Contact Linguistics. Chap

Exercise:
Find as many examples as you can of L1 influence on a learner’s version of L2 English, focussing on syntax. Try to explain the reasons for such influence.


I. 3. Simplification in SLA.

Another major strategy employed by learners as compensation for partial or incomplete acquisition is simplification. This term is somewhat controversial since it can refer to a variety of different processes of change, as well as the final product or consequences of such changes. I will use it here as a cover term for processes that include reduction of TL structures, rule regularization, and other strategies aimed at achieving ease of perception and production. These processes interact both with L1 influence and with changes that are internal to the developing L2 grammar.

Learner versions of the TL are typically reduced in lexicon and structure, and consequently in communicative power, especially in the early stages of acquisition. Meisel (1977) refers to this as “restrictive simplification.” Such reduction is, in the first instance, a direct consequence of the learner’s limited knowledge of the TL. To compensate for this deficiency, the learner may resort to avoidance, or rely on the L1, or on other strategies of grammar-building internal to the developing L2 system. All of these may result in simplification of some kind. Bound morphology is usually among the first victims of reduction, since it tends to be difficult to learn, even in cases where it is similar to L1 morphology. The avoidance or elimination of TL morphology therefore represents a common means by which early learners simplify their version of the TL.
Some cases of reduction may be partly due to L1 influence. For instance, learners may eliminate phonemic or morphemic oppositions in their version of the TL because their own native language lacks them. For example, the 3-way phonemic distinction between /i/, /ü/ and /u/ in Dutch is usually reduced to a 2-way distinction (/i/ vs /u/) by English speakers. Similar kinds of reduction can be found in morphology and morpho-syntax. Jarvis and Odlin (2000) discuss how Swedish and Finnish learners of English employ prepositions to convey locative, directional and other meanings in the TL. While both groups often produced the right preposition (e.g. in in sit in the grass), the Finnish learners frequently used zero prepositions in all the spatial contexts examined, whereas the Swedish learners never did. Also both groups often used the ‘wrong’ preposition. For example, Finnish speakers produced phrases like sit to the grass while Swedish learners produced sit on the grass.
The researchers attribute the Finns’ use of zero prepositions both to simplification (that is, reduction due to avoidance) and to the effects of “transfer” due to the fact that Finnish employs bound case morphology rather than prepositions to express spatial relationships. This, they suggest, leads Finnish learners to “disregard pre-posed function words as relevant spatial markers.” (p. 550). By contrast, the Swedish learners, whose L1 employs prepositions which often match their English equivalents in meaning, never resorted to omitting prepositions in any context. The differences in the choice of “wrong” prepositions also seem to be due to L1 influence. For example, Finnish has case inflections corresponding to English preposition to which might explain their use of sit to the grass, while there is no model for this in Swedish.
There are other kinds of simplification that are due to internal forces at work in learners’ attempts to systematize the L2 grammar. Meisel (op. cit.) refers to this as “elaborative simplification”. For instance, learners may compensate for loss of morphology by employing periphrastic means instead. Thus, they may use adverbs to convey time reference, or fixed word order to distinguish subjects from objects, etc. Other strategies include analogical leveling and (over-)generalization, for instance the extension of past tense suffix –ed to irregular verbs like run or see in L2 English. These kinds of strategy are also found in L1 acquisition as well, suggesting that both first and second language acquisition share certain “universal” developmental tendencies. Some of these will be discussed in the following sections. Elaborative simplification seems to be guided by the need for more transparency in the developing grammar. This motivation lies behind various changes or innovations that are internal to the developing interlanguage system.