Facultade de Filoloxía
Grao en Lingua e Literatura Inglesas
Language Transfer and its impact on TEFL: some theoretical and
practical considerations
Autora: Andrea Carbia Vázquez Titora: Paloma Núñez Pertejo
(2021/2022)
2
Facultade de Filoloxía
Grao en Lingua e Literatura Inglesas
Language Transfer and its impact on TEFL: some theoretical and
practical considerations
Autora: Andrea Carbia Vázquez Titora: Paloma Núñez Pertejo
(2021/2022)
3
4
• LANGUAGE TRANSFER AND ITS IMPACT ON TEFL: SOME THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
• A TRANSFERENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA E O SEU IMPACTO NO ENSINO DO INGLÉS COMO LINGUA ESTRANXEIRA: ALGUNHAS CONSIDERACIÓNS TEÓRICAS E PRÁCTICAS
• LA TRANSFERENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA Y SU IMPACTO EN LA ENSEÑANZA DEL INGLÉS COMO LENGUA EXTRANJERA: ALGUNAS CONSIDERACIONES TEÓRICAS Y PRÁCTICAS
5 Abstract:
This paper focuses on the analysis of the notion ‘Language Transfer’. It aims at investigating the impact that existing linguistic knowledge may have on the acquisition of another language; more precisely, the main purpose is to analyse the cross-linguistic influence that Spanish as an L1 may have on the learning of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The project is divided into two main parts: (i) a theoretical part, in which the main points concerning the study of this linguistic phenomenon are discussed (its main types and some of its pedagogical implications, among others), and (ii) a practical part, in which written production by Spanish learners of English is examined by paying special attention to Language Transfer from a grammatical and lexical perspective. To this end, academic essays retrieved from two learner corpora, ICLE SP and SULEC, were selected for the analysis. The data gathered from the two corpora show that Language Transfer is present in the learners’ written production, either interfering (Negative Transfer) or facilitating (Positive Transfer) their use of English syntax, morphology and lexis.
Keywords: Language Transfer; L1; English as a Foreign Language (EFL); ICLE SP;
SULEC.
6
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations………..…………..………... 9
List of Tables………..……… 10
1. Introduction………...……….. 11
2. Part I: Theoretical Background………... 13
2.1. What is Language Transfer?... 13
2.1.1. Definition……….... 13
2.1.2. Some factors affecting LT………...… 14
2.1.3. Types of LT……….… 16
2.2. Literature Review………...……….. 21
2.2.1. Terminology issues………. 21
2.2.2. Historical overview……….……… 23
2.3. Pedagogical implications………...……….. 31
2.3.1. The role of the L1 in the classroom………..… 31
2.3.2. LT as a learning strategy………..… 35
3. Part II: Practical Study………...……… 38
3.1. Introduction………...…………..…. 38
3.2. Methodology………...……….. 38
3.3. Results and analysis………...………...……… 44
3.3.1. Grammar………...………….. 44
3.3.1.1. NT: Agreement………...…………..………….. 44
3.3.1.2. NT: Subject omission………...…………..……… 48
3.3.1.3. PT: Syntax and Morphology………...……… 51
3.3.1.3.1. Syntax………...………… 51
3.3.1.3.2. Morphology……….. 53
8
3.3.2. Lexis………..……….. 54
3.3.2.1. NT: Made-up vocabulary……….……….. 54
3.3.2.2. NT: Spelling………...………...………. 56
3.3.2.3. PT: Cognates………...………...…… 58
4. Conclusions and suggestions for further research………...…………. 60
5. References………..………..……… 64
9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
• CA: Contrastive Analysis
• CAH: Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
• EA: Error Analysis
• EFL: English as a Foreign Language
• FL: Foreign Language
• ICLE: International Corpus of Learner English
• ICLE SP: Spanish sub-corpus of the ICLE
• L1: First Language
• L2: Second Language
• LT: Language Transfer
• NT: Negative Transfer
• PT: Positive Transfer
• SLA: Second Language Acquisition
• SULEC: Santiago University Learner of English Corpus
• TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language
10 LIST OF TABLES
• Table 1: Selection of prefixes shared by English and Spanish……...……… 53
• Table 2: Selection of suffixes shared by English and Spanish………...… 54
• Table 3:Selection of cognates extracted from ICLE SP and SULEC……… 59
11 1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to discuss the notion ‘Language Transfer’ (LT) and to explore its impact on the field of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL).
Accordingly, the following lines will examine the influence that the learners’ First Language (L1), Spanish in this case, may have on the learning of a Second (L2) or a Foreign Language (FL), English in this case.
The role that learners’ existing linguistic knowledge plays on the acquisition of another language has been, and still is, a controversial topic. Some scholars have claimed that LT is an important factor affecting the learning of an L2, while others maintain that cross-linguistic influences do not have much significance in Second Language Acquisition (SLA; cf. Odlin, 1989).
In spite of this, previous research and current studies on LT demonstrate that this linguistic phenomenon has become a central area of investigation in SLA studies. Thus, Ellis (1996: 300) asserts that “no theory of L2 acquisition that ignores the learner’s prior linguistic knowledge can be considered complete.”
This dissertation is mainly intended to determine whether Spanish as a mother tongue facilitates or interferes in the process of learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL). In order to conduct this project, I made use of different sources: (i) bibliographical material for the theoretical background (Odlin (1989), Ellis (1996) and Alonso Alonso (2020), among others, were fundamental works), and (ii) learner corpora for the corpus- based study carried out in the practical part of this project.
The first section of this paper discusses LT in depth. A definition of this linguistic phenomenon is provided together with a series of factors which have an impact on it.
12 Attention is also paid to the different types of LT that are recognized, namely, Positive Transfer (PT) and Negative Transfer (NT).
The second section provides a review of the literature on LT by introducing different terms and expressions which are used to designate this linguistic phenomenon.
It also discusses several theories, such as Behaviourism and Interlanguage, and their conception of LT.
The third and last section of the theoretical part deals with LT from a pedagogical perspective. It examines whether the EFL classroom should be a monolingual environment or whether the L1 should be employed in specific situations. In addition, it presents LT as a useful learning strategy to develop proficiency in the FL.
The second part of this paper consists of a corpus-based study on LT in which written production by Spanish EFL learners is examined. The empirical study includes a methodology section in which the two learner corpora from which data have been gathered are described, and another section in which a qualitative analysis of the main results is offered. The practical study aims at investigating whether Spanish as an L1 facilitates or interferes in the learners’ written production in English, particularly, in the specific areas of syntax, morphology and lexis.
A final section is devoted to the most relevant conclusions that can be drawn from the study, and it closes with some suggestions for further research on LT.
13 2.
PART I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. WHAT IS LANGUAGE TRANSFER?
2.1.1. Definition
LT can be defined as “the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously and perhaps imperfectly acquired.” (Odlin, 1989: 27).
The definition of LT that this scholar provides is one of the most often cited in studies dealing with cross-linguistic influence, a synonym for LT. Terence Odlin’s definition of LT does not only contemplate the influence that the learners’ L1 may have on the learning of an L2, but also takes into consideration any other language that the student may be acquainted with. Even though LT from the learners’ mother tongue to the target language is the type of transfer which is investigated most widely in SLA studies, influences from the L2 in the L1 have also been recognized, as will be explained in more detail in section 2.1.3. In any case, this paper is focused on the cross-linguistic influence that Spanish as L1 may have on English (the L2 in this case).
Accordingly, it could be stated that LT broadly refers to the influence that the mother tongue exerts on the learning of another language (cf. Richards & Schmidt, 2010), and which will be reflected in its use. In effect, learners do not only transfer linguistic features from their L1, but they also tend to transfer extralinguistic ones such as gestures or ways of thinking that are deeply ingrained in their corresponding native languages. As regards linguistic aspects, LT is bound to be reflected in all levels of the L2. Odlin (1989) distinguishes the following linguistic subsystems in which LT operates: discourse, semantics, syntax, phonetics, phonology and writing systems. According to Jarvis and
14 Pavlenko (2008, as quoted by Alonso Alonso, 2020: 21), pragmatics and sociolinguistics are two other areas of the language in which the effects of LT can also be perceived.
2.1.2. Some factors affecting LT
LT is a complex phenomenon which depends on different factors. These should be considered so as to conduct a proper study of this linguistic phenomenon since a general analysis of LT would not account for its complexity.
One factor which is relevant in the process of LT is language distance, that is, “the relative degree of similarity between two languages” (Odlin, 1989: 166). As Calvo Cortés (2005) argues, different scenarios will arise depending on whether the languages considered are related to one another or whether no relation exists between them. As a result, depending on the distance or proximity that exists among languages, LT will be more or less prone to occurring. It should be noted that language proximity does not always facilitate the learning of the L2 nor does language distance necessarily mean that LT will not take place, as will be further discussed in section 2.1.3.
For that reason, the language distance that exists between the languages that are the main focus of this paper should be specified. Spanish and English go back to a common origin, i.e. Indo-European. This large language family diverges into several subgroups, Spanish being included in the subgroup of Romance languages while English is part of the Germanic branch (cf. Hogg, 2002). As a result, some similarities between both languages exist, mainly in lexis (cf. CalvoCortés, 2005), due to this shared origin.
The existing relationship among languages is a key factor when considering the linguistic phenomenon of LT. Nevertheless, language distance should also be considered as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Kellerman (1977, as quoted by Ellis, 1996: 327) uses the term ‘psychotypology’ to refer to learners’ perception about the distance between their
15 native language and the target language. As a result, a learner may perceive two aspects from these languages as similar when, in fact, they are not. Consequently, the way in which learners actually perceive language distance may trigger or constrain LT (cf. Ellis, 1996).
Psychotypology is in close connection with the possibility for something to be transferred. Depending on the perceived distance between the native and the target language, a learner may resolve to transfer items from one language to the other or not (cf. Ellis, 1996). Kellerman (1977, as quoted by Ellis, 1996: 329)also claims that learners’
psychotypology changes as they get more familiarized with the target language.
Lastly, LT can also be affected by developmental factors, such as age, motivation or language aptitude to the target language. The age effect will be briefly discussed instead of motivation or language aptitude in connection to the practical study that will be developed in the second part of this paper. Individual variations at the level of age play an important role in the process of learning an L2 in general, and they definitely influence LT as they can give rise to diverse patterns of transfer.
As regards age in relation to LT, “adults seem to be more susceptible to transfer than children” (Calvo Cortés, 2005: 241). This is directly related to the fact that adult learners have already internalized those structures and strategies which are common in their L1 while children may still not be conscious of their use of different languages.
Therefore, whenever adult learners lack linguistic knowledge in the L2, they are likely to apply those patterns that work in their mother tongue resulting in LT from their L1 to the L2.
Nonetheless, it is also true that as learners become proficient in the target language, they are less likely to produce errors resulting from the process of LT.
16 Accordingly, Odlin (1989) states in his discussion of Taylor’s analysis (1975) that “less proficient learners will rely more on transfer” (133). Even so, it should be emphasized again that cross-linguistic influences do not always lead to errors, as LT may also have facilitating effects for learners.
2.1.3. Types of LT
As already mentioned, the linguistic phenomenon of LT is related to the concept of cross-linguistic influence due to the fact that one of the languages with which learners are acquainted will show the influence of another which is also part of their repertoire (cf.
Richards & Schmidt, 2010). LT has been discussed from different viewpoints resulting in a “taxonomy of language transfer types” (Gass and Selinker, 1994: 5).
Firstly, the distinction made by Odlin (1989) based on the directionality of LT will be discussed. There are some scholars, such as De Angelis and Selinker (2001) or Hammarberg (2001, as quoted by Alonso Alonso, 2020: 22), who claim that any L1 has a special status with respect to the subsequent learned languages. Nonetheless, the influence of one language on another does not necessarily have to follow a chronological order, that is, LT does not strictly mean native language influence, as the inverse process may also occur. Thus, the terms ‘borrowing transfer’ and ‘substratum transfer’ will be explained in the following lines.
Borrowing transfer involves “the influence a second language has on a previously acquired language” (Odlin, 1989: 12). This term concentrates on the influence that the L2 exerts on one’s native language, which implies that some patterns of the L1 may be restructured as a result of influences from the L2. Odlin (1989) suggests that the effects of borrowing transfer usually begin at the lexical level and they are also to be perceived in cultural influences from the L2 affecting the L1. Borrowing transfer includes the use
17 of words related to commercial products in the L1 due to cultural influences from the L2 (cf. Ramón Torrijos, 2009). For example, it is more common to use the word rimmel in Spanish (a term derived from the English brand Rimmel) than máscara de pestañas, due to influences from English (L2). English culture and language have arisen as the dominant ones, thus leading many speakers to adopt them as their own.
Substratum transfer consists in “the influence of a source language (…) on the acquisition of a target language” (Odlin, 1989: 12). In this case, one’s native language will be the one influencing the L2. Substratum transfer is more noticeable at the level of pronunciation, bearing in mind that it is one of the most difficult aspects for L2 learners (cf. Odlin, 1989). Therefore, the native phonetic and phonological systems are likely to influence the learner’s target language pronunciation.
As can be retrieved from this distinction, LT does not always mean that cross- linguistic influences will be from the L1 to the L2, as they occur in both directions (L1
→ L2 and L2 → L1). As has already been specified, given that the main focus of this paper is to investigate how an L1 (Spanish in this case) will influence English as an L2, attention will be paid to substratum transfer. In addition, following the terminology used by Odlin (1989), the term ‘transfer’ will be used as an abbreviation of substratum transfer.
In what follows, the dichotomy PT-NT will be explained. This classification is based on the final product of LT, that is to say, on the effects that “cross-linguistic similarities and differences can produce” (Odlin, 1989: 36). Therefore, this division pays attention to the manifestations of LT in the learners’ use of the target language, which may be either positive or negative.
PT occurs when the knowledge of the mother tongue with which learners have been acquainted since their childhood facilitates the learning of an L2 (cf. Calvo Cortés,
18 2005). PT is directly linked with those existing similarities between both languages as this facilitates the learning process of the target language.
In spite of the fact that similarities between the L1 and the L2 usually lead to PT, there are circumstances in which those similarities may obstruct the L2 learning process.
This is the case of ‘false cognates’ or ‘false friends’, i.e. words which are very much alike in two languages, but have different meanings (cf. Richards & Schmidt, 2010). This resemblance between languages may lead a learner to use an item inappropriately as it has the same form in their mother tongue as in their target language.
For example, Spanish learners of English may use actually (‘de hecho’, ‘en realidad’) in a context in which the idea they want to convey is nowadays or at the present time, given its similarities with the Spanish term actualmente. Therefore, this would be a clear example of how similarities between the L1 and the L2 are misleading.
Meanwhile, it is very often the case that similarities between languages lead to PT and, as a consequence, they facilitate the performance in the L2 as learners benefit from them. For example, Spanish and English share an important number of cognates, such as glosario and glossary or dimensión and dimension. Hence, these similarities in vocabulary may facilitate the acquisition of the English form by Spanish native speakers.
In turn, NT implies “divergences from norms” (Odlin, 1989: 36) by applying a rule that works in the L1 to the L2, where it is clearly incorrect. NT, also known as
‘interference’, is related to the existing differences between the two languages considered.
Odlin (1989: 36) specifies four different consequences that may result from NT:
(i) Underproduction: it occurs when learners perceive that certain structures in the target language are very dissimilar from those in their native language.
Consequently, by avoiding those structures, students would be diverging from the
19 norms that govern the L2. For example, broadly speaking, passives are less common in Spanish than they are in English. Therefore, Spanish native speakers will presumably avoid passive constructions producing few or even no instances of this typical English construction in their use of the language.
(ii) Overproduction: this situation may arise when apprentices overuse particular structures, which are not that common in the target language, on a regular basis.
For example, there is a rule in English that dictates that certain verbs must always be followed by gerund forms. Thus, and as a result of NT from Spanish to English, Spanish native speakers may overuse infinitival forms (following the Spanish rule) and employ them when it is obligatory and when it is not. As a consequence, Spanish learners of English may produce instances such as *She doesn’t mind to wake up early instead of She doesn’t mind waking up early. This is the result of NT from the Spanish utterance A ella no le importa madrugar, where an infinitival form is used.
(iii) Production errors: two types may be distinguished here (cf. Odlin, 1989): (i) substitutions and (ii) calques. Substitutions imply “the use of native language forms in the target language” (Odlin, 1989: 37). For example, Spanish native speakers may use the word curioso instead of the English correct word curious by substitution due to their formal resemblance. In other words, similarities in the spelling between the native language form of the word and the target language term may lead Spanish learners of English to use the Spanish form in their use of the target language. This substitution of terms may also be related to the lack of knowledge of the L2 term; consequently, learners will resort to the equivalent term in their L1 (cf. Alonso Alonso, 1997b). Calques in turn are “literal translations from one language into another” (Odlin, 1989: 165); e.g. Spanish
20 speakers may produce the utterance I am here since an hour ago by literally translatingthe correspondent Spanish clause Estoy aquí desde hace una hora. The learner is reproducing the structure that works in their native language instead of using the more natural English expression I have been here for an hour. A literal translation of the construction has been made when the use of the more natural English option would be more appropriate.
(iv) Misinterpretation: patterns which are typical of the learners’ mother tongue may influence the interpretation of some meanings conveyed in the target language.
Therefore, learners would be inferring something incorrectly which diverges from what a native speaker of English would interpret. For example, the letters <b> and
<v> are represented by a single phoneme in Spanish, /b/, a voiced bilabial plosive.
Conversely, that is not the case in English, as there exist two distinct phonemes:
a voiced bilabial plosive /b/ and a voiced labio-dental fricative /v/ (cf. Gómez González & Sánchez Roura, 2016). Consequently, if Spanish native speakers pronounce /b/ and /v/ in the same way in English (by using the Spanish phoneme /b/), misinterpretations may arise since distinctions such as boat /bəʊt/ and vote /vəʊt/ would be imperceptible.
In spite of the fact that the dichotomy PT-NT is useful when considering the final outcome of LT, it has been criticized by some academics such as Gass and Selinker (1994). They claim that learners use previous linguistic knowledge from their L1 in interaction with the L2 they are learning. As a result, they sustain that there is a single process of transfer and that there is no need to make this distinction between PT and NT.
For them, the outcome of the process of LT should be qualified neither as positive nor as negative and they reject the use of this terminology.
21 2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The study of LT has undergone notable changes over time due to its complex nature. Accordingly, the definition of this linguistic phenomenon varies depending on the author and also on the theoretical perspective which is considered. In addition, different terms and expressions associated with these theoretical frameworks are used to designate LT. Notwithstanding, Alonso Alonso (2020) maintains that two conditions are shared by the different conceptions of LT: (i) the influence of one language on another and (ii) the existence of, at least, two languages for LT to operate.
Regardless of the many variations that the study of LT has been subjected to, this phenomenon has become a central area of investigation in SLA studies. It is beyond the purpose of this section to revise all the different postulations regarding LT. Hence, a discussion of the main points in LT research will be provided.
2.2.1. Terminology issues
Terminology may result controversial when trying to refer to cross-linguistic influences, a linguistic phenomenon which in this paper has been labelled as LT. Many scholars are reluctant to use the term ‘transfer’ to refer to cross-linguistic influences from the mother tongue to a target language as, in its origins, it was associated with Behaviourism.
Behaviourist views on transfer suggested that linguistic habits from the mother tongue should be extinguished as they considered the learning of an L2 as a habit formation process. Nonetheless, this made no sense in the context of SLA studies as LT could not be dealt in terms of habit formation (cf. Odlin, 1989). Consequently, due to this initial association with behaviourism, the use of LT has been avoided throughout time and scholars have tried to look for alternatives to refer to this phenomenon.
22 As a result, Sharwood Smith and Kellerman (1986, as quoted by Ellis, 1996: 301) suggested the use of the term ‘cross-linguistic influence’. They claim that the use of this expression is preferable rather than LT as it is more neutral (it is not associated with any linguistic theory) and it covers both transfer and interference phenomena. This denomination is still in use in current SLA studies and it is used as a synonym for LT.
Dulay et al. (1982, as quoted by Celaya Villanueva, 1989: 74), in turn, advocate for the term ‘interlingual errors’ to refer to LT. This expression alludes to those errors which occur as a result of the interference of the L1 structure, regardless of their cause.
Nonetheless, the use of this term would leave behind an important aspect of LT: that cross-linguistic influences do not have to be necessarily negative, as influences from the learners’ L1 may facilitate the learning of the L2. In consequence, the use of interlingual errors would emphasize the negative role of the L1 over the positive one.
Corder (1994) also criticized the use of the terms ‘transfer’ and ‘interference’ due to their association with particular linguistic theories, namely, behaviourism. For that reason, he decided to use ‘mother tongue influences’ to refer to this linguistic phenomenon so as not to delimit his discussion on the role that the L1 may exert in the use of the target language.
Finally, the term ‘transfer’, despite its many different definitions and changes, has remained in use. According to Odlin (1989: 27), LT should be defined as “the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously and perhaps imperfectly acquired”, a definition which distances itself from behaviourist theories. Odlin’s is a working definition in LT studies, as it leaves aside its earlier associations with behaviourist theories. Therefore, he abandoned the theory in which this term was rooted, but he continued to use the same terminology.
23 From this discussion on terminology, it can be gathered that there is a lack of consensus on which term should be the most appropriate to designate this linguistic phenomenon. Furthermore, it seems that adequate terms and expressions to name LT are unattainable for the moment.
2.2.2. Historical overview
As already indicated at the beginning of this section, the conception of LT varies depending on the selected theoretical framework. There are a few scholars such as Ellis (1996) or Celaya Villanueva (1989), who start their discussion of LT around the 1950s, ascribing the origin of LT studies to behaviourism. On the contrary, researchers such as Yu and Odlin (2016) or Alonso Alonso (2020) move further back in history and claim that the term ‘transfer’ had already been used in the XIX century. Accordingly, Yu and Odlin (2016: 5) state that “the earliest use of the English form transfer to designate cross- linguistic influence may be in an 1881 article by William Dwight Whitney.” Once the origin of LT studies has been set, the discussion of different postulations regarding this linguistic phenomenon from modern literature onwards will proceed.
Alonso Alonso (2020) determines that Languages in contact byWeinreich (1953) is the starting point of modern studies on LT. Weinreich used the term ‘interference’ to cover any type of cross-linguistic influences to refer to “those instances of deviation from the norms of either language (…) as a result of language contact” (1953: 1, as quoted by Gass & Selinker, 1994: 4). Thus, interference was used by this academic in a negative way since he exclusively conceived transfer as an obstacle for the acquisition of an L2.
He suggested that influences from the L1 should be avoided because they lead to deviations from the norms that rule the target language. Consequently, Weinreich’s perception on LT neglects its facilitating effects for a language learner.
24 The use of the term interference is also associated with behaviourism, i.e. the linguistic theory which predominated during the two decades following the Second World War and which conceived the learning of an L2 as a habit formation process (cf. Ellis, 1996). This theoretical perspective also endorsed the idea that existing linguistic knowledge was an obstacle for the learning of an L2.
For the advocates of behaviourism, different degrees of what they denominated
‘difficulty’, i.e. “the amount of error required to learn an L2 pattern” (Ellis, 1996: 300), could be distinguished. The degree of difficulty was strictly related to the similarities and differences that exist between the native language and the target language. As a result, if the patterns of two languages were similar, the learning process of an L2 would then be easier for learners as they would positively transfer from their L1. On the contrary, if L1 and L2 patterns were dissimilar, the process of learning the target language would be more difficult and learners would produce errors as a result of NT (cf. Ellis, 1996).
Summarizing some of the main behaviourist views on LT, its advocates defended that if the final outcome of cross-linguistic influences was negative and resulted in errors, it was because the structures of the native and the target language diverged, and they named this process as interference. On the other hand, behaviourist theories also stated that influences from an L1 might have positive effects on the development of an L2, which they denominate transfer. Notwithstanding, the behaviourist perspective on LT could no longer be accounted for in terms of habit formation. As a result, cognitive accounts on LT replaced the behaviourist perspective.
The conception of LT is later revaluated thanks to Contrastive Analysis (CA), a theoretical perspective which reached its peak between the 1950s and the 1960s and focused its attention on the comparison between two languages so as to determine similarities and differences between them (cf. Richards & Schmidt, 2010). Lado (1957,
25 as quoted by Alonso Alonso, 2020: 5), as a major representative of CA, insists on the idea that the comparison between the native and the target language is a prerequisite to correctly learn the L2. On that account, Di Pietro (1964: 224, as quoted by Gass &
Selinker, 1994: 3) claims that CA is useful when it comes to the understanding of the
“range of transfer from one linguistic structure to another.”
For example, comparisons between the sound systems of Spanish and English would facilitate or prevent LT. To give a concrete example, it is of great importance that Spanish learners of English distinguish the sounds /s/ and /z/. The English phoneme /z/
does not exist in the Spanish consonant system; as a result, Spanish native speakers are likely to use /s/ also for /z/, thus pronouncing these two sounds in the same way (cf. Coe, 2001). Therefore, CA becomes helpful in the comparison of the two sound systems.
Within the framework of CA, Lado formulates the so-called Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), which claims that “those elements that are similar to his [learner’s]
native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult” (1957: 2, as quoted by Ellis, 1996: 306). In such a way, similar aspects between the learners’ native language and the target language will be easier to learn as learners may benefit from those similarities. In turn, aspects which differ between languages will be more difficult for them and will suppose an obstacle in the learning process of the target language. In consequence, language learners have to learn those differences between the mother and the target language, while similarities are not needed to be learnt due to those correlations between languages (cf. Gass & Selinker, 2008). However, Odlin (1989) criticized Lado’s hypothesis on the basis that language difference and language difficulty mean the same for Lado, which might not always be the case.
Two versions of CAH may be distinguished: (i) CAH a priori, or Strong version, and (ii) CAH a posteriori, or Weak version. The former considers that all errors in the L2
26 can be predicted by establishing the differences between the L1 and the L2 on the basis that similar aspects would facilitate learning while differences would obstruct it. The latter version had to be developed subsequently as only some transfer errors could be identified and CAH was commonly used to explain them rather than to predict them (cf.
Ellis, 1996).
This theoretical framework loses importance in favour of Error Analysis (EA), due to the fact that “the strong version was theoretically untenable [some of the predicted errors were not caused by LT and some others did not actually occur] and the weak version was impractical and inadequate [it made no sense to devote an extensive comparison to simply confirm that errors were caused by LT]” (Ellis, 1996: 308). In addition, CAH only focused its attention on production errors, while, as already stated in section 2.1.3, the outcome of LT could also be manifested through overproduction or underproduction of certain patterns and structures.
EA emerges in the 1970s as an alternative to CA and, with it, there is a reassessment of LT. As its very name indicates, EA is concerned with the analysis of errors that L2 learners commit (cf. Richards & Schmidt, 2010).
Together with the revaluation of LT by this theoretical framework, there is also a revaluation of the conception of the native language and of the ‘error’. Alonso Alonso (1999, 2020) claims that influences from the L1 start to be perceived in more positive terms. Similarly, errors are no longer considered as a negative aspect that should be avoided, but rather as an important element in the process of learning an L2.
In contrast to CA’s claims (in short, the difficulty of learning an L2 was directly linked to the interference of learners’ L1), EA proves that not all errors originate from native language influences (cf. Richards & Schmidt, 2010). EA attempts to classify the
27 different types of errors resulting from the process of LT which are to be perceived at all L2 levels. Lott (1983, as quoted by Alonso Alonso, 2020: 9) classifies LT errors into three main types:
(i) Overextension of analogy: lexis is the area of the language that is more likely to be affected by this type of interference. It means the misuse of a lexical item in the L2 which reflects features of the learner’s L1; e.g. the use of the noun library (‘biblioteca’) in English by native speakers of Spanish to refer to the Spanish noun librería (‘bookshop’), due to orthographic and phonological resemblances between both lexical items.
(ii) Transfer of structure: it refers to grammatical errors that occur as a result of transfer of an L1 structure to the L2 when structures of the L2 are unknown to the learner. For instance, a Spanish native speaker may use *I want that he goes in English instead of I want him to go by transferring the Spanish structure Yo quiero que él se vaya.
(iii) Interlingual/intralingual errors: this type of errors occurs when, in the target language, there exist two items used to refer to the same concept, while in the native language of the learner there exists only one. For instance, the English verbs know and meet refer to the Spanish verb conocer, which may lead to errors as this distinction does not exist in Spanish.
Nevertheless, EA was also gradually abandoned since, among other reasons, this classification of errors was problematic as it was somewhat subjective, most of the errors were analysed in isolation and it was felt that the theory could not really account for the complexity of LT (cf. Alonso Alonso, 2020). As a result, EA was superseded by the Creative Construction Hypothesis and by studies of Interlanguage.
28 The Creative Construction Hypothesis was proposed by Dulay et al. (1974, 1982;
as quoted by Alonso Alonso, 1999: 137). This linguistic theory rejected the relevance of LT, so its study was relegated to the background of SLA studies.
This theoretical framework considers that the learners’ L2 is independent from their L1, as they are perceived as distinct processes which advance in the mind of the learner independently. For that reason, Alonso Alonso (1999) claims that the Creative Construction Hypothesis would be the antithesis of CA.
Dulay et al. (1974, 1982) suggest that L2 learners are the ones who construct the rules of the target language gradually through an unconscious process. L2 acquisition is not perceived anymore as a habit-formation process but as a creative one (cf. Celaya Villanueva, 1989) in which the mind becomes the unique source of knowledge. Besides, knowledge is no longer dependent on the experience that the learner may have on the L2, but it is exclusively dependent on his mind (cf. Alonso Alonso, 2020). The fact that the learning process of an L2 is perceived in more creative terms would therefore explain the name of the Creative Construction Hypothesis.
The supporters of this theoretical framework argue that learners have an innate mental capacity by which they are able to produce unlimited sentences by applying different strategies in the form of linguistic rules (cf. Alonso Alonso, 2020). If learners construct the forms, patterns and structures of the L2 without relying on their L1 rules, no influence from the L1 can take place; as a result, LT would not operate in the learning process of the L2 (cf. Richards & Schmidt, 2010).
The studies of the ‘Interlanguage’, the theoretical framework developed by Selinker (1972, as quoted by Alonso Alonso, 2020: 13), contributed to restoring the importance of LT in SLA studies. Interlanguage can be defined as “the systemic
29 knowledge of an L2 which is independent of both these learners’ L1 and the target language” (Ellis, 1994: 710). Although this linguistic system that learners possess differs from the L1 and the L2, it is still related to both of them through their own perception and it works in the same way as any other language.
Interlanguage is associated with adult learners who are in the process of learning a target language and try to communicate in it. For this purpose, learners specifically resort to five processes related to their interlanguage (cf. Alonso Alonso, 1999):
(i) Transfer from mother tongue: it refers to the existence of elements of the L1 in the interlanguage. For example, the negative particle in Spanish is no, so that learners may use no instead of the English negator not in the interlanguage. In accordance, Spanish native speakers may produce instances like *That is no the subject of the debate in their interlanguage.
(ii) Overgeneralization of the target language rules: it means the use of the L2 rules in erroneous contexts; for instance, the addition of the ending -ed to irregular verbs to mark the past tense (e.g. *begined, *drinked or *telled).
(iii) Transfer of training: type of transfer that the learner receives from the language teacher or materials used in the L2 learning process.
(iv) Strategies of L2 communication: this process is related to how learners are able to solve problems of communication in their use of the L2. For example, the use of an L1 word (e.g. libro instead of book) so as not to interrupt the flow of a conversation.
(v) Strategies of learning: they include those strategies of processing, memorizing and retaining L2 information.
30 Transfer is the central cognitive process within the interlanguage theory and is characterised by the following features, among others: (i) transfer is selective, as there are certain structures which are more likely to be transferred than others, and (ii) transfer can be a positive process in the creation of interlanguage forms when learners search for L2 elements and structures which are similar to their mother tongue so as to facilitate the learning process (cf. Alonso Alonso, 1999).
The second central process which operates in the interlanguage theory is what has been called fossilization. Within this concept, Selinker (1972, as quoted by Alonso Alonso, 2020: 16) makes a distinction between: (i) stabilization and (ii) fossilization. The former refers to the maintenance of an interlanguage form during the learning process of the L2, as a previous stage to fossilization. If stabilization persists for a period of time, it will give way to the fossilization of that interlanguage form (cf. Alonso Alonso, 2020).
Selinker and Lakshmanan (1994) make some clarifications with respect to fossilization.
They claim that there is still no list of forms and structures which are potentially likely to become fossilized. In addition, they still do not find any reason to explain why certain interlanguage forms and structures become fossilized while others do not.
The interlanguage theory developed by Selinker (1972) will be illustrated with an example. Broadly speaking, Spanish learners may find some difficulties in the use of English prepositions since there are some cases in which a preposition in the L1 does not have a single counterpart in the FL. For example, the Spanish preposition en covers the same meaning as the three English prepositions at, in and on. Therefore, Spanish learners are likely to use the preposition in in most contexts due to formal resemblances with Spanish en (transfer from L1). If learners maintain for some time their use of in in cases in which at or on should be employed, i.e. stabilization, this form will be fossilized in the learners’ interlanguage.
31 As can be assumed from the description of LT according to different theoretical frameworks, the perception of this linguistic phenomenon has varied from classical to modern literature. Due to its complexity, it seems that no theory has yet attempted to cover the full definition of this notion (cf. Yu & Odlin, 2016).
2.3. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Ramón Torrijos (2009) argues that LT did not achieve much importance in the area of language teaching and learning until the 1970s. Hence, it was not until that time that LT was considered a factor that could have an impact and a decisive role in FL instruction.
In any case, the use of the L1 is almost unavoidable both in the FL classroom and as a learning strategy of the target language since “transfer is a natural phenomenon and an inevitable part of second language acquisition” (Hammerly, 1989: 51; as quoted by Butzkamm, 2003: 31). In spite of the fact that the L1 clearly provides some support for EFL learners, its use in the FL classroom is still a controversial topic.
Accordingly, this section offers a discussion of which role the learners’ L1 should have in the FL classroom taking as a basis evidence provided by different scholars.
Additionally, this section also discusses the conception of LT as a learning strategy in the process of learning a FL.
2.3.1. The role of the L1 in the classroom
Before discussing the role played by the L1 in the classroom, it should be specified how SLA differs from FL learning. The learning of an L2 takes place in a territory in which that language has an official status and is spoken on a daily basis, so that it may or may not be learnt in the classroom setting. On the contrary, the learning of a FL typically
32 takes place in the territory of one’s L1. As a result, FLs are usually learnt in the classroom setting (cf. Gass & Selinker, 2008).
Contrary to the more natural way in which the L1 is acquired or an L2 is learnt, FL instruction is normally more artificial. Therefore, there are obvious differences between learning a language in an environment in which it is spoken daily and learning it in the classroom, where there is a clear lack of exposure to the language and culture of that FL (cf. Calvo Cortés, 2005).
Focusing on the languages that are of interest for this paper, English has the status of FL in Spain. In consequence, the environment in which English is learnt by Spanish native speakers is not a natural one but a formal one (cf. Calvo Cortés, 2005). Taking into account this limited contact with the FL, the learner’s mother tongue, i.e. Spanish, will definitely play a role in the EFL classroom.
Therefore, considering that FLs are generally learnt in the classroom context, Gass and Selinker (2008) argue that learners are exposed to three main sources of input of the target language: (i) the language teacher, (ii) classroom materials and (iii) other learners.
Even though it is commonly believed that FL lessons should be essentially monolingual, the discussion of these three aspects will prove that the selective use of the L1 can be helpful for learners (cf. Butzkamm, 2003).
In Alonso Alonso’s (2020) discussion on the role the learners’ L1 plays in the FL classroom, a distinction is made between native teachers and non-native teachers. It is widely believed that native teachers are the best option when trying to learn a FL, but the truth is that non-native teachers also bring many advantages to learners.
Non-native teachers have gone through the same phases in the learning process of the FL as their own students. As a result, non-native teachers can guide students better in
33 the process of learning the FL since they know from first-hand experience the possible difficulties that learners may encounter with. Similarly, they manage the same L1 as the learners, a situation which allows code-switching when necessary (cf. Alonso Alonso, 2020). This scholar claims that the only possible divergence that may exist between native and non-native teachers is that the former may be more fluent in communication than the latter.
As for classroom materials, Alonso Alonso (2020) suggests that it is common practice to use textbooks in most Spanish high schools and universities. Nevertheless, the use of general textbooks in language courses may limit the teaching task to a monolingual approach of the target language. Language teachers should have the most current information regarding developments in LT research. In such a way, they would not simply resort to textbooks, which have their limitations, but they would rather improve the FL teaching task by introducing the L1 in particular activities. Therefore, the use of materials specifically addressed for Spanish EFL learners would enable teachers to cope with the L1 presence better and maximise the advantages of its use in the classroom.
The elaboration of activities aimed at learners with a particular mother tongue pushes or prevents learners from transferring previous linguistic knowledge. In this way, Harmer (2007: 135) asserts that activities in which contrasts are made between the native language and the target language in the linguistic subsystems of “grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation or discourse” are beneficial for learners.
Concerning the interaction between learners in the classroom, Gass and Selinker (2008) claim that it is usually very limited. In addition, they are almost never assessed by their teachers during these interactions, so learners are likely to resort to their L1 due to this lack of supervision. The L1 is usually employed as a resource in order to succeed in
34 communication or fulfilling an oral activity. Consequently, the correct use of the L1 can help learners prosper in their use of the target language.
As can be assumed from the description of these three elements, the use of the L1 facilitates FL teaching and learning. Harmer (2007) declares that there is an extended opinion that classroom learning should be an environment where the FL is the only medium of communication. In consequence, it is very often the case that the only language that is used in the classroom is the FL. Anyway, this statement has recently been questioned.
Thus, Harmer (2007) enumerates a series of advantages of using the L1 in the classroom. Among others, he mentions that its use is beneficial for learners when the teacher is explaining an activity or exercise. The use of the L1 allows for a more fluent explanation so that learners understand what the teacher wants them to do more easily.
Furthermore, he states that teachers should establish comparisons between the learners’ L1 and the FL. Learners tend to make these comparisons by themselves, so if teachers guide them, these comparisons will be more effectively made. These cross- linguistic comparisons may be especially useful when explaining difficult grammatical structures that may diverge from the learners’ L1 (cf. Harmer, 2007). The last advantage of using the L1 in the classroom that this scholar considers is that its use contributes to the establishment of a good rapport between learners and teachers.
However, Harmer (2007) refers to some disadvantages of using the L1 in the classroom. First, it may be the case that the teacher does not share the same L1 with all the students. Then, if there are learners with different L1 backgrounds in the same classroom, the use of an L1 is going to be more restricted.
35 In addition, he mentions that the overuse of the learners’ L1 limits their exposure to the target language. This is especially important in those cases in which learners only have access to the FL in the classroom setting. Besides, this scholar states that the use of the L1 should be mediated by the learners’ level of the FL. He claims that it is more reasonable to resort to the L1 when addressing lower-level students than when addressing more advanced ones (cf. Harmer, 2007).
Bearing in mind all the aspects discussed above, it can be concluded that the L1 has its space in the FL classroom. In spite of the fact that the classroom setting should be an environment in which the FL has a prominent role, the use of the L1 should not be completely banned since its use has a positive impact on FL teaching and learning.
2.3.2. LT as a learning strategy
LT has been interpreted as an accessible learning strategy for FL learners. Gass and Selinker (2008: 519) define ‘learning strategy’ as “a strategic plan undertaken by a learner in learning.” In other words, a learning strategy makes reference to how learners use their skills in order to succeed in the process of learning a language.
Bialystok (1983, as quoted by Karim & Nassaji, 2013: 120) suggests that learners may employ their L1 as a tool to solve any possible difficulty, both in the learning process of the FL and also in communication. Therefore, transfer from the L1 to the FL makes up for the insufficient knowledge of the FL. Learners’ lack of proficiency in the target language to convey complex ideas drives them to rely on the knowledge of their mother tongue.
Alonso Alonso (2002a), in her discussion of Meisel’s study (1983), supports the view of LT as an available learning strategy for learners of a FL. Meisel outlines that LT as a learning strategy is not used by all learners, and also that not all those learners who
36 resort to their mother tongue do so in exactly the same way. Still, LT is a useful learning strategy for learners which facilitates the gradual adoption of the FL structures (cf. Alonso Alonso, 2002a).
In line with this statement, it should be underlined that there is a correlation between success in the use of “L1-based strategies” (Karim & Nassaji, 2013: 218) applied to the FL and learners’ level of language proficiency. Therefore, depending on which phase of the FL learning process learners are, the knowledge of the L1 will be more or less effectively employed. Wang and Wen (2002, as quoted by Karim and Nassaji, 2013:
128) state that learners with a lower level of the target language tend to directly translate structures from their mother tongue, while more advanced learners resort to their L1 strategically (LT involves a broad number of linguistic phenomena aside from translation). Therefore, learners with a higher level of the FL will be more likely to succeed in the use of LT as a learning strategy while learners with a lower level of the target language will usually find more difficulties.
Moreover, a distinction should be established regarding the use of LT as a learning strategy in writing and in speaking. As for written production, learners may use the L1 as a strategy to search topics and also at the stage of organizing ideas and planning the structure of a written composition (cf. Karim & Nassaji, 2013). Concerning oral production, Alonso Alonso (2002a) states that FL learners may code-switch or make literal translations when they try to communicate in the target language.
Language teachers should take into consideration that learners may map their knowledge of their mother tongue onto what they are learning in the FL (cf. Alonso Alonso, 2002b). In this way, language teachers should guide learners so that they use their mother tongue strategically in order to learn the FL. When teaching the FL, teachers should establish comparisons between the learners’ L1 and the target language so that
37 similar features can help them to master the FL. In such a way, they would be positively transferring from their L1 to a FL (cf. Chen, 2020). Therefore, it is important that language teachers take into consideration the linguistic backgrounds of learners in order to assess which aspects of the FL will be easier and which ones will be more difficult for them (cf. Odlin, 1989).
Similarly, learners should be made aware of similar aspects as well as differences between languages so that they can positively transfer and reduce interferences from their L1. As Butzkamm (2013: 31) suggests, “successful learners capitalise on the vast amount of linguistic skills (…) they have accumulated”. As a consequence, learners’ L1 may become a pedagogical resource for them if well employed.
Thus, Gass and Selinker (2004) claim that pedagogical decisions must be in tune with how the process of learning a FL takes place. These scholars state that it is a central point in SLA studies how learners make use of their previous linguistic knowledge in a strategic way in the learning process of a FL. As a result, language teaching methodologies should also take into consideration the use of positive LT in order to learn the FL more efficiently.
38 3.
PART II: PRACTICAL STUDY
3.1. INTRODUCTION
A practical study on LT has been carried out in the second part of this paper. I will first refer to how the research was conducted by describing the methodology used.
Secondly, a qualitative analysis of the results obtained from the data collected will be offered. This part will close with the main conclusions drawn from the study and some suggestions for future research.
Taking into consideration all the information gathered in the previous sections, it is evident that the linguistic phenomenon of LT may influence the acquisition of an L2, either positively or negatively. In accordance with this statement, this section offers a practical study on LT in order to confirm the previous hypothesis.
The main objective of this practical section is to provide an insight into the use of English by Spanish native speakers learning EFL, so as to assess whether LT facilitates or rather interferes in the learning of the target language. For time and space constrains, only written production will be analysed; more precisely, attention will be paid to different syntactic, morphological and lexical aspects which will be specified at the end of section 3.2.
3.2. METHODOLOGY
In order to undertake a practical study on LT, I decided to select a learner corpus, as it seemed the most suitable choice to examine the impact of this linguistic phenomenon (LT) on the English used by Spanish learners. Learner corpora are collections of texts produced by language learners which have been gathered so as to explore the language employed by these users of a target language (cf. Richards & Schmidt, 2010). Broadly
39 speaking, the use of computerized learner corpora constitutes a very useful research tool in that they depict the way in which learners actually use a FL, while they also allow comparisons between native and non-native speakers of a language.
For my study, I selected the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE; cf.
Granger et al., 2009) and the Santiago University Learner of English Corpus (SULEC;
cf. Palacios Martínez, 2002-2005) in view of the main purpose of this research work: to investigate the impact of LT on Spanish EFL learners’ written production. These two learner corpora are valuable tools to carry out this study in the sense that they provide useful data on the English produced by Spanish learners. Furthermore, this selection of corpora provided access to accurate language produced by Spanish learners which was already available for consultation.
The ICLE project was launched by Sylviane Granger at the Université catholique de Louvain around the year 1990. It initially focused on written production of advanced French learners of English, but this project gradually incorporated other EFL varieties (cf.
Granger et al, 2009). At present, the ICLE corpus encompasses a collection of 6,085 texts that include a total of 3,753,035 words. It contains written data produced by learners of English from sixteen different nationalities and, consequently, with sixteen different mother tongues (cf. Granger et al, 2009). Among these sixteen different backgrounds, we find Spanish EFL learners whose written production has been taken into consideration for the present study.
All sixteen sub-corpora of ICLE include academic writing of advanced learners whose level of English is proficient, i.e. equivalent to C1 (cf. CEFR, 2001). All written compositions consist of academic essays ranging between 500 and 1,000 words.
40 The Spanish sub-corpus of ICLE (ICLE SP) comprises 251 essays with a total of 198,131 words written by Spanish university students. All the participants are advanced learners of English at university level, all of them in their early 20s. The written compositions have an average length of 789 words; the majority of texts are argumentative essays (79%), but literary essays, fewer in number (21%), have also been considered for my research (cf. Granger et al., 2009).
The mass majority of writings were produced by students at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, while the rest of texts were written by students at the Universidad de Alcalá. It should be specified that the former institution provides both argumentative and literary compositions, while the latter just provides examples of literary essays.
The ICLE corpus, and the ICLE SP sub-corpus in particular, includes a search query device which permits to conduct specific searches. Additionally, it allows to filter learners’ productions according to a list of variables. In the following lines, I will not only allude to the features that were taken into consideration for this study but also to those which were left aside.
Considering that the main aim of this practical analysis is to investigate whether LT has a positive or a negative impact on written English produced by Spanish learners,
‘Spain’ was the option selected in the ‘country’ parameter and ‘Spanish’ was selected as
‘native language’ and also in the parameter labelled as ‘Language at home – First’.
With respect to the ‘genre’ of learners’ compositions, as mentioned above, both argumentative and literary essays were considered as LT is not a factor which is more likely to be perceived in one genre than in the other. Learners may or may not resort to their mother tongue knowledge while they are writing regardless of the specific type of
41 text they are expected to produce. Then, as this distinction between argumentative and literary essays did not suppose any difference when dealing with LT, I decided to examine argumentative and literary essays indistinctly. Moreover, the examination of both types of essays allowed me to retrieve more data in order to complete this practical analysis.
In turn, no attention was paid to variables such as ‘gender’ or ‘knowledge of other foreign languages’. As regards gender, there seem to be no conclusive differences between male and female learners in terms of LT. Ellis (1996) states that some studies confirm that female learners show a more positive attitude towards the learning of an L2 than male learners (which could have an impact on the probability that LT was more or less effectively employed). Nonetheless, he also claims that it may not always be the case that females surpass male learners (cf. Ellis, 1996) and, therefore, such distinction of gender was disregarded in order to analyse LT.
Concerning the knowledge of other FLs, even though the exploration of the impact of LT from other languages that learners may be acquainted with would enrich the results of this project, the purpose of this practical study is to investigate the cross- linguistic influence that Spanish as an L1 may have on EFL. Therefore, attention was exclusively centred on these two languages.
In addition to ICLE, the SULEC corpus was used to obtain empirical evidence from Spanish EFL learners. The SULEC project involves the design of a learner corpus which began around the year 2002, and is coordinated by Ignacio Palacios Martínez at the University of Santiago de Compostela. At present, SULEC contains more than half a million words, including both oral and written English produced by Spanish native speakers. This learner corpus is now in a second developmental stage as it is under preparation for the incorporation of new data.
42 The SULEC corpus, as in the case of the ICLE SP sub-corpus, includes a search query device which permits to conduct different searches in conformity with a series of variables. Nonetheless, at the moment, the software does not allow to search for specific terms. Hence, evidence from Spanish EFL learners in the case of the SULEC corpus could exclusively be retrieved through the reading of the texts they had written. Still, the selection of compositions was made in accordance with some variables which will be specified in the following lines.
Even though the SULEC includes oral and written data, I decided to concentrate only on written production in order to equate these data with those provided by the ICLE.
All the essays written by Spanish EFL learners which are included in the SULEC are of an argumentative nature and they deal with diverse topics (cf. Palacios Martínez, 2002- 2005).
‘Spanish’ was selected in the ‘mother tongue’ parameter. Some learners had selected both Spanish and Galician as their mother tongues due to the equal official status that both languages have in Galicia. Nonetheless, I tried to select for the analysis written production which belongs to EFL learners with only Spanish as their L1.
With respect to participants, the SULEC corpus comprises representative data of learners who are in their fourth year of secondary school education to university students.
Owing to the fact that the ICLE SP sub-corpus only contained written data from advanced university students of English, I decided to concentrate on lower grades in the case of the SULEC. In consequence, I selected ‘4th year Secondary’, ‘1st year Bac.’ and ‘2nd year Bac.’ in the ‘course’ variable, mostly corresponding to an intermediate level of the English language, i.e. equivalent to B1 (cf. CEFR, 2001). Therefore, the selection of intermediate Spanish learners of English and advanced Spanish learners of English will
43 allow me to confirm whether linguistic competence plays a major role when considering LT from Spanish to English.
Hence, the ICLE SP sub-corpus and the SULEC corpus were the starting points for this practical study, which, as repeatedly noted, aims to provide a further understanding of the linguistic phenomenon of LT. In this respect, attention was focused on different aspects of syntax, morphology and lexis on the grounds that these are potential areas for LT considering previous research studies.
Due to time and space constraints, I had to restrict my research work to a number of lexico-grammatical aspects. Furthermore, my practical study mainly focused on the concept of NT relative to those areas of the language. The following linguistic aspects clearly illustrate the interference of the learners’ mother tongue, i.e. Spanish. Therefore, I decided to concentrate on the following aspects of NT owing to their major presence in both learner corpora:
(i) Concord problems occurring in different grammatical structures, including, among others, Subject-Verb and Adjective-Noun agreement.
(ii) The subject as a syntactic element. Attention will be centred around subject omission and double subjects.
(iii) Creation of invented words and spelling problems as a result of L1 influences.
My analysis mainly revolved around those cases of NT from Spanish to English since I consider that they require special consideration in the process of SLA. It is important that language learners become aware of those particular cases in which Spanish interferes in the process of learning English rather than facilitating it in order to overcome NT.
44 On the other hand, I have also considered some special instances of PT in which the knowledge of Spanish facilitates EFL learners’ written production. Specifically, attention was focused on (i) basic clause patterns, (ii) derivation and (iii) cognates. While NT should be weakened, PT should be emphasized in order to learn English in a more efficient and quicker way. Hence, learners could strategically resort to their mother tongue in order to learn English.
3.3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In what follows, I will mainly concentrate on the most significant errors made by Spanish EFL learners that can be attributed to NT and relative to lexico-grammatical aspects. In order to conduct the analysis, I will compare the learners’ original written production with their corresponding and often reconstructed English version. In addition, cases of PT from Spanish to English in the linguistic subsystems of grammar and lexis will be discussed taking as a basis data gathered from the two learner corpora.
It should be underlined that the examples taken from the ICLE SP and the SULEC corpora have not been modified. Thus, the original passages have been copied literally despite possible errors that learners may have made.
3.3.1. Grammar
3.3.1.1. NT: Agreement
In my revision of the data obtained from the two learner corpora, I noticed that Spanish EFL learners tend to apply the rules of their mother tongue to English with respect to agreement. As a result, it is very often the case that this divergence from the norms of English leads to errors.
