Contact Linguistics. Chap

Exercise:
Weinreich (1953) suggests that what he calls “phonic interference” can be categorized into the following subtypes: (a) actual phone substitution; (b) underdifferentiation of phonemes; (c) overdifferentiation of phonemes and (d) reinterpretation of distinctions. Explain what each of these refers to, and find suitable examples to illustrate each. How satisfactory do you think Weinreich’s classification is?

Learners may also introduce changes in the phonotactics of their version of the TL under the influence of their L1. For instance, German learners of Swedish transfer their L1 rule that requires devoicing of final obstruents to their L2 Swedish (Hammarberg 1997:170). German learners of English tend to do the same, pronouncing words like job as [jOp]. Various studies have shown that “transfer” of L1 syllabification rules is the primary influence on the syllable structures produced by learners of L2 English from a variety of language backgrounds (Leather & James 1991:327). Finally, there have been similar findings on the effects of L1 influence on prosodic features of an L2 such as word stress, rhythm and intonation patterns (op. cit. 326).

On the whole, it seems clear that the beginning learner, in attempting to make sense of L2 speech, relies heavily on the phonetic categories of the L1. However, it would be simplistic to assume that learners simply substitute L1 sounds for L2 “equivalents” as the classic theory of transfer predicted (Lado 1957). The process by which learners imitate and approximate L2 sounds involves a complex interplay of perception and production that can only be fully understood through detailed phonetic and phonological analysis.


I. 2. 3. L1 influence on L2 Morphology.

Unlike lexical and phonological elements, L1 morphemes tend not to be transferred directly into learner approximations of the TL as substitutions for equivalents in the latter. Bound morphology, in particular, is difficult for beginning learners to recognize far less replace with native morphology, particularly when there is substantial typological distance between the L1 and the TL. The preferred strategy is to reduce or eliminate TL inflectional apparatus and to use periphrastic means of expression instead. Hence early learner L2 varieties commonly lack grammatical categories that convey notions such as agreement, gender, number and case, as well as tense, aspect and so on. In some cases, however, close typological similarity between L1 and L2 may facilitate substitution of certain L1 morphemes for their TL counterparts. For example, Nemser (1991:353) reports that some German-speaking learners of English created plurals like dog-e ‘dogs’ and girl-en ‘girls’, employing German plural suffixes. Similarly, Dusková (1984) notes that Czech learners of Russian tend to substitute L1 bound morphemes for Russian ones in their L2 Russian, producing words like rabotnice “workwomen” with the Czech suffix –nice instead of Russian -nicy.

On the other hand, more indirect L1 influence on L2 morphology or morpho-syntax is often in evidence. It can lead to the reinterpretation of L2 categories, as when French or German learners of L2 English use the Perfect have+V-ed construction as a preterite (I have written the letter yesterday) on the model of their native category, which is used to convey preterite meaning (cf. Ich habe den Brief gestern geschrieben).
L1 influence can also lead to the emergence of “new” grammatical categories in the interlanguage variety. This is typically accomplished via reinterpretation or reanalysis of TL lexemes in terms of L1 functional categories. These kinds of morpho-syntactic change are fairly common in cases of group SLA, including situations of language shift. A well-known example is the so-called “hot news” perfect construction in Hiberno English, consisting of be + after + V-ing (e.g., She’s after painting the house ‘She’s just painted the house’). This is apparently modeled on an Irish (Gaelic) construction (see Section II.2.1 below). We will see in Chapter 9 that these kinds of L1 influence are also quite common in creole formation.


I. 2. 4. L1 influence on TL syntax.

A learner’s L1 can exert varying degrees of influence on the syntax of the approximative (interlanguage) systems s/he constructs at different stages of acquisition. In the earlier stages, the use of L1 word order in attempting to produce TL utterances is quite common, though certainly not absolute. For example, English-speaking learners of L2 French often generalize the SVO order of simple declaratives to sentences containing pronominal objects, which must precede the verb in native French. Thus we find sentences like the following:

(1) il n’est pas prend le

“He doesn’t take it” (Gundel & Tarone 1983).

In these cases, mismatches in syntactic structure between L1 and L2 can impede successful acquisition, and prompt the use of L1 strategies, or “negative transfer.”

Similarly, French-speaking learners of English may employ yes/no questions like the following:

(2) Is the breakfast is good?

Structures like these appear to be modeled on French yes/no questions containing nominal objects, like the following:

(3) Est-ce que Mari est une touriste?

Is-it that Mari is a tourist
“Is Marie a tourist?” (Zobl 1980)

By contrast, the same learners produce acceptable English yes/no questions with pronominal subjects, like the following:

(4) Is he a tourist?

The reason appears to be that such questions have a more or less identical structure in French, as in (5):

(5) Est-il un tourist?

This shows that L1 influence can also have a positive effect on the acquisition of L2 structures, a phenomenon that SLA researchers refer to as “positive transfer.” Another example of this is the relative ease with which English-speaking learners acquire German copular structures and vice-versa. Since the structures are quite similar in the two languages, they are easier to learn, and tend to be mastered quite early. Felix (1977:151) provides the following examples of L2 German copula sentences produced by English-speaking child learners:

(6) a. das ist ein Wind

“That is a wind”
b. das ist grün
“That is green”

However, there are also cases where L1 influence can delay successful acquisition of a TL structure because of a similarity between the L1 and an early developmental stage of acquisition of the structure in question. For instance, most learners of English employ early negative structures consisting of no + Verb, which they eventually abandon in favor of more TL-like structures. However, Spanish and Italian learners of English remain in the no + Verb stage much longer than, say, Japanese learners, because the former languages employ no + Verb structures and therefore promote retention of such structures in the learner versions of English.

It is difficult to generalize about the ways an L1 might influence the learner’s acquisition of TL syntax, since that depends not only on the degree of typological similarity between the languages, but also on the stage of acquisition the learner has reached, and other constraints to be discussed below. As learners pass through various stages of acquisition, L1 influence interacts with their growing proficiency in different ways.
For instance, Meisel et al (1981) propose four stages of acquisition of German word order by English, Italian and other learners. In the first stage, learners use canonical SVO order, which conflicts for the most part with acceptable German word order. In stage 2, learners acquire a rule that requires particles and non-inflected verbs to appear in sentence-final position.¹⁴

(7) Ich habe den Wagen verkauft.

I have the car buy-PP
“I sold the car”

In stage 3, learners master the so-called inversion rule, which inverts the subject with the inflected verb in wh-questions as well as in sentences with preposed adverbs.

(8) Wann gehst du Heim?

When go you home
“When are you going home?”

Finally, in stage 4, learners acquire the rule that moves an inflected verb to clause-final position in an embedded clause.

(9) Ich ruf(e) dich an wenn ich nach Hause gehe.

I call-1sg. you at? when I to home go
“I’ll call you when I go home”

A similar pattern of acquisition is reported by Pienemann (1984) for children learning German as a second language. Given this order of acquisition, it follows that early learners may employ L1 word order in, say, subordinate clauses, even after they have abandoned it in wh-questions and other structures.

L1 grammar can also influence the acquisition of other TL syntactic features such as the argument structure of TL verbs. Nemser (1991:360) reports that his German-speaking learners produced L2 English sentences like (10), which seems to be modeled on the German equivalent in (11):

(10) Explain me something.

(11) Erklär mir was.

In this case, the subcategorization properties of G. erklären have been “transferred” to explain. The reanalysis may also be motivated by analogy with English verbs like tell, show, etc. The same learners also produce L2 English utterances like the following. (German equivalents are provided)

(12) L2 E. I would suggest him to go.

G. Ich empfehle ihm zu gehen

(13) L2 E. You just finished to eat.

• 
  Du hast gerade aufgehört zu essen.
  

Again, these may be reinforced by analogy with other English verbs that take infinitival complements, for instance, like, expect etc. in the case of suggest, and start, agree, etc. in the case of finish. Here again, it is interaction between L1 influence and advanced learning that seems to produce such reanalysis.