Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:58:38.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mother and Other Tongue Influence on Learner French

A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

David Singleton
David Singleton
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Dublin
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent perspectives on language transfer have highlighted the role of psychotypology and have given new life to Newmark's ignorance hypothesis. This paper examines such perspectives in the light of a body of data in French from a beginning learner of that language whose native language is English but who in addition has some knowledge of Irish, Latin, and Spanish. The fact that Spanish emerges as a privileged transfer source seems to point to a psychotypology factor, and certain distributional and contextual evidence appears to show that ignorance is in many cases triggering thè transfers. However, because ignorance does not seem to explain all cases, some speculation is entered into, on the basis of clues in the data, regarding the role of memory codes in transfer.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , October 1987, pp. 327 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D., & Hosenfeld, C. (1981). Some uses of mentalistic data in second language research. Language Learning, 31, 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1974). The significance of learners' errors. In Richards, J. C. (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives in second language acquisition (pp. 19–27). London: Longman. Reprinted from International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967, 5, 161–170.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1978). Language-learner language. In Richards, J. C. (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 71–93). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (pp. 85–97).Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1985). Second language acquisition and second language teaching. Epharmosmene Glossologia: Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 7–21.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. (1977). Rules, grammatical intuitions and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 5–76.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 59–92.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don't. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (pp. 112–134).Google Scholar
Kleinmann, H. H. (1978). The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications (pp. 157–174). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1983). Newmark's “ignorance hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (pp. 135–153).Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Newmark, L. (1966). How not to interfere with language learning. Language learning: The individual and the process. International Journal of American Linguistics, 40, 77–83.Google Scholar
Newmark, L., & Reibel, D. A. (1968). Necessity and sufficiency in language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oller, J., & Ziahosseiny, S. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Language Learning, 20, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J., Tyson, A., & Diffley, F. (1976). Learner intuitions of grammaticality. Language Learning, 26, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singleton, D. M. (1981). Language transfer: A review of some recent research. CLCS Occasional Paper I. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies.Google Scholar
Singleton, D. M. (1983). Alien intrusions in learner French: A case study. Teanga: Journal of the Irish Association for Applied Linguistics, 3, 87–128.Google Scholar
Sjöholm, K. (1976). A comparison of the test results in grammar and vocabulary between Finnish- and Swedish-speaking applicants for English 1974. In Ringbom, H. & Palmberg, R. (Eds.), Errors made by Finns in the learning of English, AFTIL 5 (pp. 54–137). Åbo: Åbo Akademi, Publications of the Department of English.Google Scholar
Sjöholm, K. (1979). Do Finns and Swedish-speaking Finns use different strategies in the learning of English as a foreign language? In Palmberg, R. (Ed.), Perception and production of English: Papers on interlanguage, AFTIL 6 (pp. 89–119). Åbo: Åbo Akademi, Publications of the Department of English.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Stein, B. S. (1978). Depth of processing reexamined: The effects of the precision of encoding and test appropriateness. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In Brown, D., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL 77. Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 194–203). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. M., & Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, E. (1966). Subjective organization and effects of repetition in multi-trial free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in the episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, M. J., & Tulving, E. (1975). Episodic memory: When recognition fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whinnom, K. (1971). Linguistic hybridization and the “special case” of pidgins and creoles. In Hymes, D. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 91–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wikberg, K. (1979). Lexical errors made by Finnish and Swedish senior secondary school students: A comparison. Paper presented at the Interlanguage Symposium, Hanasaari, Helsinki, Sweden.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1978). The L1 vs. L2 acquisition of English interrogation. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 33–57.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1980a). The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1980b). Developmental and transfer errors: Their common bases and (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 469–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar