CLI PART 2

CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE

PART 2

THE MINIMALIST VIEW OF TRANSFER

• Transfer errors: Can often explained as developmental Word order: may be due to a discourse strategy May be explained by “Ignorance hypothesis” (Newmark and Reibel 1968): lack of knowledge of l2 compensated with knowledge of l1.

• Reaction to CAH • Minimisation of the role of l1 transfer in l2 acquisition • Transfer: Not motivated by social factors - Unidirectional Decreases with proficiency Fostered by tasks such as translation Communication strategy rather than learning strategy.

Constraints on transfer:

• Language level: more evident at phonology Sociolinguistic factors: social context and speaker-addressee relationship
• Markedness: “Markedness differential hypothesis” (Eckman 1981). Transfer only a problem when the l1 item is unmarked and the l2 item marked.
• Prototipicability: learners have a perception of what is transferrable
• Language distance

DISCUSSION OF THE MINIMALIST VIEW Transfer: Motivated by social factors Bidirectional Increases with proficiency (especially positive and conceptual transfer)

CLI AND CODE SWITCHING

THE MEP

Cross-linguistic influence is described as a complex phenomenon involving the intervention and interaction of various factors. Basing on this assumption, Selinker y Lakshmanan (1993) have introduced the multiple effect principle, or MEP, which maintains that the convergence of some learner, context or language related factors or variables increases the incidence of linguistic and/or conceptual transfer

Click here to read

Think and write 1) Can you think of an example of an utterance in L2 you can attribute to L1 transfer, but can also be explained as a communicative or discourse strategy or the consequence of a developmental pattern? 2) Can you think of a funny (but real) example of code-switching in one sentence? 3) According to what Selinker and Lakshmanan propose as the MEP, how much inclined are you towards cross-linguistic influence?