The Role of the First Language

TheRoleoftheFirstLanguageChapter5dealswithso-calledfirstlanguage"interference".ItattemptstoprovidesomeempiricaldataforapositionfirstheldbyNewmark(1966):"interference"isnotthefirstlanguage"gettingintheway"ofsecondlanguageskills.Rather,itistheresultoftheperformer"fallingback"onoldknowledgewhenheorshehasnotyetFig.2.Firstlanguageinfluenceinsecondlanguageperformance.acquiredenoughofthesecondlanguage.IntermsoftheMonitorperformancemodel,interferenceistheresultoftheuseofthefirstlanguageasanutteranceinitiator:firstlanguagecompetencemayreplaceacquiredsecondlanguagecompetenceintheperformancemodel,asinFig.2.Fromthedatawehavesofar,thishypothesiscorrectlypredictsthatthoseaspectsofsyntaxthattendtobeacquiredarealsothosethatshowfirst-language-influencederrorsinsecondlanguageperformance.Thetopicof"firstlanguageinterference"hashadanunusualhistoryinsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchandpractice.Formanyyears,ithadbeenpresumedthattheonlymajorsourceofsyntacticerrorsinadultsecondlanguageperformancewastheperformer'sfirstlanguage(Lado,1957),andagreatdealofmaterialspreparationwasdonewiththisassumptioninmind(Banathy,Trager,andWaddle,1966).Subsequentempiricalstudiesoferrorsmadebysecondlanguagestudentsledtothediscovery,however,thatmanyerrorsarenottraceabletothestructureofthefirstlanguage,butarecommontosecondlanguageperformersofdifferentlinguisticbackgrounds(e.g.Richards,1971;Buteau,1970).Thesefindingshaveledseveralscholarstoquestionthevalueofcontrastiveanalysisandtoargueinsteadforerroranalysis.Thefirstlanguage,itismaintained,isbutoneofseveralsourcesoferror,andothersourcesneedtobeconsidered.Theissuenow,asIseeit,isnotwhetherfirst-language-influencederrorsexistinsecondlanguageperformance(theyclearlydo),orevenwhatpercentageoferrorscanbetracedtothefirstlanguageintheadult,but,rather,wherefirstlanguageinfluencefitsinthetheoreticalmodelforsecondlanguageperformance.Inthischapter,Iwillattempttoshowthatfindingsonfirstlanguageinfluenceonsecondlanguageperformancearequiteconsistentwithfindingsandhypothesesfromotherapparentlynonrelatedareas,andthattheycontributetoacleartheoreticalpictureofsecondlanguageacquisitionandperformance.First,therelevantfindingsonfirstlanguageinfluencearesummarized.Followingthis,theroleofthefirstlanguageasasubstituteutteranceinitiatorisdiscussed.ResearchFindings1.Firstlanguageinfluenceappearstobestrongestincomplexwordorderandinword-for-wordtranslationsofphrases.Evidenceforthisgeneralizationcomesfromseveralsources.Duskova(1969),forexample,studiedwrittenerrorsinthecompositionsofCzech"postgraduatestudents"andconcludedthat"interferencefromthemothertongue...wasplainlyobviousinerrorsofwordorderandsentenceconstruction"(p.18),acommonexamplebeingtheplacementofthedirectobjectafteranadverbial,asinImettheresomeGermans.Alsopresentinthecompositionsweremanyword-for-wordtranslationsofCzechexpressionsintoEnglish,suchas"anothermyfriend"insteadof"anotherfriendofmine".LoCoco(1975),inastudyofAmericancollegestudentslearningSpanishandGermanintheUS,aforeignlanguagesituation,reportedthatthe"highincidenceofinterlingual(L1interference)errorsinGermanwasduetowordordererrors..."(p.101).TypicalexamplesincludeHoffentlichdubistgesundHopefullyyouarehealthycorrect:      HoffentlichbistdugesundandIchbinglücklichseinhierIamhappytobeherecorrect:      Ichbinglücklichhierzusein.Firstlanguage-basederrorsinSpanishwerelessnumerousand"pertainedprimarilytoadjectiveposition".ThegreaterwordorderdifferencesbetweenEnglishandGermanascomparedtoEnglishandSpanishaccountsforthedifferencesinfrequenciesininterferencewordordererrors.SpanishstudentsweremoreoftencorrectinusingEnglishsurfacestructuresinutteranceinitiationduetothegreatersurfacesimilaritybetweenEnglishandSpanish.ThisalsoaccountsforChan's(1975)findingthatEnglishtoSpanishinterferenceerrors65occurredmainly"ongrammaticalcategoriesabsentineithertheNLorTL"andnotinwordorder.LoCocoalsofoundthatsecondlevelSpanishstudentsshowedanincreaseininterferencetypeerrorsthatLoCococalls"wholeexpressionterms",orword-for-wordtranslationsofanL1expression,whichissimilartowhatDuskovareported.2.Firstlanguageinfluenceisweakerinboundmorphology.Duskova(1969)notesthaterrorsinboundmorphology(e.g.omissionofpluralsonnouns,lackofsubject-verbagreement,adjective-nounagreement)arenotduetofirstlanguageinfluenceinherCzechstudentsofEFL:CzechnounsdonotdistinguishsingularandpluralandinCzech"thefiniteverbagreeswithitssubjectinpersonandnumber".Theseerrorsare,rather,"interferencebetweentheothertermsoftheEnglishsubsysteminquestion"(p.21).Moreover,theseerrors"occurevenincaseswheretheEnglishformisquiteanalogoustothecorrespondingCzechform"(p.21).Of166morphologicalerrors,onlynineteenwerejudgedasduetoCzechinterference.(interestingly,ofthesenineteen,severalwerefreemorphemes;seediscussioninChapter4.)AlsoconsistentisKellerman's(forthcoming)suggestionthatinflectionalmorphology("exceptinverycloselyrelatedlanguages")belongstothecategoryofstructurethatperformersgenerallydonottransferinsecondlanguageperformance.3.Firstlanguageinfluenceseemstobestrongestin"acquisitionpoor"environments.DulayandBurt(1974b)andGillisandWeber(1976)havedemonstratedthatfirstlanguageinfluenceisrareinchildsecondlanguageacquisition(butseebelow).Ontheotherhand,studiesthatreportahighamountoffirstlanguageinfluence,suchasthosecitedabove,aremostlyforeignandnotsecondlanguagestudies,situationsinwhichnaturalappropriateintakeisscarceandwheretranslationexercisesarefrequent.Inthisregard,itisinterestingtonotethatwecanfindsignsoffirstlanguageinfluenceinimmersionbilingualprogramswhereinputisoftenprimarilyfromtheteacherandnotfrompeers.66First-language-influencederrorsherearealsointhedomainofwordorder(Selinker,Swain,andDumas,1975;PlannandRamirez,1976).Thissuggeststhatitisnotsimplythecasethatadultsshowfirstlanguageinfluencewhilechildrendonot.Wewouldexpecttoseefirstlanguageinfluenceinsituationswherechildsecondlanguageacquirersobtainlessintakeorwhereaffectiveconditionspreventorinhibitacquisition(wheretheaffectivefilter"filters"theinput;seeChapter2).ConclusionsWenowattempttointegratethesefindingsandfitthemintotheMonitorModelforperformance.First,letusreconsiderNewmark's(1966)proposalforamechanismforfirstlanguageinfluence.AccordingtoNewmark,firstlanguageinfluenceisnotproactiveinhibition,butissimplytheresultoftheperformerbeing"calledontoperformbeforehehasleanedthenewbehaviour".Theresultis"padding",usingoldknowledge,supplyingwhatisknowntomakeupforwhatisnotknown.Newmarksuggeststhatthe"cureforinterferenceissimplythecureforignorance:learning"(intermsofMonitorTheory,thiswouldread"acquisition").WhatcanbeconcludedfromtheaboveisthattheL1may"substitute"fortheacquiredL2asanutteranceinitiatorwhentheperformerhastoproduceinthetargetlanguagebuthasnotacquiredenoughoftheL2todothis.Firstlanguageinfluencemaythereforebeanindicationoflowacquisition.Ifso,itcanbeeliminatedoratleastreducedbynaturalintakeandlanguageuse.ThisiswhatapparentlyoccurredinTaylor'sESLsubjects,whoshowedlessfirstlanguageinfluencewithmoreproficiency(Taylor,1975).Perhapsthe"silentperiod"observedinnaturalchildsecondlanguageacquisition(Hakuta,1974;HuangandHatch,1978)correspondstotheperiodinwhichthefirstlanguageisheavilyusedin67"unnatural"adultsecondlanguageperformance.Thechildrenmaybebuildingupacquiredcompetenceviainput,andseveralrecentstudies(Gary,1974;Postovsky,1977)implythatlessinsistenceonearlyoralperformancemaybeprofitableforchildrenandadultsstudyingsecondlanguagesinformalsettings.TheL1plusMonitorModeFirstlanguageinfluencecanthusbeconsideredasunnatural.Onecouldtheoreticallyproducesentencesinasecondlanguagewithoutanyacquisition:thefirstlanguagesurfacestructurecanbeusedwithsecondlanguagecontentlexiconinserted.TheMonitormaythenbeusedtoaddsomemorphologyanddoitsbesttorepairwordorderwhereitdiffersformtheL2.Onecanonlygosofarwiththismode,asoneislimitedbythecompetenceoftheconsciousgrammarandonemustappealtoitwitheveryutterance.Theadultcan,however,producesentencesrightawayinthetargetlanguageusingthismode,andthismayhelptoaccountforreportsofmorerapidprogressinearlystagesforadultsthanforchildreninsecondlanguageperformance(SnowandHoefnagel-Hohle,1978).Itisatemporaryadvantage,however.Acquisitionmaybeslow,butitis,inthelongrun,muchmoreusefulwhenlanguageisusedforthepurposeofcommunication.1