Language transfer: a useful or pernicious concept?

Smith, Michael Sharwood

doi:10.1177/0267658320941035

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The phenomenon of interference has traditionally been viewed in a negative light. At the same time, the transfer can potentially yield positive outcomes, particularly in cases where the first language (L1) and second language (L2) exhibit significant overlap in their linguistic features (Sharwood Smith, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating The Grammatical Interference of Indonesian-Gayonese EFL Learners

Munandar¹

2023

JLLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the causes of Indonesian interference in the writing of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students and to examine the types of such interference. In order to figure out the issue of Indonesian grammatical interference, a descriptive qualitative approach was adopted by utilizing fourth-semester students of the English Department IAIN Takengon, Aceh, Indonesia, as the target population for the research. Subsequently, the data was derived from both tests and observations. Data analysis indicates that the students still experienced interference from the Indonesian grammar due to it being their first language. In this research, grammatical interference is divided into two categories: the interference of syntax and morphology. Syntactic interference comprises words, prepositions, superfluous words, and word omission. The most prevalent occurrence of syntactic interference is in the area of prepositions. Morphological interference replicated itself in determiner omission, incorrect determiner usage, subject-verb agreement discrepancies, the incorrect verb 'to be,' incorrect usage of verb tenses, and confusion regarding singularity and plurality. Though, the most prevalent type of morphological interference is the omission of a determiner. It was observed that the disparity in the structure of Indonesian and English grammar accounts for the interference. In addition, another cause was that students typically composed it first in Indonesian and translated it into English.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating The Grammatical Interference of Indonesian-Gayonese EFL Learners

Munandar¹

2023

JLLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cook, 2016; Festman, 2021) and interactions of those languages across various subsystems of language (vocabulary, morpho-syntax, phonology). Such interactions, deemed cross-linguistic influence (CLI; Kellerman and Sharwood Smith, 1986), are not restricted to L1 transfer effects on the L2, or the L3 (Kellerman and Sharwood Smith, 1986; Sharwood Smith, 2021). 2 All languages known to any extent co-exist in the user’s/learner’s mind forming a network, and can potentially influence one another.…”

Section: Patterns Of CLI and Language Co-activation In L3 Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 All languages known to any extent co-exist in the user’s/learner’s mind forming a network, and can potentially influence one another. Understood in this way, the basic mechanism of CLI consists in co-activating alternate connections across the language network in the multilingual user’s mind (Sharwood Smith, 2021) leading to interactions between the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ linguistic knowledge (Angelovska and Hahn, 2017; Puig-Mayenco et al, 2020). This reasoning is in line with the cognitive views on the co-activation (or competing activation) of the known languages in the bilingual/multilingual mind (e.g.…”

Section: Patterns Of CLI and Language Co-activation In L3 Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic influence and language co-activation in acquiring L3 words: What empirical evidence do we have so far?

Otwinowska

2023

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Third language (L3) lexical acquisition is still underexplored. In this article I overview theoretical and empirical evidence on L3 lexical acquisition and the role of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in learning L3 words. I explain the mechanism of CLI as resulting from language co-activation in the multilingual learner’s/user’s mind. Consequently, I aim to ground L3 lexical studies in previous research on second language (L2) word processing and learning, and to emphasize the role of cross-linguistic similarity (cognates and false cognates) in the process. While capitalizing upon similarity predominantly facilitates acquiring L2 and L3 words, the precise mechanisms of L3 lexical acquisition are still obscured. It is unclear whether any overlap of an L3 form with the native or L2 form suffices to boost learning, or whether all previous languages influence L3 lexical acquisition cumulatively. To seek answers to this issue, I review empirical evidence for CLI and cross-linguistic similarity in L3 vocabulary acquisition from three research strands: L3 word processing experiments, L3 cognate guessing tasks, and L3 word learning experiments. Overall, this article aims to bridge the gap between psycholinguistic and applied linguistic research on L3 lexical acquisition, and argues for controlling an array of variables modulating research outcomes.

show abstract

“…According to Westergaard (2021a), this means that both preexisting grammars are activated in parallel, nominating all linguistic representations as candidates for L3 influence (cf. Sharwood Smith, 2021; Truscott & Sharwood Smith, 2019). The candidates compete against each other for the overall best fit to the L3 input.…”

Section: Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Syntax Matters: Exploring the Effect of Linguistic Similarity in Third Language Acquisition

Jensen

Westergaard

2022

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades, the question of to which linguistic cues learners pay attention when they decode a new language has been subject to controversy in the field of third language (L3) acquisition. In this article, we present an artificial language learning experiment that investigated how lexical and syntactic similarities between an artificial L3 and preexisting grammars impact crosslinguistic influence at the very beginning of the acquisition process. We exposed four groups of 30 Norwegian-English bilinguals each to one of four L3s and gave them training in that L3. The participants gave forced-choice acceptability judgments on pairs of nonsubject-initial declarative clauses that differed in word order, one grammatical in English, the other grammatical in Norwegian. The participants had not been exposed to nonsubject-initial declaratives during the exposure and training phases to avoid confounds with learning. The results showed that both lexical and syntactic similarities affect crosslinguistic influence. We discuss this result considering contemporary accounts of L3 acquisition.

show abstract

Language transfer: a useful or pernicious concept?

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

Investigating The Grammatical Interference of Indonesian-Gayonese EFL Learners

Investigating The Grammatical Interference of Indonesian-Gayonese EFL Learners

Cross-linguistic influence and language co-activation in acquiring L3 words: What empirical evidence do we have so far?

Syntax Matters: Exploring the Effect of Linguistic Similarity in Third Language Acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About