-
1. Discuss the role of L1 in L2
acquisition
. (20’)
Gass
(2001)
believes
that
transfer
from
NL
plays
a
“rocky”
role
in
the
course
of
SLA
and
in
a
L2
learning
situation. L1 has a great influence on L2 in
phonology, morpheme, syntax, semantic, pragmatic,
discourse
and
so
on.
Therefore,
the
role
of
L1
in
L2
acquisition
can
be
concluded
in
one
word,
that
is,
transfer, which means
the influence that the learner?s L1 exerts over
the acquisition of an L2 apparently in
many
aspects
in
Ellis?s
view.
Here,
I
divide
transfer
into
four
kinds,
that
is,
negative
transfer,
positive
transfer, avoidance and over-use.
Negative transfer can also be called
interference, is caused by the sharp differences
between L1 and L2.
When learners
transfer their L1 habits into the L2, errors are
made if the habits of L1 differ greatly from
those
of
L2.
For
example,
Chinese
learners
find
very
difficulty
to
learn
attributive
clause
in
English
because there is little use in Chinese.
But some scholars thought that it is not agreeable
that whether errors
made are the
results of transfer or are intra-lingual in
nature. Some experiments indicate that both the
two
factors
influence
L2
learning.
Whether
or
not
an
agreement
on
how
much
negative
transfer
acts
in
L2
acquisition, the fact
that the langua
ge phenomenon “transfer”
exists will not be denied.
Different L1
habits
will prevent successful L2
learning in all.
Positive transfer L1
facilitates L2 learning but it
doesn
?
t mean the absence of
errors. Instead, it means
the
reduction
of
errors.
Positive
transfer
occurs
when
there
are
similarities
between
L1
and
L2,
thus
learners can use L1
habits to understand L2 more easily and better.
Studies done by linguists illustrate how
transfer has a facilitative or positive
effect. Zoble (1980) investigated some adult
English learners of French
of
the
placements
of
“verbs”
and
“objects”.
Because
there
are
the
same
word-order
type
of
verb-
object
exists in English, so these
learners find easier to learn this kind of
knowledge in French. They quickly grasp
the
pattern
through
their
NL
(English)
transfer
positively.
Hyltemstam
(1984)
made
an
investigation
on
relative clauses in L2 Swedish, a
language that does not permit pronoun retention.
He investigated 45 adult
subjects from
5 different language backgrounds. The languages
were ranged in the extent to which they
prohibit retentive pronouns. The result
shows that the learners with the most similar
language rules learn
his TL fast. The
more similarities exist in L1 and L2, the easier
to grasp L2. All these serve as the positive
transfer in SLA.
Avoidance
can also occur when the differences between L1 and
L2 are so sharp that learners can not
find
any
clues
from
L1.
L1
habits
don?t
exist
in
L2.
The
classic
study
of
avoidance
done
by
Schachter
(1974)
shows
that
Chinese
and
Japanese
learners
of
English
made
fewer
errors
on
relative
clauses
than
Persian and Arabic
learners, not because the former mastered the TL
better than the latter, but because they
reduced the amount of using relative
clauses or simply avoided using them.
Opposite to avoidance, the over-use, or
overgeneralization refers to the frequent use of
certain linguistic
rules of structure
of the L2. For example, L2 learners have often
been observed to use the regular past tense
inflection to irregular verbs in L2
English, such as “comed”, “goed”, and
“runned”, etc.
L2 learners overuse
linguistic rules when they think
overuse of rules in L1 can get right answers.
2.
Comment on Krashen’s
Monitor Model (main ideas and potential problems
with this model).
(2
0
’)
There a
re five hypotheses of
Krashen?s Monitor Model, that is, the
Acquisition/Learning Model, the
Natural
Order hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the
Input Hypothesis and the Affect Filter Hypothesis.
The Acquisition/Learning Model states
that there are two ways of mastering a second
language, that is,
learning
and
acquisition.
Learning
is
a
conscious
process
which
is
done
with
the
help
of
peers,
parents,
teachers,
etc.
Education
is
the
most
common
way
for
learning.
However,
acquisition
is
a
subconscious
process.
Acquisition
means
things
that
are
innate,
that
one
person
processes
when
he/she
is
born.
Acquisition
and
learning
are
two
distinctive
and
independent
processes of
mastering
a
second
language.
Unfortunately,
Krashen
doesn?t
point
out
that
learning
can
be
come
acquisition.
He
gives
some
evidence
such as sometimes
acquisition can occur without learning, sometimes
one can also break the rules though
he
knows
them
etc.
He
thinks
learning
doesn?t
precede
acquisition
but
he
doesn?t
think
the
other
hand,
which means learning
can precede acquisition.
Besides,
Krashen doesn?t define conscious and unconscious.
He also doesn?t point out how do
learning and acquisition differ in behavioral
terms. What?s more, there is
logical
inconsistency in this hypothesis. If most L2 is
acquired unconsciously then how can learning,
which
is conscious, contribute to the
development of L2 competence. This hypothesis also
claims that adults can
access same LAD
as children.
The Monitor Hypothesis
concerns about the relationship between
acquisition of language and learning
of
language. Acquisition contributes to the fluency
in a language while learning plays the role of
monitor or
corrector
in
acquiring
a
language.
Krashen
lists
some
sufficient
conditions
in
which
the
Monitor
can
be
made full use. 1) time (sufficient time
is necessary for the consciously think about and
use rules effectively);
2) focus on
form (performers must pay attention to what is
corrected); 3) knowledge of the rule. However,
there are some deficiencies of this
hypothesis. Firstly, Kreshen claims that learning
is available only for use
in
production
instead
for
comprehension
but
he
doesn?t
give
some
evidence.
Secondly,
focus
on
form
means focus on the correctness, there
is no distinction
between form and
content.
But sometimes
letters
with different forms
such as site iru and sitte iru also have different
meanings. Thirdly, knowing the rules of
a language is absolute in that
different learners have different understanding of
the rules. They can also use
the
rules
from
their
own
perspective
to
use
and
comprehend
language
even
though
some
of
them
are
incorrect for linguists. Krashen
neglects the diverse standards of rules of
different people and he also thinks
that children don?t use
Monitor.
The
Natural
Order
Hypothesis
explains
that
the
rules
of
the
language
(grammatical
structures)
are
acquired in a
predictable order, some rules tending to come
early and others later. However, there are some
problems left for this hypothesis.
Firstly, Krashen doesn?t point out what
is a ?structure?? Learner has to
acquire
many
structures
of
a
language
such
as
tense
endings.
Secondly,
there
is
no
definite
order
of
developing a language. Individual
variation makes the different order for different
person. If the structures
are divided
into varying numbers
of ordered sets,
it is needless to talk about a ?natural
order?.
Krashen?s
Affective
Filter
Hypothesis
is
one
of
the
most
significant
and
well
-known
hypotheses
in
second language acquisition. It shows
the relationship between affect and
seco
nd language learning. What?s
more, this hypothesis elucidates why
some learners can learn second language well while
some can?t to a
large degree. Affect,
from Krashen?s perspective, is intended to include
factors such a motivation, attitude,
self-confidence, and anxiety. Low
anxiety, high motivation, self-confidence and
comprehensible input are
the ideal
conditions for learner?s successful language
acquisition.
If the filter is up, input
is prevented from
passing
through,
thus
learners
cannot
acquire
language.
If
the
filter
is
down,
and
if
the
input
is
comprehensible
and
adequate,
the
acquisition
will
take
place.
To
summarize,
according
to
Krashen,
two
conditions
are
necessary
for
successful
acquisition.
One
is
comprehensible
input
and
the
other
is
low
affective
filter. The deficiencies of this hypothesis are
the following. Firstly, this hypothesis also
intends to
explain
child
and
adult
differences.
The
Filter
is
not
present
in
children
but
is
present
in
adults.
But
questions
such
as
“How
does
it
work
? How
is
the
input?” are
not
answered.
Secondly,
Krashen
doesn?t
point out why this
hypothesis cannot be applied to L1?
Comprehensible
Input
Hypothesis
is
one
part
of
Krashen?s
Monitor
Hypothesis.
Krashen
thought
second
language
is
acquired
by
learners?
receivin
g
understandable
information,
which
means
the
comprehensible
input.
Essentially,
the
input
should
be
slightly
ahead
of
a
learner?s
current
state
of
grammatical
knowledge.
If
the
input
is
the
one
that
learner
has
already
learned,
the
acquisition
is
meaningless though the
input is comprehensible.
If the input
is largely ahead of a learner?s current state
grammatical
knowledge,
acquisition
is
also
meaningless
in
that
the
input
is
far
beyond
learner?s
current
comprehension.
Krashen considered a
learner
’
s current state of
knowledge as i and the next stage as i + 1.
Therefore, the input must be at the i+1
level in order to be comprehensible. In all, the
comprehensible input