scholarly journals Contrastive Study between Pronunciation Chinese L1 and English L2 from the Perspective of Interference Based on Observations in Genuine Teaching Contexts

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Contrastive Study ◽  
Learning Contexts ◽  
Asian Languages ◽  
L1 And L2

<p>Much research has been conducted on factors that impact on second language (L2) speech production in light of the age of L2 acquisition, the length of residence in the L2 environment, motivation, the amount of first language (L1) usage, etc. Very little of this research has taken the perspective of interference between L1 and L2, especially with respect to Asian languages. This article tries to locate the differences in pronunciation between Chinese L1 and English L2 by contrastive analysis through observing genuine teaching and learning contexts, in hope of facilitating English pronunciation pedagogy in China.</p>

“Identical” vowels in L1 and L2? Criteria and implications for L2 phonetics teaching and learning

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 144-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikola Maurova Paillereau
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
First Language ◽  
Positive Transfer ◽  
Phonetic Similarity ◽  
Perceptual Characteristics ◽  
L1 And L2

Researchers in the field of the teaching and learning of phonetics agree that learners of a foreign/second language (L2) acquire identical vowels by positive transfer from their first language (L1). This statement prompted us to examine whether the French and Czech languages, differing in the size of their vowel inventories, possess any identical vowels that could thus be omitted from French as a Foreign Language (FFL) phonetic curricula intended for Czech learners. The quantification of the vowels’ phonetic similarity is based on the comparison of their (1) phonetic symbols, (2) formant values (F-patterns), and (3) perceptual characteristics. The combined results show that strictly identical vowels between the two languages do not exist, but some French vowels can be defined as highly similar to some Czech vowels. Different coarticulatory effects of vowels produced in isolation and in labial, dental and palato-velar symmetrical environments point to a very strong influence of phonetic contexts on vowel similarity. Indeed, no French vowel is highly similar to any Czech vowel in all of the contexts studied. The findings suggest that phonetic exercises designed for Czech learners should focus on allophonic variations of all French vowels.

scholarly journals When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHEL I. MAYBERRY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Sensory Motor ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Motor Modality

The present paper summarizes three experiments that investigate the effects of age of acquisition on first-language (L1) acquisition in relation to second-language (L2) outcome. The experiments use the unique acquisition situations of childhood deafness and sign language. The key factors controlled across the studies are age of L1 acquisition, the sensory–motor modality of the language, and level of linguistic structure. Findings consistent across the studies show age of L1 acquisition to be a determining factor in the success of both L1 and L2 acquisition. Sensory–motor modality shows no general or specific effects. It is of importance that the effects of age of L1 acquisition on both L1 and L2 outcome are apparent across levels of linguistic structure, namely, syntax, phonology, and the lexicon. The results demonstrate that L1 acquisition bestows not only facility with the linguistic structure of the L1, but also the ability to learn linguistic structure in the L2.

The storage and composition of inflected forms in adult-learned second language: A study of the influence of length of residence, age of arrival, sex, and other factors

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 820-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA BABCOCK ◽  
JOHN C. STOWE ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. MALOOF ◽  
CLAUDIA BROVETTO ◽  
MICHAEL T. ULLMAN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Length Of Residence ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Irregular Verbs ◽  
Past Tenses ◽  
L1 And L2

It remains unclear whether adult-learned second language (L2) depends on similar or different neurocognitive mechanisms as those involved in first language (L1). We examined whether English past tense forms are computed similarly or differently by L1 and L2 English speakers, and what factors might affect this: regularity (regular vs. irregular verbs), length of L2 exposure (length of residence), age of L2 acquisition (age of arrival), L2 learners’ native language (Chinese vs. Spanish), and sex (male vs. female). Past tense frequency effects were used to examine the type of computation (composition vs. storage/retrieval). The results suggest that irregular past tenses are always stored. Regular past tenses, however, are either composed or stored, as a function of various factors: both sexes store regulars in L2, but only females in L1; greater lengths of residence lead to less dependence on storage, but only in females; higher adult ages of arrival lead to more reliance on storage. The findings suggest that inflected forms can rely on either the same or different mechanisms in L2 as they do in L1, and that this varies as a function of multiple interacting factors.

scholarly journals Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Conradie
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Parameter Resetting ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Parameter Values

Researchers who assume that Universal Grammar (UG) plays a role in second language (L2) acquisition are still debating whether L2 learners have access to UG in its entirety (the Full Access hypothesis; e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996; White, 1989; 2003) or only to those aspects of UG that are instantiated in their first language (L1) grammar (the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis; e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997). The Full Access hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will be possible where the L1 and L2 differ in parameter values, whereas the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will not be possible. These hypotheses are tested in a study examining whether English-speaking learners of Afrikaans can reset the Split-IP parameter (SIP) (Thráinsson, 1996) and the V2 parameter from their L1 ([-SIP], [-V2]) to their L2 ([+SIP], [+V2]) values. 15 advanced English learners of Afrikaans and 10 native speakers of Afrikaans completed three tasks: a sentence manipulation task, a grammaticality judgement task and a truth-value judgement task. Results suggest that the interlanguage grammars of the L2 learners are [+SIP] and [+V2] (unlike the L1), providing evidence for the Full Access hypothesis.

scholarly journals Interrogative Sentence: A Contrastive Study of Arabic and Indonesian

IZDIHAR ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Khoirin Nikmah
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Second Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Contrastive Study ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Interrogative Sentence ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

Involving first language (L1) in second language learning (L2) is considered as an effective method to be practiced. This research focuses on a contrastive study between Arabic and Indonesian. It aims to investigate similarities and differences of the two languages, especially about their interrogative sentence forms. It is descriptive qualitative research which applies two methods; observation and introspection method. Then, Contrastive Analysis (CA) is used to analyze the data. The result shows that similarity concept between Arabic and Indonesian is many shown on matā, ayna, limādzā, and hal. Meanwhile, differences between both of them are shown on mā, man, ayy, and kayfa. As a result, it may occur errors in the use of question, errors in translating interrogative sentence, and errors in understanding question.

Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin ◽  
Laurie A. Stowe ◽  
Ger J. de Haan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Grammatical Gender ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Gender Assignment ◽  
Similar System ◽  
Gender System ◽  
L1 And L2

In this article second language (L2) knowledge of Dutch grammatical gender is investigated. Adult speakers of German, English and a Romance language (French, Italian or Spanish) were investigated to explore the role of transfer in learning the Dutch grammatical gender system. In the first language (L1) systems, German is the most similar to Dutch coming from a historically similar system. The Romance languages have grammatical gender; however, the system is not congruent to the Dutch system. English does not have grammatical gender (although semantic gender is marked in the pronoun system). Experiment 1, a simple gender assignment task, showed that all L2 participants tested could assign the correct gender to Dutch nouns (all L2 groups performing on average above 80%), although having gender in the L1 did correlate with higher accuracy, particularly when the gender systems were very similar. Effects of noun familiarity and a default gender strategy were found for all participants. In Experiment 2 agreement between the noun and the relative pronoun was investigated. In this task a distinct performance hierarchy was found with the German group performing the best (though significantly worse than native speakers), the Romance group performing well above chance (though not as well as the German group), and the English group performing at chance. These results show that L2 acquisition of grammatical gender is affected more by the morphological similarity of gender marking in the L1 and L2 than by the presence of abstract syntactic gender features in the L1.

L1 AND L2 WORD RECOGNITION IN FINNISH

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seppo Vainio ◽  
Anneli Pajunen ◽  
Jukka Hyönä
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Visual Word Recognition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Morphological Processing ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Morphological Decomposition ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
L1 And L2

This study investigated the effect of the first language (L1) on the visual word recognition of inflected nouns in second language (L2) Finnish by native Russian and Chinese speakers. Case inflection is common in Russian and in Finnish but nonexistent in Chinese. Several models have been posited to describe L2 morphological processing. The unified competition model (UCM; MacWhinney, 2005) predicts L1-L2 transfer, whereas processability theory (Pienemann, 1998) posits a universal hierarchy in L2 acquisition regardless of the L1. The morphological decomposition deficiency hypothesis (Ullman, 2001b; VanPatten, 2004) claims that nonnatives cannot morphologically decompose words. Finally, DeKeyser (2005) proposes that morphophonological transparency affects nonnative processing. The current study explores which model best accounts for the processing of L2 Finnish by native Russian and Chinese speakers. The materials included simple nouns, transparently inflected nouns, and semitransparently inflected nouns. The results showed that Finns and Russians had longer reaction times (RTs) for morphologically complex nouns, but Chinese had longer RTs for semitransparent nouns. The RT results support the UCM by showing a L1-L2 transfer. Furthermore, transparency influenced word recognition among nonnatives; they made the most errors with semitransparent nouns.

First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?’

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-344
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open.This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy.

The UG paradox in L2 acquisition

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen ◽  
Pieter Muysken
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

There is a considerable amount of recent evidence that stable principles of Universal Grammar (UG) are available to adult second language (L2) learners in structuring their intuitions about the target language grammar. In contrast, however, there is also evidence from the acquisition of word order, agreement and negation in German that there are substantial differences between first language (L1) and L2 learners. In our view, these differences are due to UG principles guiding L1, but not L2 acquisition. We will show that alternative ways of accounting for the L1/L2 differences are not successful. Finally we will deal with the question of how our view can be reconciled with the idea that L2 learners can use UG principles to some extent in the evaluation of target sentences.

The Comparative Study of First and Second Language Development

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Language Development ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
The Comparative Study ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

This article discusses the relationship of first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition. First, different approaches to comparing L1 and L2 development are summarized. Then, I argue for a particular version of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Finally, I illustrate the hypothesis with some evidence from the acquisition of German syntax. It is claimed that the Universal Grammar (UG) approach provides a theoretical framework to explain differences between L1 and (adult) L2 development. In particular I argue that the observed L1/L2 differences can be accounted for by assuming that adult L2 learners cannot use principles of UG as a learning device in the same way as L1 learners use them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document