1 / 34

Who knows more than two languages ? Who knows more than three languages ?

The interactIon of languages In the lexIcal search of multIlIngual language users (BARKER, 2006). Who knows more than two languages ? Who knows more than three languages ?

april
Download Presentation

Who knows more than two languages ? Who knows more than three languages ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TheinteractIon of languagesInthelexIcalsearch of multIlInguallanguageusers (BARKER, 2006)

  2. Whoknowsmorethantwo languages? Whoknowsmorethanthree languages? Supposethatyouare in a study in whichyouareaskedtotranslatefromyour L1 to L3, andfromyour L2 to L3.

  3. Whatproperties of thelanguagewouldyoumakeuse of – lexical, phonological, syntacticaletc.? Ben universitye gittim. Yazları farmer olarak babama yardım ediyordum. Let’srememberthen, theconditions in whichlexical transfer occurs!

  4. the TL (target language) element has not been acquired because of insufficient input or no input at all; the TL element has been internalized by the learner but he/she cannot access/activate it at the moment of performance (especially in immediate tasks such as speaking); the rules acquired are not sufficient/complete and do not account for all necessary applications; the rules can only be approximated, e.g. the English system of indefinite and definite articles. (Gabrys, 1999: 170– 71). Lexical Transfer OccursWhen:

  5. Therearemanyfactorsaffectinglanguage performance of multilinguals; such as therealandperceivedlangugaedistance Langugemarkedness Learners’ learninghistoryetc. BUT ThestudybyDanutaGabrys-Barker (2006) considerstheinfluence of anothervariable which is lexicalprocessinganditsresults in trilingualcontext.

  6. Lexical Transfer Errors in Multilingual Production • language switches; • coinages; • deceptive cognates; • calques; • semantic extensions. Both in meaningand in form

  7. Coinages • A subcategory of coinage, blendhappenswhenthelearnerdoes not havethecounterpart of a word in TL. He creates a newwordbyusingthecharacteristics of an alreadyknownwordeither in L1 or in L2. • Ceremonie – Zeremonie (German) • Conflict – confliction (by Esra)(French) • DeceptiveCognates • Ifthere is formalsimilarity in onewordbetweentwolangugaes,in ordertofindthemeaning of theintendedone, thelearnerusesthesimilar L2 word. • Sympathy (English) (sempati – Turkish) • Macchina (Italian) (makine – Turkish) • Appartement/ Appartment (French/English) (Apartman - Turkish) Foreignisingstrategy is used

  8. Calque • Word or phrase borrowed from another language by literal, word-for-word or root-for-root translation. • Heavy-headed – Ağırbaşlı (English – Turkish) • Semantic extensions • The wrong contextual use of the word, overextension or near synonym • Arkadaşım güzel, kibar ve ateşli bir kadındır. (English – hot) • Getout! (Turkish – dışarı çıkar mısınız lütfen?) (by Emrah) Ringbom (2001) believesthat as thelearner’s L2 proficiencydevelops, theselexical transfer errorsoccurlessandless.

  9. Howdoes a multilingualbrainfunction? Areallthelanguagesstored in thebrainseperatelyor is thereanyinterconnectedness? Herwig(2001): Thelanguages in themultilingualbrainarelinked, but they can also be activetatedindependently. Paradis (1987): Languages of a multilingualare not static but flexibleanddynamic LexicalProcessing of Multilinguals

  10. Lexicalprocess: 1. Lexicalsearch ( thestage of appropriateconceptualization) 2. Lexicalretrieval (accessandactivation of an appropriatewowrd in mentallexicon) • Whenseverallanguagesareinvolved, languageprocessingbecomes a complexproceduredeterminedbylinguisticvariablessuch as: • Word characteristics • Languageproficiency

  11. The paper investigatesthe problem of lexical search performed by multilingual language users and analyzes theinteraction of differentlanguagespresentor not presentduringtranslationprocess (L1, L2 and L3). • ResearchHypothesis: thelanguage of inputtheinformantsareexposedtowhileperformingthetaskwill be themain but not theonlyvariabledeterminingthelanguageprocessingandthe final outcome (thetranslation of thetext). • Thestudyfocuses on theanalysis of types of lexicalprocessingobservedandtheexamples of transfer errorsresultingfromtheactivationandinteraction of thelanguagesinvolved in thetask. StudyDescription

  12. Students at a foreignlanguagedepartment of a Portugueseuniversity L1 =>Portuguese L2 =>advanced English L3 =>pre-intermediate German The selected text: a short newspaper article about wine industry The first group: from Portuguese to German (L3) The second group: from English (L2) to German(L3) Text difficulty: Slightly beyond their L3 competence Informants

  13. Simultaneous introspection (a verbalization of language processing concurrent with the performance of translation task). It allows both for analyzing the translation and following the process- Thinkingaloudprotocols (TAP) Written translation as a non-immediate task is preferred since the task involves conscious processing. P.S. The informants had practicedverbalization beforehand. Method

  14. Attentionwaspaidtolexicalaccuracyandtheabilitytomanipulatethetext in thecase of lexicalinadequacy, and not tothegrammaticalcorrectness. Theresearcherswantedtoknowwhichitemswouldbringabout a moreelaboratelexicalsearch. Inlexicalselection:

  15. Patterns of lexicalsearch in the L1 inputtask: Theverbalization data in the L1 task is veryscarce. The level of verbalization observed is higher than in the L2 task by 22%(Gabry -Barker, 2002), Thelearnerscommented not on processing the language,but the task difficulty or of one’s performance Lexicalprocessing in bothcases

  16. Ainaofico a minima idea de comose diz (I haven’tgottheslightest idea) • Subjects made no attempt to reformulate the text or use any strategy.

  17. Subjectswereincapable of restructuringthetext in L1 ortheywere not awarethatthelexicalsearchmight be facilitatedby L1 textmanipulation. • Therewereonlytwosubjectswhoactivatedtheir L2, thisdidn’tfacilitatetheperformance, rather it ledtocode-switching in L1 or L2. • Considerthisexample: “…mercados-mercados-mercados…market-market-business-greipeaufdieimmergrossere….”

  18. Theholisticanalysis of subjects’ performance in L1 task(Gabrys-Barker, 2002)

  19. Level of verbalization L2  51% while L1  73 % However, the L2 performancedemonstratesmoreexplicitlinguisticprocessing data as opposedtothe L1 task data, whichprovideverylittleevidence of languageprocessing. Patterns of LexicalSearch in the L2 InputTask

  20. In L2 task, thesubjectsusedvariouslexicalsearchstrategies: • Simplification: (…) hm-pointedout-calledattention-ok say it theotherway-hatgesagt-dasist-es istsehrwichtig • Foreignizing: • producing a word that would resemble an L3 lexical item in spelling or suffix, etc: producers I don’tknow– Produktoren* – Produktoren Patterns of LexicalSearch in the L2 InputTask

  21. Semanticextension: • called attention to the need to develop markets – emphasised – emphasised – reminded – ennertevon (thecorrectsynonym of “remind” in German:erinnert)– stressed –stress – não • Word Coinage: • Creation of long- typicallyGerman- complexwords • Wineproducers – wiesagtmandass – Weinmachers – Weinmachers – I don’tknowifthiswordexists in German – Weinmacher • Code-switching • Desdreirepresentatives – representantenfur (…) dieGovernment – dieGovernment

  22. Inthefirststage, automatictranslationinto L1 Inthesecondstage, L3 is activated Inbothstages, no explicitprocessingorverbalisation is manifested. Patterns of LexicalSearch in the L2 InputTask

  23. Theyareallexamples of paraphrasingandtheseerrorsconstituteonlyapproximations on theintendedmeaning. ThelearnertriestotranslateEnglishword “profoundly” intoGerman, he is to say “beeinfluss hat”, but instead he usedtheonlyword he knowsforthismeaning, which is “sehrwichitg” only a paraphrase. Non-transfer errors

  24. How do youthinkwe can usethisresearch in theenvironment of second/foreignlanguagelearningandteaching?

  25. Degree of automaticity: In L1 input, verbalization was much more automatic and lexical search didn’t activate their L1 or possibly L2. In L2 input it was more elaborate, conscious and deliberate which showed their metalinguistic knowledge. ImplicationsforthePractice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

  26. 2) Languages activated: In L1 input, mostly L1 and occasionally L3. In the second group mostly source language (L2) and L3 to a lesser degree. Only the ones (10%) who had acquired L3 in natural settings first translated L2 items into L1 and performed the search in L3. ImplicationsforthePractice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

  27. 3) Approach to the task: In L1 input translation, it was much more a word-for-wordprocessand automatic solutions to individual words were observed. The second group process the text itself and their focus on the correctness of form is also seen. ImplicationsforthePractice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

  28. 4) Strategies of retrieval: No detailed comments except for affective comments expressing difficulty were observed due to automatic processing. In L2 input strategies based on L2 lexical competence such as paraphrase, circumlocution, blending, semantic field search were observed. Code-switching seems to appear in both tasks. The learners are unable to access to the language that is not a surface one. ImplicationsforthePractice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

  29. 5) Types of errors: 87% transfer errors in L1 vs. 60% transfer errors in L2 due to different processing strategies. In both cases the language of input served as the source for lexical transfer just like code-switching examples. ImplicationsforthePractice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

  30. Thestudyhighlightstheimportance of learners’ metacognitionunderstood as bothknowledgeaboutandknowledgehow. Thesubjects’ expertise in theirmothertonguedid not facilitatetheirperformence, andthis is becausetheirlanguageawareness in L1 implicit. A surprisingdeduction is thateliminating L1 fromlanguageteaching (which is highlysuggested) can be thedirectcause of this. Somedidacticimplications

  31. Theuse of priorknowledge, i.e. of one’s L1, couldcontributetolearners’ successboth at thecognitivelevel (objectivelanguageprogress) and at theaffectivelevel (lessanxietyandhigher self-confidence) Somedidacticimplications

  32. Thankyou! THANK YOU!

More Related