母语在英语学习中的作用

母语在英语学习中的作用
The Role of Mother Tongue in English Learning
Abstract: Learner’s L2 acquisition may strongly be influenced by their L1 in the process of foreign language learning. The influence can be also called language transfer.
Language transfer can be divided into two aspects-positive transfer and negative
transfer. In respect of this, this paper will briefly discuss the role of L1 in L2
acquisition by reviewing some linguists’point of view. Referring to the study
results of some linguists and researchers, the author will further investigate the
positive transfer and negative transfer, the relationship between L1 and L2. On the
basis of analysis, L1 plays an important role during the process of L2 acquisition.
In order to identify the area of language transfer, a procedure called Contrastive
Analysis was development which will be also explained in this paper.
Key words: second language acquisition; mother tongue; language transfer
摘要: 在外语学习过程中，学习者通常会把母语知识迁移到外语学习中去，语言的迁移可以分为正迁移和负迁移。

根据一些语言学家者对母语在二语习得中的影响研究，本文讨论了母
语在二语习得中的正迁移和负迁移作用及母语和第二语言的关系。

在理论分析的基础
上，母语在二语习得的过程中确实扮演着很重要的角色。

为了更好地了解语言的迁移，
本文将对错误分析做进一步的分析。

关键词: 二语习得; 母语; 语言迁移
Contents
I.Introduction (1)
A. Background (1)
B. Reasons (1)
Ⅱ. Literature Review (2)
A.Different views on language transfer (2)
B.Behaviorist learning t heory (2)
C.Habits (2)
D.Errors (3)
Ⅲ. An Important Procedure in Language Transfer (5)
A.E xplanation of contrastive a nalysis (5)
B.The psychological aspect of contrastive a nalysis (5)
C.T he linguistic aspect of contrastive a nalysis (6)
Ⅳ. The Influence of L1 on L2 learning (7)
A．P ositive t ransfer (7)
B．Negative t ransfer (8)
Ⅴ. The Relationship between L1 and L2 (8)
Ⅵ. Conclusion (9)
Works Cited (10)
Ⅰ. Introduction
A.Background
Different researchers have given very different interpretations of the definition of second language acquisition. As Cook mentioned “People have been interested in second language acquisition since antiquity, but in modern times much of the research emphasis was in fact placed on language teaching”(Cook 23). Many comparative studies of language teaching methods were conducted. As was mentioned “In the 1960s, as a result of the inconclusive findings from the comparative studies, a debate in psychology over the nature of learning and a revolution in linguistics, a challenge to the dominance of research on language teaching was to take place”(Larsen-Freeman 5). Since Hatch’s book was published in 1978, there have been hundreds more studies conducted, several new journals begun, and numerous conferences convened. Raimes (535) offers an additional indicator of the birth and growth of the SLA field. In recent years, more and more researchers are devoting themselves to second language acquisition.
B.Reasons
During the process of English learning, there are many factors which can influence our English learning. Among all the factors, L1 plays an important role in L2 learning which is also a hot topic in recent years. Beginning in the post-war years and carrying on into the 1960s, there was a strong assumption that most of the difficulties facing the L2 learner were imposed by his or her first language. It was assumed that where there were differences between the L1 and L2, the learner’s L1 knowledge would interfere with the L2, and where the L1 and L2 were similar, the L1 would actively aid L2 learning. The process that was held responsible for this was called language transfer. In the case of similarities between the L1 and L2 it functioned positively, while in the case of differences it functioned negatively. Teachers were encouraged to focus their teaching on the areas of difficulty created by negative transfer. They were exhorted to apply massive practice to overcome these difficulties. According to this, this paper mainly relies on the role of mother tongue in L2 learning.
Ⅱ. Literature Review
A.Different views on language transfer
An important function of human’s language is promoting interpersonal communication. Using language correctly can help promote emotion, developing friendship, respecting each other and improving interpersonal nguage transfer means “the influence of one language on another language” (Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied linguistics1992). Lear ners’L2 acquisition may strongly be influenced by their L1 in the process of foreign language learning. It is a popular belief that second language acquisition (SLA) is strongly influenced by the learner’s first language (L1) . The clearest support for this belief comes from ‘foreign’ accents in the second language (L2) speech of learners. When a Chinese speaks English, his English sounds Chinese. The learner’s L1 also affects the other language levels-vocabulary and grammar. This is perhaps less immediately evident, but most language learners and teachers would testify to it. It is also a popular belief that the role of the L1 in SLA is a negative one. That is, the L1 gets in the way or interferes with the learning of the L2, such that features of the L1 are transferred into the L2. In fact, the process of SLA is often characterized in popular opinion as that of overcoming the effects of L1, of slowly replacing the features of the L1 that intrude into the L2 with those of the target language and so of approximating ever closer to native-speaker speech. Corder (978) has referred to this view of SLA as a ‘restructuring process’. It is a view that is based on a theory of general learning, as will be explained in the next section.
B.Behaviorist learning theory
In order to understand the early importance that was attached to the role of the first language, it is necessary to understand the main tenets of behaviorist learning theory. Up to the end of the 1960s, views of language learning were derived from a theory of learning in general. There were few studies of SLA based on the actual language that learners produced, and few attempts to examine the process of SLA empirically before this. The dominant school in psychology, which informed most discussions of language learning, was behaviorism. There are two kinds of notions can be identified in these discussions: ‘habits’ and ‘errors’.
C. Habits
Behaviorist psychologists attributed two important characteristics to habits. The first was that they were observable. As Watson argued, the true basis for psychological enquiry existed only in objects that could be touched and actions that could be observed. Watson denied the existence of internal mental processes, dismissing them as ‘superstition’and ‘magic’. The
second noteworthy characteristic was that habits were automatic, that is, they were performed spontaneously without awareness and were difficult to eradicate unless environmental changes led to the extinction of the stimuli upon which they were built. The learning of a habit, then, could occur through imitation (i.e. the learner copies the stimulus behavior sufficiently often for it to become automatic) or through reinforcement (e.g. the response of the learner is rewarded or punished depending on whether it is appropriate or otherwise, until only appropriate responses are given.
Theories of habit formation were theories of learning in general. They could be and were applied to language learning. In L1 acquisition children were said to master their mother tongue by imitating utterances produced by adults and having their efforts at using language either rewarded or corrected. In this way children were supposed to build up knowledge of the patterns or habits that constituted the patterns or habits that constituted the language they were trying to learn. It was also believed that SLA could proceed in a similar way. Imitation and reinforcement were the means by which the learner identified the stimulus-response associations that constituted the habits of the L2. Language learning, first and second, was most successful when the task was broken down into a number of stimulus-response links, which could be systematically practiced and mastered one at a time.
D. Errors
According to behaviorist learning theory, old habits get in the way of learning new habits. Where SLA is concerned, therefore, the grammatical apparatus prop rammed into the mind as the first language interferes with the smooth acquisition of the second (Bright and McGregor 236). Behaviorist learning theory predicts that transfer will take place from the first to the second language. Transfer will be negative when there is proactive inhibition. In this case errors will result. Transfer will be positive when the first and second language habits are the same. In this case no errors will occur. Thus differences between the first and second language create learning difficulty which results in errors, while the similarities between the first and second language facilitate rapid and easy learning. In behaviorist accounts of SLA, errors were considered undesirable. They were evidence of non-learning, of the failure to overcome proactive inhibition. Some language teaching theorists even suggests that there was a danger of errors becoming habits in their own right if they were tolerated. However, as errors were the result of the negative transfer of first language habits (i.e. were habits already); it is difficult to see how they could become habits simply by tolerating them. Errors, according to behaviorist theory, were the result of non-learning, rather than wrong learning. But in either
case there was almost total agreement that errors should be avoided. To this end attempts were made to predict when they would occur. By comparing the learner’s native language with the target language, differences could be identified and used to predict areas of potential error. In this way classroom practice could be directed on the problem areas in order to help the learner overcome the negative effects of first language transfer.
Abbott puts it, ‘The aim of any EA is to provide a psychological explanation’ (124). The following list can show us a clear explanation of EA.
The distinction between ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’, which has already been discussed with regard to the identification stage of EA, is also relevant in explaining deviations-demonstrating the interdependence of these two steps in EA. Any deviation from target-language norms may reflect either a problem in performance or in competence. It is helpful to recognize two different kinds of performance mistakes. These mistakes result from such strategies as circumlocution and paraphrase which a learner uses to overcome the lack of knowledge. The latter are known as communication strategies. As we have already seen, it is competence errors that have been considered central to the study of L2 acquisition.
Ⅲ. An Important Procedure in the Studies
A.Explanation of contrastive analysis
Contrastive Analysis was rooted in the practical need to teach a L2 in the most efficient way possible. Lado (416), one of the prime movers of Contrastive Analysis, makes clear that ‘The teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what the real problem are and can provide for teaching them’. The origins of Contrastive Analysis, therefore, were pedagogic. This was reflected in comparisons of several pairs of languages by scholars in the United States, all directed at establishing the areas of learning difficulty that were likely to be experienced by English speakers learning other languages. In addition to these pedagogically oriented studies, there have been a number of more theoretical contrastive studies carried out in Europe, some of which have not been concerned with SLA at all. Clearly Contrastive Analysis is an area of considerable theoretical interest for general linguistics. Contrastive Analysis had both a psychological aspect and a linguistic aspect. The psychological aspect was based on behaviorist learning theory, and the linguistic aspect, in the first place at least, on structuralism linguistics.
B.The psychological aspect of contrastive analysis
The psychological ration takes the form of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. This exists in a strong and a weak form. The strong form claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner’s first language. As Lee (180) notes, it stipulates that ‘the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is interference coming from the learner’s native language’. The strong form of the hypothesis was common before research began to show that many of the errors produced by L2 learners could not be traced to the L1.
The weak form of the hypothesis claims only to be diagnostic. A Contrastive Analysis can be used to identify which errors are the results of interference. Thus, according to the weak hypothesis, Contrastive Analysis needs to work hand in hand with an Error Analysis. First actual errors must be identified by analyzing a corpus of learner language. Then a Contrastive Analysis can be used to establish which errors in the corpus can be put down to differences between the first and second language. Implicit in the weak version is the assumption that not all errors are the result of interference. The weak form claims a less powerful role for the L1 than the strong form of the hypothesis.
The strong form of the hypothesis has few supporters today. It is now evident that the L1 is not the sole and probably not even in the prime cause of grammatical errors. Nevertheless,
the weak form is not very satisfying. It makes little sense to undertake a lengthy comparison of two languages simply to confirm that errors suspected of being interference errors are indeed so. As James (280) points out, this is a ‘pseudo procedure’. In order to hypothesize that the errors in a corpus are interference errors, a de facto contrastive analysis must have taken place. It makes little sense to conduct a complicated contrastive analysis simply to confirm what a de facto analysis suggested.
Ideally the psychological aspect of Contrastive Analysis should deal with the conditions under which interference takes place. That is, it should account for instances when linguistic differences between the first and second language lead to transfer errors and instance when they do not. It is because it is not possible to predict or explain the presence or absence of transfer errors solely in terms of linguistic differences between the first and second languages that a psychological explanation is necessary.
C.The linguistic aspect of contrastive analysis
Most contrastive analyses have compared phonological systems, probably as recognition of the role that the L1 plays in ‘foreign’ accents. However, the Contrastive Structure Series provided full-length studies of the contrastive syntax of the major European languages and English, while the 1970s saw a number of studies in European (see James 1980: 205 for a list). As Sridhar (681) notes, there have been relatively few studies of vocabulary, while Lado’s (428) suggestion that contrastive studies of cultures should be carried out has not been taken up.
There are several problems concerning the linguistic aspect of Contrastive Analysis. However, if the problems with Contrastive Analysis were only linguistics, they would be amenable to a linguistic solution. As the tools of contrastive linguistics grow more refined, the problems would be gradually resolved. The major problems, however, have to do with the relationship between the psychological and the linguistic aspects of Contrastive Analysis. There is little point in comparing languages if learners make only limited use of their first languages in SLA. The accuracy of prediction will always be open to doubt if Contrastive Analysis fails to specify the conditions that determine if and when interference takes place. The ‘hierarchy of difficulty’ was an attempt to solve this problem linguistically, but unless the solution has psychological validity (e.g. corresponds to what learners actually do), it will be inadequate. Contrastive Analysis constituted a hypothesis, and like all hypotheses was open to empirical investigation. The real failure of the 1960s was to rely on extrapolation from a general learning theory instead of getting down to the business of testing out theory by
examining the language that learners produce.
Ⅳ. The Influence of L1 on L2 learning
The results of the influence of L1 on L2 learning can be divided into two aspects—positive transfer and negative transfer.
A．Positive transfer
Most Chinese learners learn English through instructions that they get in English class. We seldom speak or use English out of class. In English learning, our mother tongue has many negative influences on English learning while it can also have many positive influences. It was said that “all languages in the world have some common features such as the same classification of words and sentences (e.g. all words can be divided into noun, verb, adjective and so on), different expressions about the same time and same places (e.g. we can say ‘7点’in Chinese while we say seven o’clock in English )” (Yang 122). On this condition, we may put these common principles into our second language learning unconsciously which can make great contribution to our second language learning. For Chinese learners of English, it can do us a favor in our English learning if we have learnt Bopomofo; English grammar learning can stand on Chinese grammar learning; Skills of reading and writing Chinese can also be used in English reading and writing, so existent knowledge and skills are helpful to the second language acquisition.
Corder (956) outlines one way in which “interference’can be recast as a learner ‘strategy’. He suggests that the learner’s L1 may facilitate the developmental process of learning a L2, by helping him to progress more rapidly along the ‘universal’ route when the L1 is similar to the L2. ‘Interference’errors result not from negative transfer but from ‘borrowing’. That is, when learners experience difficulty in communicating an idea because they lack the necessary target language resources, they will resort to their L1 to make up the insufficiency. This explains why the L1 is relied on more at the beginning of the learning process than later-the learner has greater insufficiency of target language resources to surmount. Whereas interference has been traditionally seen as a feature of learning, intercession is to be considered as a strategy of communication. A rather similar proposal is made by Krashen (981), when hr suggests that learners can use the L1 to initiate utterances when they do not have sufficient acquired knowledge of the target language for this purpose.
Both Corder’s and Krashen’s proposals view the L1 as a resource which learners can use to overcome their limitations.
B. Negative transfer
For learners of English in China, English is learnt as a second language. So in the process of English learning, many teachers and learners think that there is more negative transfer than positive transfer in English learning because of the differences in language and culture between Chinese and English. As a result, “many researchers are holding an opinion that learners should learn English as their mother language and speak in English instead of speaking Chinese frequently”(Krashen 573). As the researchers said, there must be negative influence of L1 on SLA which can be represented in many different aspects. Learner s’L2 acquisition may strongly be influenced by their L1 in the process of foreign language learning; as a result, features of their native language are probably transferred into the target language and cause the effect of negative transfer. For example, in English writing, because of the different culture background, Chinese and foreigners have the different thoughts in writing structure, so Chinese learners may write an English article in Chinese way. Also, there are some different ways of people’s thinking except grammar and words writing. In China, people pay more attention to the connection of the whole article while foreigners focus on direction and brevity. Chinese learners who don’t know the difference will be controlled by their mother language and write a “Chinglish” article. What’s more, learning environment can also play an important role in negative transfer in English learning.
Ⅴ.The Relationship between L1 and L2
As is shown in part Ⅲ, we should have a brief comprehension on the relationship between L1 and L2. Firstly, second language learning can not exist without L1. We are born with L1 learning and later L2 learning, so L2 learning can be operated on the base of L1. We can regard L1 as the knowledge springhead, we rely on it to complete the input process of foreign language knowledge unconsciously. In fact, it is very common that L1 can influence L2 learning, because while learning a second language, we just learn the linguistry and other knowledge is connected with it instead of apperceiving the world again. Because language learning and language acquisition are two different processes, they can not be divorced from each other in second language learning. In a world, L1 plays an important role in L2 learning
and L2 learning should be operated on the base of L1.
Ⅵ. Conclusion
Although in popular belief SLA is strongly influenced by the learner’s L1, there is considerable disagreement among researchers about the extent and nature of role of the L1. The explanation for this lies mainly in the changes that have taken place in the psychological base for examining SLA. The role of L1 was first seen in terms of transfer theory and was closely linked to behaviorism, which saw SLA as a process of habit-formation. Errors, according to this theory, were the result of interference from the entrenched habits of the L1. Contrastive Analysis was developed in order to predict the areas of difficulty that learners with specific L1s would experience, so that teaching could provide massive practice to eliminate the chance of errors induced by the first language. Up to this point, however, there were few empirical studies of SLA. Contrastive Analysis was based on an extrapolation from general learning theory. The beginnings of the 1970s saw a number of attempts to validate the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. These showed that many of the errors predicted by Contrastive Analysis did not in fact arise. Also many errors which were not predicted did occur. As a result of this research, the importance of L1 interference was questioned and fell into disfavor. Theoretical attacks on the validity of behaviorist accounts of language learning also helped to create a ‘crisis’ in Contrastive Analysis. Gradually, however, the role of the L1 was reappraised rather than rejected out of hand. The reappraisal took two forms. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was modified to take account of avoidance, the need for there to be a ‘degree of similarity’between the first and second language items for interference to take place, and the multi-factor nature of learner error. Also the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was incorporated into a cognitive framework by reinterpreting ‘interference’ as ‘intercession’, a strategy for communicating when there were insufficient L2 resources. More recently, interest in Contrastive Analysis has shifted to reflect current developments in linguistics which emphasize the communicative uses of language. This development is known as ‘Contrastive Pragmatics’.
The learner’s L1 is an important determinant of SLA. It is not the only determinant, however, and may not be the most important. But it is theoretically unsound to attempt a precise specification of its contribution or even to try to compare its contribution with that of other factors. The L1 is a resource of knowledge which learners will use both consciously and
subconsciously to help them sift the L2 data in the input and to perform as best they can in the L2. Precisely when and how this resource is put to use depends on a whole host of factors to do with the formal and pragmatic features of the native and target language (e.g. linguistic factors) on the one hand, and the learner’s stage of development and type of language use (e.g. psycho and sociolinguistic factors) on the other hand. The influence of the L1 is likely to be most evident in L2 phonology-the ‘foreign’ accent is ubiquitous-but it will occur in all aspects of the L2. Perhaps the most unsatisfactory aspect of traditional Contrastive Analysis was the assumption that this influence was a negative one. If SLA is viewed as a developmental process, then the L1 can be viewed as a contributing factor to this development, which in the course of time, as the learner’s proficiency grows, will become less powerful.
Works Cited
Abbott, G. International Review of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Bright, J. And G. McGregor. Teaching English as a Second Language: Theory and Techniques for the Secondary Stage. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1970.
Cook, Vivian. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Corder, S. P. Language-learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Crystal, D. The Statistics of English Today. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1985.
Eckman, F. Markedness and The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Gass, S. The Revolution of Conflicts Among Competing Systems. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1987.
Jackson, H. Contrastive Analysis As A Predictor of Errors, with Reference to Learners of English. Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1981.
James, C. Conreastive Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Krashen, S. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1983.
Lado, R. Liguistics Across Culture. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1957.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Lee, W. Contrastive Linguistics and its Pedagogical Implications. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1968.
Raimes, A. Tradition and Revolution in ESL Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1983.
Sridhar, S. Constrastive Analysis, Errors Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Schachter, J. A New Account of Language Transfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Wode, H. The L1 VS. L2 Acquisition of English negation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
杨连瑞. 二语习得研究与中国外语教学[M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社， 2007.。