/papers/pinon_flcia.pdf on 28th November,2010. • Oh, E & Zubizarreta, M. (2004). The Asymmetric Behavior of Goal and Benefactive Double Objects in the English Interlanguage of AdultL1 Korean and L1 Japanese Speakers. Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004)  Retrieved from:http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/7/paper1166.pdfon 29th November,2010. • Saussure, Ferdinand de (1983 [1916]). Course in General Linguistics (translated and annotated by R. Harris).London: Duckworth. • Sprouse, Rex, A. (2006). Full transfer and relexification: Second language acquisition and creole genesis. In C.Jourdain, C. Lefebvre and L. White (eds.), Montreal Dialogues: Processes in L2 Acquisition and CreoleGenesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.