1
CHAPTER 1.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THEORIES FOR
ERROR INTERPRETATION
The study of errors occupies a central position in applied linguistic studies. The linguistic theories about acquiring a first language and learning a second language mirror the interpretation of errors. Models that have mostly influenced academic studies of second and foreign language learning over the years are the contrastive analysis hypothesis, the creative construction hypothesis, and the interlanguage hypothesis. I will discuss these theories in sections 1, 2 and 3. Section 4 will be dedicated to the notion of markedness. In this chapter, I will review the historical, linguistic, and psychological backgrounds of the different hypotheses including their procedures and their arguments for and against, while attempting to concentrate on several studies focusing on pronunciation and phonological issues.
1.1 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
The term “contrastive hypothesis” refers to the theory itself, while “contrastive analysis” focuses on the method of execution of the hypothesis. “Contrastive analysis hypothesis” instead emphasises both the theory and the method simultaneously.
1.1.1 Habits
The dominant psychological theory of the 1950s and 1960s was behaviouristic, which held that all behaviour, that is any kind of learning, could be explained in terms of habits. Ellis (1997) explains that a habit is a “stimulus-response connection” (p. 31), which means that:
2 habits are formed when learners respond to stimuli in the environment and subsequently have their responses reinforced so that they are remembered. (p. 31)
According to Ellis (1997), at that time linguists believed that language learning involves habit formation, as it was expected to occur when learners had the possibility to train the correct responses to given stimuli, in other words by imitating proper language. Second language learning was consequently believed to be principally a matter of acquiring a “set of new language habits” (Corder, 1981, p. 1).
Noccetti (2009) affirms that, linguistically, the CAH develops within the field of structuralism, which teaches that a language is explicable in terms of independent levels such as phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. These various levels constitute the new linguistic habits to learn. Based on these elements, the points of greatest difficulty for the learner can be predicted, using the comparison between the structures of the mother tongue (L1) and the target language (L2), whereas structuralism assumes that there is a finite structure of a given language that can be documented and compared with another language. Where L1 and L2 have comparable structures, it is expected that there will be a positive transfer, while where L1 and L2 have different structures, negative transfer is expected. Most errors were attributed to “transfer” or “interference”, meaning “carrying over the habits of the mother tongue into the second language” (Corder, 1974, p. 169), or better, the “persistence of existing mother tongue habits in the new language” (Corder, 1981, p.1)
1.1.2 Strong vs. weak version
Robert Lado (1957) in his book Linguistics Across Cultures formulated the theoretical foundations for what became known as the CAH. In the very first pages of the book he claimed that:
3 in the comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning […] Those elements which are similar to his [the learner’s] native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult. (p 1-2)
The author admits, though, that this is not a totally unfamiliar statement, since linguists such as Haugen (1953) and Weinreich (1953) already pointed out the importance of studying languages ‘in contact’. However, Dulay and Burt (1974) argue that:
it seems that the work of Weinreich and Haugen, although fundamental to research in language shift, does not speak to the phenomenon of first language interference […]. (p. 104)
Therefore, Lado (1957) was the first to furnish a comprehensive theoretical approach and to suggest a systematic set of technical procedures for the contrastive study of languages. He claimed that it is possible to predict learning difficulties by describing and emphasising the points of contrasts between language systems.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, there was widespread enthusiasm with this technique, and contrastive analysis was used extensively in the field of second language acquisition, as a means of demonstrating why some features of a target language were more difficult to acquire than others. This is manifested in the contrastive descriptions of several European languages.As behaviourists at the time believed that language learning was a question of habit formation, it was considered crucial to map out the areas of potential difficulty. This was significant in order to design language courses more efficiently. It is of relevance to remember that the CAH, along with behaviourism and structuralism exerted a profound effect on second language acquisition curriculum design and on the education of language teachers. Following Wardhaugh (1970), this hypothesis is
4 “of particular interest to those linguists who are engaged in language teaching and in writing language-teaching materials” (p. 124).
In his paper The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Wardhaugh (1970) differentiates between a strong version, identifiable with the definition of Lado (1957), that professes to be able to predict most of the errors a learner will make while learning a second language, and a weak version, claiming that it can account for a number of errors that second language learners have actually made. The latter is characterised by the following statement, taken from Wardhaugh (1970), in contrast to the “unrealistic” (p. 125) demands made by the strong version:
The weak version requires of the linguist only that he uses the best linguistic knowledge available to him in order to account for observed difficulties in second-language learning. It does not require what the strong version requires, the prediction of those difficulties and conversely, of those learning points which do not create any difficulties at all. It starts with the evidence provided by linguistic interference and uses such evidence to explain the similarities and differences between systems. (p. 126)
1.1.3 Error analysis and phonological studies
In their claims for predictability of errors, contrastive linguistic studies make largely use of error analysis as an important source of evidence to their studies (Richards, 1974). Corder (1981) explains exhaustively the empirical value of error analysis in contrastive studies:
Bilingual comparison is based on the theory that it is the differences between the mother tongue and the second language which the learner has to learn. Contrastive studies are undertaken in order to discover and describe the differences. Error analysis confirms or disproves the predictions of the theory
5 lying behind bilingual comparison. In this sense error analysis is an experimental technique for validating the theory of transfer. (p. 35)
Corder (1974) differentiates between ‘unsystematic’ and ‘systematic’ errors, in which the “errors of performance will characteristically be unsystematic and the errors of competence, systematic” (p. 25). Thus, he argues that it would be better to refer to the errors of performance as ‘mistakes’, being of no significance to the process of language learning. Furthermore, the first studies of learner errors were still done stressing interference between different languages (Richards and Sampson, 1974).
In fact, several studies have been made to support contrastive analysis predictions, focusing mainly on pronunciation and phonological interference. Noccetti (2009) points out that the clearest example of phonological interference is the incapacity or difficulty that Japanese speakers have differentiating /r/ and /l/ in English, because these sounds are not contrastive in Japanese.
According to Wardaugh (1970), many linguists furnished contrastive statements of the phonemic systems of two languages without asking whether it is really possible to contrast the phonemic systems. In fact, Brière (1968) in his Psycholinguistic Study of Phonological Interference, attempted to search empirically the quantity of interference that would arise from contrastive phonological categories. He compared Arabic, French, and Vietamese utterances to correct evidences obtained by monolingual American English speakers. In this study, the errors that did not fit ideally into the native or target language system were largely ignored. However, he admitted in his conclusions that in endeavouring to establish a hierarchy of difficulty of learning phonological categories, some alternations occurred, which were neither in the learner’s native language nor in the target language. He affirms that:
6 the stimuli and the responses in N are never truly equal to the stimuli or the responses in T, and, more generally, the linguistic parameters are rarely the same as psychological parameters. (p. 74)
Other examples could be mentioned in order to invalidate the predictive capacity of CAH, like the substitution by Indonesian speakers of the English phoneme /θ/ in /f/, even if this phoneme is not present in their mother tongue and therefore not attributable to transfer errors. (Cutler, 1982)
The native language is, thus, a factor that can cause errors, but not the one and only cause. According to Noccetti (2009), “the forecasts on positive or negative transfer, which are at the base of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, are not entirely confirmed” (p. 28). Language learners do not always use their L1 as a mediator, but they are actively involved in constructing their own ‘rules’, following a separate direction. Therefore, what was overlooked, in the CAH were the errors which could not be explained in this way. Yet, as suggested by Wardhaugh (1970), many teachers cannot reject the CAH because they are justifying errors more on experience and intuition, rather than on an explicit theory.
Behaviouristic accounts of second language acquisition emphasize only what can be directly observed and ignore what goes on in the learner’s mind. The learner's behaviour, in fact, has proven to be extremely complex, as it also involves psychological, social, and environmental factors that determine success or failure. These factors of an extra-linguistic nature can cause some types of error that are largely described by Richards (1974). In his paper, he states that several errors can be attributed to “individual solutions, depending on motivation, perseverance, aptitude, learning strategies, personality, socialization etc.” (p. 65-66), and others to cultural, social, or environmental aspects.
In some societies, for example, the differences between formal and colloquial expression have become institutional, so that they may be considered as distinct
7 varieties of the same language.Those who belong to one of these communities may feel the need to communicate in English with a style that corresponds, at the same level of communication, to that one they use in their mother tongue. The learner's culture therefore influences linguistic choices.
Noccetti (2009) argues that the CAH is unable to describe or explain linguistic behaviour, if applied in its original formulation that is based on the predictive model of the transfer:
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, in fact, as it is articulated, cannot predict the stages of longitudinal linguistic acquisition, does not provide sufficient empirical evidence to demonstrate L1's responsibility in errors, nor to clearly identify what areas of L2 may be creating difficulties for the learner, and thus turns out to be inadequate as a learning model. (p. 30)
In any case, as far as teaching was concerned, during the 1960s, all errors (whatever their origin), were still dealt with by essentially the same technique of drilling and exercise, as proposed by French (1949). According to him, “drill cannot be avoided”, since correct constructions need to become “automatic and habitual; and habit comes from practice” (p. 85). Drilling was believed to be a powerful teaching technique.
1.2 Creative Construction Hypothesis (CCH)
From the late 1960s, the behaviouristic explanations of second language acquisition were beginning to be seriously questioned because of their obvious inadequacies. This attitude led researchers to look towards an alternative theoretical plan, which was the result of a big shift in thinking in psychology and linguistics in the 1960s. Ellis (1997) affirms that, during these years, there was a switch in paradigm:
8 researchers switched their attention from ‘nurture’ (i.e. how environmental factors shape learning), to ‘nature’ (i.e. how the innate properties of the human mind shape learning). This new paradigm was, therefore, nativist or mentalist in orientation.
Chomsky influenced the ideas of psycholinguists who were beginning to show interest in first language acquisition. With the burst of first language acquisition research in the 1960s came a new interest in second language learning research. The predominant question that was in the mind of researchers was if thecognitive processes which came into play in first language acquisition were the same as those used in second language learning. According to Corder (1974), “it still remains to be shown that the process of learning a second language is of a fundamentally different nature from the process of primary acquisition” (p. 22).
1.2.1 Creativity and the nativist perspective
Chomsky (1966) refers to the “creative aspect of language” (p. 8), which all languages have in common, that is the capacity for the generation and understanding of an indefinite number of sentences. He affirms that:
The central fact to which any significant linguistic theory must address itself is this: a mature speaker can produce a new sentence of his language on the appropriate occasion, and other speakers can understand it immediately, though it is equally new to them. […] it is clear that a theory of language that neglects this “creative” aspect is of only marginal interest. (p. 7-8)
Chomsky (1966) rejects the ‘stimulus-response’ statements in that he believes that a person’s use of language is stimulus-free. In a note, he states that:
9 knowledge of one’s language is not reflected directly in linguistic habits and dispositions to verbal response, depending on personality, beliefs and countless other extra-linguistic factors. (p. 10)
Chomsky (1966) developed what is called the nativist perspective. According to this theory, infants have an innate ability to learn language. From a very early age, we are able to understand the basics of language. What is responsible for this process according is the language acquisition device (L.A.D.), which is an instinctive mental capacity, a sort of “internal organizer” (Noccetti, 2009, p. 31),1 which enables an infant to acquire and produce language, independently from the external environment. It accounts for the ways in which children have an innate ability to understand the structure and rules of their L1 even before they have developed a mature vocabulary.
Language learning is conceived as a transition from a stage where there is no competence at all to an adult stage. White (1989) explains that universal grammar (UG) “gives the child advance knowledge of many abstract properties of language, so that these do not have to be learned solely on the basis of linguistic input” (p. 5). The concept of UG accounts for the child's ability to learn any language to which he or she is exposed, being initially open to all possible grammars. All human beings share the UG at its initial stage, formed by universal principles that represent the centre of the UG, but differ when a set of parameters established by the linguistic input from the language being acquired are added. The fact that certain parameters must be assigned to the universal principles suggests that linguistic development is an interactive and creative process.
Following Dulay and Burt (1978), “creative construction” in language acquisition refers to:
1 “organizzatore interno”. Original source: Noccetti, S. (2009). Morfologia dell'Inglese: Errori
10 the process by which learners gradually reconstruct rules for speech they hear, guided by innate mechanisms which cause them to formulate certain types of hypotheses about the language system being acquired, until the mismatch between what they are exposed to and what they produce is resolved. (p. 67)
The nativists base their postulation on the idea that children are able to learn a language in a short time and that despite having an imperfect input, they are able to form their own competence so they can formulate language grammatical judgments. In practice, despite being exposed to a limited number of sentences that are often incomplete, such as slips of the tongue (Cutler, 1982), false beginnings, and despite having no direct evidence of grammatically incorrect phrases, they can learn the language and develop adult language skills.
According to White (1989), because of the lack of having access to explicit information of what is not acceptable in adult grammar, if there were no innate ability inherited genetically it would not be possible to reach an acceptable adult language in all its complexity. Dulay and Burt (1978) affirm that the term ‘creativity’ also refers to “a degree of learner independence from external input factors such as the exact form of modelled utterances, frequency of occurrence, or rewards for correctness” (p. 67). In both first and second language learning, ‘creativity’ refers to the human learner’s predisposition to organize input in an independent manner from external environmental characteristics. This aspect is believed to be, according to several researchers, innate and universal to all language learners, but there are still ongoing debates on the question of the innate capacity and the type and quantity of information inherited at birth. However, according to Corder (1981), the idea of a specific L.A.D. has been abandoned and is thus no longer a point of interest for linguistic researchers.
1.2.2 Defining the hypothesis
In firmly believing that new hypotheses are to be regarded as signs that the language learner is “investigating the systems of a new language” (Corder, 1974,
11 p. 27). Corder (1974) furnishes a satisfactory definition of the CCH, developed within the nativist current:
This hypothesis states that a human infant is born with an innate predisposition to acquire a language; that he must be exposed to language for the acquisition process to start; that he possesses an internal mechanism of unknown nature which enables him from the limited data available to him to construct a grammar of a particular language. (p. 21)
The early 1970s marked the beginning of serious empirical research into second language acquisition. The hypothesis developed when researchers proposed the CCH to figure out the learning phases of L2,based on a critical judgement of the role of interference in second language acquisition (Noccetti, 2009). According to Dulay and Burt (1974), the native language of a learner does not have much influence on the acquisition of another language and they contend that there is not much difference between first and second language acquisition. They hold thatboth processes are guided by creative construction.
Dulay and Burt (1974) give a critical account of the theoretical background of contrastive analysis, and examine second language learning in the light of what recent studies have discovered in the about the nature of first language acquisition, proposing specific assumptions on which the “L1 acquisition = L2 acquisition” hypothesis must rest:
1. The language learner possesses a specific type of innate mental organization which causes him to use a limited class of processing strategies to produce utterances in a language.
2. Language learning proceeds by the learner’s exercise of those processing strategies in the form of linguistic rules which he gradually adjusts as he organizes more and more the particular language he hears.
3. This process is guided in L1 acquisition by the particular form of the L1 system, and in L2 acquisition by the particular form of the L2 system.
12 (p. 109)
According to the CCH, the ‘internal organizer’ is activated again when learning a second language, which means that learning a second language is not different from learning a first language, in discordance to the CAH. Dulay and Burt (1978) argue that:
Evidence for the independent effects of cognitive organizing mechanisms on the learning process consists of empirical findings that demonstrate discrepancies between the characteristics of the learner’s output and what might be predicted if input factors alone were responsible for the learner’s progress. (p. 85)
1.2.3 Empirical studies and stages of acquisition
It is from error analysis that two important considerations could be highlighted in the CCH. The first one is that the differences between the structure of L1 and L2 are not valid predictors of linguistic errors, contrarily to what had been affirmed by CAH, which is inadequate as an approach, since it “obscures the nature of the processes involved” (Richards, 1974, p. 68). L1 is only considered as an experience that organizes phonological acquisition, but is no longer responsible for linguistic errors. The second one is that the learner does not undergo his language but creates it actively, exploiting biological and environmental factors (Noccetti, 2009).
Studies on learning sequences have received considerable attention in first language acquisition research and second language acquisition research has been conducted along the same lines. Anderson (1978) affirms that:
These findings suggest that second language learning, like first language learning, is systematic, involving a creative construction process on the part of the learner. Research from error analysis supports this view. […] errors
13 show they are dealing with the target language in a creative way, instead of completely relying on the native language as previously assumed. (p. 91-92)
Within this ‘creative’ process, the idea of language as a habit tends to expire and the acquisition of a second language is no longer seen as an arduous task. It is not about erasing old habits and replacing them with new ones, but working out new data from a language other than the native one. In this view, errors are no longer considered to be the result of L1 interference, but unavoidable stages of language learning and tools to detect the various stages of acquisition. Corder (1974) proposes therefore as a working hypothesis that:
some at least of the strategies adopted by the learner of a second language are substantially the same as those by which a first language is acquired. Such a proposal does not imply that the course or sequence of learning is the same in both cases. (p. 22)
Noccetti (2009) points out that there are two types of data in support of this theory. On the one hand, there are data that show that L1 does not interfere with the acquisition of L2, that is that the difference or equality between the structures of two languages does not facilitate or complicate second language acquisition. On the other hand, there were studies that testify to the existence of universal learning models and types of errors common to learners of any language, both L1 and L2.
Jain (1974), affirms that by focusing on several factors causing errors that are independent from L1, which can be learning strategies, teaching procedures, the learner’s age, social factors, etc., it is possible to:
reinforce the position that the conceptual framework for the study of error source and significance based on contrastive study of the contact languages is fragmentary and therefore inadequate. (p. 189)
14 Justified by the analysis of error data, Jain (1974) maintains that both the child learning his native language and the adult learning a second language, unavoidably make use of the strategy of “speech reduction” (p. 191), in which they reduce speech to a simpler system. Even if it is still unknown whether this strategy is qualitatively the same in first and second language learning, every language learner goes through a developmental process of divergent stages.
Dulay and Burt (1975) demonstrate that learners’ errors are dominated by several developmental sequences of language learning both in the native as in the second language, rather than by transfer from the mother tongue. These researchers believe that the hierarchies of language acquisition depend on the type exposure of the target language that is available to the second language learner, and that these hierarchies may thus be variable.
Other studies on sequences have been conducted, for example Ravem’s (1974) observations of syntactic regularities of learners’ speech, although without enouncing general theoretical conclusions. These sequences, so widespread among the learners, have been considered evidence in support of the existence of innate creative capabilities that enable language to be independently developed by L1 and which are independent of input access modes. Those who learn a second language apply similar rules to the grammar rules they have learned, to formulate sentences that have never been heard before, and which, as new ones, could not have been simply stored.
Jain (1974) admits, however, that the distinction between errors attributable to L1 interference and those that are independent from L1 is not always very clear. It seems that some errors are caused by “the cross-association of both L1 and L2” (p. 190) Ravem (1974) similarly affirms that he found some “clear cases of interference” (p. 126) from the native language.
Therefore, this second language acquisition model, based on ‘creative construction’, has the merit of focusing attention on the learning process, as it
15 tries to justify learner errors by attributing them to natural processes common to all learners. However, the CCH has an intuitive rather than a scientific nature and has therefore been criticized for its general nature and not complete applicability. Moreover, the CCH has limited itself to a description of the various phases of acquisition, without being able to provide an explanation of why there are sequences in learning. Dulay and Burt (1975) note that, now that it is possible to assume ‘creative construction’ indeed plays a role in second language acquisition, we need to start approaching the precise nature of the process itself.
1.3 Interlanguage Hypothesis (ILH)
In the previous chapter, we have seen that some researchers consider that the systematic development of the learner’s language reflects a mental system of second language knowledge. This systematic development of learners’ language when trying to use a second language is often referred to as interlanguage, in that it differs from both the native and the target language (Corder, 1981). However, the ILH includes interference from the native language as a possible source of error, and it explains that the learner’s language approximates the target language during the learning process (Richards, 1974).
The concept of interlanguage constitutes one of the first attempts to explain how second language acquisition takes place, studying the nature of the linguistic representations of the second language that learners form, and studying how these representations change over time. Interlanguage is thus regarded as a dynamic and constantly changing learner language.
Ellis (1997) mentions that interlanguage incorporates elements from mentalist theories of linguistics, such as the notion of a “latent psychological structure”, discussed by Selinker (1974, p. 33), and elements from cognitive psychology, such as “learning strategies”, discussed by Richards (1974, p. 65).
16 The term ‘interlanguage’ was coined by Selinker in 1969 and elaborated in 1972 in a paper bearing that title. The author explains that researchers, when studying languages ‘in contact’, like for example Weinreich (1953), took up many linguistic issues, while leaving completely open questions concerning the psychological structures within which the contact between languages was assumed to exist. Selinker (1974) maintains that there is a latent psychological structure existing in the brain, and that it is activated when learning a second language. The term ‘interlanguage’ became influential to refer to:
“this set of utterances [which are produced when the learner attempts to say sentences of a target language] for most learners is not identical to the hypothesized corresponding set of utterances which would have been produced by a native speaker of the TL had he attempted to express the same meaning as the learner. Since we can observe that these two sets of utterances are not identical, then in the making of constructs relevant to a theory of second language learning, one would be completely justified in hypothesizing, perhaps even compelled to hypothesize, the existence of a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learner’s attempted production of a TL norm. This linguistic system we will call ‘interlanguage’ (IL)”. (p. 34-35)
I believe it is important to clarify some notions of this definition. As we know, only very few learners go on to develop a native-speaker competence (Selinker suggests a mere 5%), that is an absolute success in a second language. For this reason, it becomes important to focus on ‘attempted productions’ and not on successful learning of a target language, being too idealistic. Therefore, the language learner is, according to Nemser (1974), no longer seen as “the pristine speaker of a NL, but as the user of a more recently acquired system, including his own recent experience in language acquisition, that is his knowledge of IL (p. 62)”.
17 Selinker (1974) affirms that, in order to identify a psychology of second language learning, it is important to set up three sets of utterances within one theoretical framework that are: “utterances in the learner’s NL produced by the learner, IL utterances produced by the learner, and TL utterances produced by native speakers of that TL” (p. 35).
Thus, the linguist, in recognition of the fact that second language learners construct a linguistic system that draws in part on the learner’s NL. Yet it is also different from both the NL and the TL and can be identified as a third separate and unique linguistic system, that is the IL. Following Ellis (1997):
the learner constructs a system of abstract linguistic rules which underlies comprehension and production of the L2. This system of rules is viewed as a ‘mental grammar’ and is referred to as an ‘interlanguage’. (p. 33)
1.3.2 The interlanguage continuum
What is absent in Selinker’s (1974) definition is the fact that interlanguage is a dynamic process. The learner’s language is in flux, where learners change their interlanguage continuously by adding rules, deleting rules, and reconstructing the entire system. This results in an interlanguage continuum, namely the learners’ construction of “a series of mental grammars and interlanguages as they gradually increase the complexity of their L2 knowledge” (Ellis, 1997, p. 33).
Corder (1981) explains that, according to Selinker (1974), the language learner’s language is a sort of “hybrid” (p. 2) between the learner’s mother tongue and the target language. The evidence for this was the considerable number of errors still believed to be due to the process of transfer, according to whichprior learning affects subsequent learning. Nemser (1974) criticises the CAH, as it supposes that the native language (NL) and target language (TL) come in total contact, and that NL categories fuse with their TL counterparts,
18 stating in reality “the learner’s exposure to TL is necessarily gradual” (p. 62), arguing that this problem can be solved by reference to IL.
Actually, interference can be detected from the mother tongue, but not principally or uniquely. It can also derive from some other second language known, however partially, to the learner. Moreover, in some cases, interlanguage systems occur which are different from both the TL and the NL. For this reason, according to Corder (1981), the ILH is that:
the learner is creating for himself an account of the structural properties of the target language […], on the basis of his interaction with the data he is exposed to. This account, which constitutes a sort of hypothesis about the data, is systematic, and is his ‘personal grammar’ of the data. (p. 73)
This personal learner’s grammar as explained above is permeable. That is, the grammar is open to influence both from the outside and from the inside.
Although there has been some investigation of interlanguage data. Both Nemser (1974) and Corder (1981) agree that studies of the interlanguage of learners in formal settings, such as the classroom, are largely lacking spontaneously generated data, and are therefore restricted. Moreover, teachers are aware of general patterns in learner behaviour, but have rarely attempted comprehensive studies of regularities within the interlanguage framework. Thus, researchers began collecting data from learners in informal contexts and achieved interesting outcomes. Errors made by these second language learners were generally independent from the nature of their mother tongue and seemed to be found in most learners at the same stage of development. This led Corder (1981) to believe that “interlanguage was not a hybrid language and had a developmental history of its own” (p. 2).
The notion of a “natural sequence” (Corder, 1981, p. 72) for both first and second language development is widely accepted and motivated by experimental
19 evidence, as discussed in section 1.2.3. It is believed that the discovery of some general principles, related to a natural order of development could be useful to the organisation of a structured teaching situation.
1.3.3 The need to communicate
The field of second language acquisition research focuses on the learning of a language as a system, but also on how this system can be functionally used for communicative purposes. Interlanguage is no longer strictly bound to the understanding of structural properties, but also to the understanding of the communicative circumstances under which it develops and how speakers handle it in their attempts to communicate. Language learners, because of the relative restraint of their interlanguage, are often hindered by it in their attempts to use it for communicative purposes.
Today there is a greater awareness that under spontaneous circumstances languages are learned through the need and attempt to communicate, and thus through conversation, which in formal situations, does not occur often. In classrooms, learners normally do not use their interlanguage for natural or authentic communication. As Corder (1981) rightly states, “what goes on in the classroom can scarcely be called ‘language use’ at all” (p. 68).
Ellis (1997) explains that several researchers, such as Richards (1974), see variability of the interlanguage as “an aspect of performance rather than of competence” (p. 34). This means that the dimension of variability in interlanguage reflects the mistakes learners make when they attempt to use their knowledge to communicate.
The principal problem with traditional linguistic theory is that it has been developed for the description of “stable, institutionalized, and therefore relatively well-defined manifestations of language” (Corder, 1981, p. 68). However, interlanguages are unstable. They are not developing norms and they
20 are manifested in a variety of forms. This is the reason why I believe it would be suitable to adopt Nemser’s (1974) definition of ‘approximative systems’, which is a little different from Selinker’s (1974) definition on a terminological level, but it is applied to precisely the same phenomenon:
an approximate system is the deviant linguistic system actually employed by the learner attempting to utilize the target language. Such approximate systems vary in character in accordance with proficiency level; variation is also introduced by learning experience, communication function, personal learning characteristics, etc. (p. 55)
This term has the advantage of involving the developmental nature of language learning, since the learner’s system is continually being modified throughout the learning process, as well as emphasising the content of the utterances made by the learners, rather than the form.
1.3.4 Interlanguage phonology
The phonology of interlanguage is a more recent area of linguistic research, and there seems to be quite little interest in the pronunciation patterns of second language learners. There may be several explanations for this. The most obvious reason is the general belief among researchers, language teachers, and language learners that pronunciation of a second language simply is not very important. Whereas vocabulary (i.e., creating meaning) and grammar (i.e., managing meaning) are considered to be of primary importance.
Another reason is the common conviction, even among researchers and especially during the 1960s, that the learner’s pronunciation of sounds of a second language is influenced, “more strongly by negative transfer from the first language than is the learner’s interlanguage grammar” (Tarone, 1987, p. 70). Due to this belief, most of the pronunciation of second language learners was studied according to contrastive analysis.
21 It is important to remember that, because of intuitive reliance on the statement of negative transfer in pronunciation errors by learners, in early papers on contrastive analysis, it was never experimentally tested. However, when pronunciation started to become analysed, other results came out on the basis of experimental evidence, such as the studies of Brière (1968) and Cutler (1982), discussed in section 1.1.3.
Nemser (1974) also tried to find evidence for the systematic nature of the stages of second language acquisition. In his experiment using Hungarian learners of English he showed that the method used to collect data for his study on interlanguage phonology influenced the nature of the collected data. This means that variables, such as the communicative situation, the speaker’s mood, etc., influences interlanguage phonology. Nemser’s (1974) results have had an important impact on further research of second language phonology, that is researchers should not analyse isolated segments in artificial settings, but base their studies on spontaneous speech.
While the dominant process influencing interlanguage phonology seemed to be the transfer from the native language, and more particularly negative transfer, Tarone (1987) stated that there are other processes operative in shaping IL phonology, such as the first language acquisition processes, overgeneralisation and approximation, as well as social and emotional constraints.
To sum up this discussion, I believe that the most important outcome of the studies of interlanguage phonology is that we, intending language students, teachers and researchers, should be aware that pronunciation of a second language is, in fact, a meaningful area of investigation.
22 As we have seen in the previous sections, both the CAH and the CCH have proved to be unsatisfactory for certain aspects of their formulation. The CAH, based on the idea that linguistic acquisition is data storage, proposes a learning model that fails to account for some aspects of interlanguage that depend neither on the mother tongue nor on the target language. On the other hand, the CCH, besides operating in a purely descriptive and deductive manner more than an explicative one, fails to place within it the variability found in the data, which mainly emerges from studies on the sequence of acquisition. Noccetti (2009) affirms that these two theories, so different and seemingly irreconcilable with each other, have found a point of union in the hypothesis of markedness.
The concept of markedness was originally conceived as binary (Noccetti, 2009). The idea behind the original principle of markedness was that binary oppositions between certain linguistic representations, such as nasalized and oral vowels, or open and closed syllables, were not taken to be simply opposites. Rather, one component of the opposition was assumed to be privileged in that it had a wider distribution, both within a given language and across languages (Eckman, 1987). Imposing a markedness value on this opposition was one way of characterizing this special status. The component of the opposition that was more widely distributed was classified as unmarked, being more basic, natural, and simple. The marked component, on the contrary, was more specific. This is the reason why,from the point of view of acquisition, the model of markedness assumes a predictive value, according to which the unmarked elements are acquired first and more easily, since they are more basic and do not require the involvement of more complex cognitive structures.
1.4.1 Markedness in first language acquisition
The markedness hypothesis targets the same goals as contrastive analysis, as it tries to identify the most difficult areas for the learner in the TL, but it was born as a model inside generative grammar. The term ‘markedness’ refers to the general idea that some structures are more “natural or basic” than other structures
23 (Ellis, 1997, p. 70). White (1989) explains that markedness, in generative grammar, could be defined “in terms of what is or is not present in UG” (p. 118), meaning that the grammar of the nucleus, innate and therefore universal, is represented by unmarked structures, whereas those of the periphery by rules marked to be acquired. The unmarked structures require minimal evidence for acquisition.
Within generative grammar, markedness is defined internally, assuming that it is a consequence of properties of UG. This contrasts with definitions found in the typological approach to linguistics, where markedness is defined “externally” (White, 1989, p. 119).
1.4.2 The typological approach
The typological approach to markedness looks at frequency of occurrence of various structures and at implicational relationships between certain structures in the languages of the world. The notion of frequency of occurrence across the world’s languages, where there is an implicational relationship between the occurrence of the members of the opposition, is known as ‘typological markedness’, and was developed extensively in the work of Greenberg (1966), defined as:
For all values of X, if X is language, then, if it contains some feature α, it always contains some further feature β, but not necessarily vice-versa. (p. 9)
Meaning that a phenomenon A in some languages is more marked than a phenomenon B, if the presence of A in a language implies the presence of B; but the presence of B does not imply the presence of A.
An important aspect of typological markedness that has made it a particularly useful theoretical tool is that linguists have been able to apply this construct to
24 virtually all levels of linguistic expression, including phonological, lexical, morphological, and syntactic, in several sub-domains of linguistics.
Based on the postulate of the markedness, Eckman (1987) states that it is possible to predict which structures will be more difficult for the learner of a language, even in relation to his L1. His markedness differential hypothesis, in fact, not only specifies the marked or less marked rules within a single language, but also identifies the more or less marked areas from an interlinguistic perspective, indicating that:
(a) Those areas of the target language which differ from the native language and are more marked than the native language will be difficult.
(b) The relative degree of difficulty of the areas of the target language which are more marked than the native language will correspond to the relative degree of markedness.
(c) Those areas of the target language which are different from the native language, but are not more marked than the native language will not be difficult
(p. 61)
According to Noccetti (2009), in general, in identifying the features of markedness, it is argued that the most frequent elements in the languages of the world and the easier ones in linguistic transformations are more natural. Consequently, they are less marked than other more specific elements that are the peculiarities of each single language.
Noccetti (2009) proposes five phonological criteria for markedness values:
1) Neutralisation: The unmarked element appears in the position where the contrast, otherwise maintained, is cancelled.
25 2) Frequency: The unmarked category is the most frequent.
3) The unmarked element has a higher possibility of allophonic variation. 4) The unmarked feature has a larger number of phonemes than the marked
feature.
5) The basic allophone, defined in terms of independence from its environment, has unspecified characteristics.
(p. 46)
1.4.3 Three different uses of the markedness hypothesis
The first use of markedness is to predict acquisition sequences. In previous chapters, several positions as to the relationship between UG and second language acquisition have been outlined. The CCH assumes that UG operates identically in L1 and L2 acquisition and that UG can interact directly with L2 input. This view is particularly relevant in the context of markedness. If L1 acquisition includes a developmental stage where unmarked structures are instantiated regardless of the actual situation in the target language, then the same would be predicted for L2 learners.
In the acquisition of a second language, the clarity of a structure can affect the ease with which it is learned, so that if a phenomenon in the first language is more marked than what it matches in a second language, there will be no acquisition problems. However, if the markedness value for a particular structure in the first language is lower than that of the second language, the learner may have difficulties in acquisition. According to Noccetti (2009), in the order of acquisition,the learner could use the unmarked features first, and later the more marked features.
However, White (1989) states that “the hypothesis that learners revert to core grammar and show an acquisition sequence of unmarked before marked is not supported by experimental evidence” (p. 128). Therefore, a second alternative
26 use is to account for the transfer of unmarked forms of the first language to the second language, influenced by markedness.
Most researchers that have argued that all characteristics of the first language, including markedness, have to be taken into account. It is believed that unmarked elements of language are more likely to show up in the interlanguage than the marked elements, that are not considered to be transferable to the second language (White, 1989).
A third use of the markedness hypothesis is to predict directional differences, namely the behaviour of learners based on the first and second language. Phinney’s (1987) claim, in studying Spanish and English language learners, is that it will be easier to for a learner to switch from a marked L1 to unmarked L2 than from an unmarked L1 to marked L2. White (1989) states that this prediction is correct, but that, unfortunately, the source of the differences remains unexplained.
According to Noccetti (2009), the predictions given by the markedness hypothesis are not always confirmed. In fact, it seems that the learning order in L2 does not always proceed from unmarked to marked structures, and it is not always clear which markedness values to ascribe to the different structures.
Haspelmath (2006) criticised markedness, considering the notion itself ambiguous, superfluous, and substitutable with other areas, such as phonetic and pragmatic difficulties. Moreover, it was considered inadequate because it is not able to explain why there are marked elements and other unmarked and less complex elements. This means that the theory of markedness requires a more elastic interpretation, at least as far as second language acquisition is concerned, which will be the focus of the next chapter.
