Philippine Normal University

Manila
The National Center for Teacher Education
College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research
Vision: PNU shall become internationally recognized and nationally responsive teacher education
university. As the established producer of knowledge workers in the field of education, it shall be the
primarily source of high-quality teachers and education managers that can directly inspire and shape the
quality of Filipino students and graduates in the country and the world.
Mission: PNU is dedicated to nurturing innovative teachers and education leaders.

Marc Ivan J. Paleracio Saturday (7:00-10:00 am)

MA-ELE February 23, 2019
ELE 701- Second Language Acquisition

Language Transfer in Second Language Acquisition:

(A Synthesis of Five SLA Researches)

There does not yet exist any comprehensive theory of language transfer – and the appearance

of one any time soon seems unlikely (Odlin, 2003, p. 478).

Introduction

The study of L2 acquisition is riddled by interpretations from different perspectives

which, by nature, should be the climate which the discipline should operate in. Second
language acquisition is a complex field to discuss, hypothesize, and theorize on. The
discipline accounts for several aspects—internal-external factors; implicit-explicit
knowledge; cross-sectional-longitudinal data, etc. This explains why studies on SLA,
although some efforts are made, cannot cover all the necessary subsets to holistically
examine the processes involved in the acquisition of a second language. In a similar vein,
this synthesis also draws into the same principle. As such, these synthesized researches
focus on one SLA studies subset which is on the dynamics of language transfer.
Language Transfer (also known as L1 interference, linguistic interference, and
crosslinguistic influence) refers to speakers or writers applying knowledge from one
language to another language. It is the transfer of linguistic features between languages
in the speech repertoire of a bilingual or multilingual individual, whether from first ("L1")
to second ("L2"), second to first or many other relationships. It is most commonly
discussed in the context of English language learning and teaching, but it can occur in
any situation when someone does not have a native-level command of a language, as
when translating into a second language.
This synthesis will be providing the general premise of five second language
acquisition studies and, furthermore, will explain how these studies relate to each other
relevant to the language transfer umbrella which it is set on.

Second Language Transfer

It is a widely accepted idea that the individual’s L1 has an influence on the

acquisition of any foreign language. However, this influence — called transfer — is not
unidirectional, and the L1 of bilingual speakers features characteristics that set it apart
from the L1 of monolingual speakers. Actually, the notion of multicompetence, a term
coined by Cook in 1992, was suggested to explain, among other aspects, multidirectional
transfer in multilinguals. As Cook (2003) puts it, “since the first language and the other
language or languages are in the same mind, they must form a language supersystem at
some level other than be completely isolated systems” (As cited in Rothman et al. 2013).
Therefore, with the acquisition of any new foreign language, the possibility of changes to
the supersystem and thus the subsystems of specific languages in the multilingual mind
grows exponentially.
Nonetheless, there is still an ongoing debate as to how the bilingual brain operates.
For some, the two languages interact with each other and, therefore, they can both be
accessed regardless of the language that is being used at the time — language non-
selective view. For others, bilinguals access words from the language being used at a
particular time, and there is minimal, if any, influence from the bilingual’s other language.
Even though there seems to be wide consensus around the idea that linguistic transfer is
commonplace in bilingual individuals — suggesting interaction between languages — ,
researches have also found that transfer is more common among similar languages. In
other words, individuals bilingual in Spanish and Catalan are much more likely to show
instances of linguistic transfer than individuals bilingual in Russian and Chinese.
Despite this, while L1 transfer is undeniably a major factor in FL acquisition,
researchers should be careful not to claim that all FL errors are based solely on the
difference between the L1 and the FL. Firstly, some structures of the FL not present in
the L1 appear to be more easily acquired than others, no matter how different the FL is
from the L1. Secondly, FL learners usually exhibit coherent and systematic patterns, and
yet these patterns are distinct from those of both their L1 and the language they are
learning. For example, in Eckman (1981), Spanish speakers learning English were found
to produce a pattern of word-final devoicing, which is not a feature of neither English nor
Spanish.
These two types of phenomena have frequently been attributed to universal
principles such as markedness where unmarked structures are generally considered to
be those that are more basic, typologically common and phonetically easier to perceive
and produce. In addition, the Similarity Differential Rate Hypothesis also suggests that
“dissimilar features will be acquired at faster rates than similar ones but (…) markedness
will slow rate” (Pickering, 2012).
As for the unique patterns learners exhibit and cannot be found in either their L1
or the language they are learning, they are also commonly analyzed as resulting from
universal preference for unmarked structures. These patterns are said to form “a mental
system developed by learners that enables them to produce and understand utterances
of this system known as Interlanguage or IL (Pickering, 2012). It was once thought to be
based primarily on structures transferred mainly from the L1 and, to a lesser extent, from
the FL, but researchers found out that it is actually independent from both. It is, therefore,
the mental representation of the FL grammar in its wider sense — that learners develop
as they acquire the language. In other words, it could be described as a type of idiolect
developed by non-native speakers of the language.

Cognitive Theory of Markedness and Native Language Transfer (Liang, 2016)

The premise by which this study is grounded on is in the process of second

language acquisition (SLA), such phenomena as some linguistic knowledge in the target
language is much easier to acquire than others in SLA and some linguistic knowledge in
native language is apt to be transferred are prevailing. To account for these phenomena,
markedness theory is introduced and attempts to provide a plausible explanation. In
particular, cognitive theory of markedness, or rather, prototypicality has proven to be
effective and powerful in predicting the transferability of native language. This paper tries
to offer a brief introduction of markedness theory and its recent development,
prototypicality and conduct a review on related achievements gained in the studies of
native language transfer in SLA. At the same time, shortcomings of current researches
as well as prospect of future researches in this field were be pointed out.
This study emphasizes on the fundamentals of markedness which, by definition, is
the state of standing out as unusual or divergent in comparison to a more common or
regular form. In a marked–unmarked relation, one term of an opposition is the broader,
dominant one. The dominant default or minimum-effort form is known as unmarked; the
other, secondary one is marked. In other words, markedness involves the
characterization of a "normal" linguistic unit against one or more of its possible "irregular"
forms. This aspect of language acquisition is further complemented by an insight on
prototypicality which is a nuanced aspect in predicting native language transferability.

Plurilingualism

Plurilingualism is a philosophical orientation to languages put forward by the

Council of Europe and outlined in documents such as the Guide for the Development of
Language Education Policies in Europe (Beacco & Byram, 2007) and the CEFR or the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2011).
Plurilingual and pluricultural competence can be defined as the ability “to use languages
for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural action, where a person,
viewed as a social agent, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and
experience of several cultures” (CEFR, 2011, p. 168). Therefore, plurilingualism as the
capacity/repertoire of individuals can be distinguished from multilingualism which exists
on the group/societal level. Key claims of plurilingual theory can be summarized in the
succeeding parts.
Firstly, languages are fundamentally interconnected. Language learning should
take advantage of this through the coordination of teaching in and through languages
rather than learning them in isolation or focusing on a single foreign language i.e. lingua
franca English.
Secondly, learning can be targeted at ‘partial competences’ in a range of
languages based on the needs of the learner. This problematizes conceptions of the ideal
native speaker and indeed renders such learning aims impractical, opening up space in
education for the learning of multiple additional languages.
And lastly, learning takes place throughout life and not exclusively during school
years. Competences can be continually expanded based on changing linguistic needs at
different stages of life and for different purposes i.e. school, work, travel.
Plurilingualism as a competence is extended to plurilingualism as a value which entails
the valuation of linguistic diversity, linguistic equality and linguistic democracy.
In sum, the plurilingual repertoire is an ability to speak/use a range of languages
to varying degrees of proficiency and for different purposes/in different contexts/at
different stages of life. Plurilingualism counters early conceptions of LIH and bilingual
theory for advocating a ‘pluralization of monolingualism’ where languages are juxtaposed
rather than interconnected. On the other hand, this conception of language competences
as composite mirrors Cummins (2000) and the common underlying proficiency, thus
moving beyond L1/L2 binaries and CA’s emphasis on language systems. Thus the very
notion of transfer (from one language to another) is problematized and language learning
is rather conceived of in terms of activating and connecting these common, composite
features. This leads to a decompartmentalized pedagogy where languages are not
learned in isolation but in correlation because they “all involve the same competence: the
potential and/or effective ability to use several languages to different degrees for different
purposes that may vary over time” (Beacco & Byram, 2007, p. 25). As mentioned above,
the goal of such a schema is not for learners to achieve the level of ‘ideal native speaker’
but rather to develop partial competences that lead to life-long learning beyond formal
education. This means that proficiency in foreign languages is no longer a seemingly
impossible aim and thus learners will be more willing to use and identify with languages
as non-native speakers. In addition to this, life-long learning discourages the misnomer
that equates successful language acquisition exclusively with childhood.
Plurilingualism also works to extend Language Interconnected hypothesis by
incorporating not only the psychological but also the sociocultural in the language user
as social agent. This works to promote learner autonomy and agency where individuals
engage in “successful socio-communicative interactions based on intercomprehension,
value the importance of otherness, manage knowledge, and are prepared to co-construct
and define complex identities” (Santos Alves & Mendes, 2006, p. 213). Therefore, another
central tenet of plurilingualism is a pluricultural competence which involves the
development of intercultural understanding in order to relativize the self, detach from
native language/culture biases and take on other’s perspectives. Such insights can come
from learning the languages of others and exploring the connections with one’s own.

MTBMLE in the Philippines: Perceptions, Attitudes, and Outlook (Gallego & Zubiri,
2013)

The linguistic context of the Philippines plays an important role in the formulation
and implementation of various language and education policies in the country. Home to
171 extant languages (Lewis, 2009), the archipelago is a colorful mix of cultures,
traditions,
and languages.
In many ways, the interaction we see among the languages spoken here are by
no means a product of different social factors – language preference, shift, borrowings,
and contact are brought about by the concepts of prestige, ideologies, labels and
stereotypes the speakers continue to propagate. This particular paper examines how for
several decades, education and language policies in the Philippines have been a popular
subject of debate especially among policy makers and school administrators. The
1974 Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) and the 1987 constitutional mandate on the status
of Filipino, in particular, were significant issues contributing to the course of the Philippine
education system (Rubrico, 1998; Acuña & Miranda, 1994). More recently, the
implementation of DepEd Order No. 60, s. 2008 and DepEd Order No. 74, s. 2009 caused
a significant change in the current educational landscape. The former recognizes that the
mother tongue, when used as the language of instruction (LOI), is themost effective way
to improve student learning. Correspondingly, the latter mandate aptly institutionalized
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) as a fundamental educational
policy program, founded on the basic premise of starting “where the learners are, and
from what they already know” (Nolasco, 2009: 2). MTBMLE advances education
beginning with the child’s first language (L1) and the subsequent gradual introduction of
other languages along with the buildup of the child’s L1 skills.
By looking at the paper’s abstract, it can immediately be deduced how it relates to
language transfer in general. With plurilingualism setting the tone for examining the tenets
of localized language transfer, one can see how an analysis of the MTB-MLE program
could establish better understanding of L2 acquisition even when juxtaposed to English
language acquisition studies.

First language transfer in second language writing: An examination of current

research (Karim, K. & Nassaji, H., 2012)

Language transfer is a major process in L2 acquisition. Its importance, however,

has not been fully appreciated in SLA research, pedagogy, or classroom contexts.
Although the notion has been around for almost a century, its significance has been
reevaluated several times within the last few decades. Early research in language transfer
can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s, during which the field of linguistics was
heavily influenced by Behaviorism, which viewed learning simply as a habit formation
process. Transfer from the native language was, thus, considered as a form of influence
of L1 habits on L2 learning. Fries (1945), one of the foremost behaviorists, argued that
L1 interference is a major problem for those who are learning a second language. He
further argued that comparisons between a learner’s native language and the target
language are essential for both L2 theory and pedagogy.
Lado (1957) also stressed the importance of the native language, considering it a
major cause of lack of success in L2 learning. He then proposed what has been known
as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) as a way of explaining the role that L1
plays in L2 learning. According to this hypothesis, L2 learners’ productive and receptive
skills are influenced by their L1 patterns and that similarities and differences between L1
and L2 are important predictors of ease and difficulty of L2 learning.
In general view, first language (L1) transfer has been a key issue in the field of
applied linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA), and language pedagogy for
almost a century. Its importance, however, has been re-evaluated several times within
the last few decades. The aim of this paper is to examine current research that has
investigated the role of L1 transfer in second language (L2) writing. The paper begins by
discussing the different views of L1 transfer and how they have changed over time and
then reviews some of the major studies that have examined the role of L1 transfer both
as a learning tool and as a communicative strategy in L2 writing. The paper concludes
with a number of suggestions for L2 writing instruction and future research.
References:

Beacco, J.C. & Byram, M. (2007). Guide for the development of language education
policies in Europe from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Strasbourg:
Language Policy Division. Council of Europe.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for language
learning and teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2012, December 25). First language transfer in second
language writing: An examination of current research. Retrieved February 20,
2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127353.pdf.
Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas,
Texas: SIL International.
Liang, D. (2016, March 05). Cognitive Theory of Markedness and Native Language
Transfer. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ire.v4i1.9145
Nolasco, R. (2009). 21 Reasons why Filipino children learn better while using their
Mother Tongue: A primer on Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education
(MLE) and other issues on language and learning in the Philippines. Guro
Formation Forum.
Odlin, T. (2003) Crosslinguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The

handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Oxford: Blackwell.

Pickering, L. (2012). Second Language Speech Production. In Gass & Mackey (Eds.)

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Chippenham:

Routledge (pp. 335-348).