Can Language and Culture Go Hand in Hand?
Cross- Linguistic Influence in the L2 Acquisition Process
Danièle ALLARD,a Riichiro Mizoguchi,a Jacqueline Bourdeaub
a ISIR, Osaka University, 8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan
b LICEF, Télé-université, 100 Sherbrooke O., Montreal, Quebec, H2X 3P2, Canada
allard@ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp
Abstract:
Can Language and Culture go Hand in Hand? Using examples of Japanese as L1 and English as
L2, we seek to demonstrate how transfer and interference from one’s native language can impact
expression in a language being acquired. We make some suggestions as to how to tackle transfer
and interference, and briefly discuss the potential of further research to this effect in CALL.
言葉と文化は手と手を取り合うことができるか？この発表では日本語を母語とする人が
第二言語として英語を習得するケースを例にその習得過程においてどのように日本語の
バックグラウンドが英語表現に影響を及ぼしているかを検証し，その問題への取り組み
方を提案します．またコンピュータ支援言語学習の分野におけるこの研究課題の可能性
にも言及します．
Introduction:
Especially in the earlier stages of acquiring another language (L2), the transfer of patterns
from one’s native language (L1) can be a major source of errors in learner language
(Lightbown and Spada, 1999).1 Such errors reflect the fact that there are multiple ways
of viewing the world and talking about it; they also show that language, considered as a
social practice, is imbued with culture. People communicate in relation to each other,
and in relation to their prior experience. Their voice is not only individual, but collective:
they regularly express the knowledge and social patterns accepted within their native
community (Kramsch 1993). Whereas ways of speaking may be predictable between
native speakers, such is not always the case when communication involves non-native
speakers. The former often don’t share with the latter a common pool of knowledge,
memory, culture and linguistic patterns. This certainly does not prevent communication,
but it may sometimes lead to misunderstandings.
This paper builds on examples chosen within the context of Japanese students learning
English. It seeks to demonstrate ways in which L2 can bear traces of L1. It also
addresses the question of how language teachers might begin to tackle the difficulties and
interferences stemming from such influence. Finally, it proposes the use of CALL
(Computer-Assisted Language Learning) as a potentially useful tool to this effect.
Cross-linguistic Influence:
Cross-linguistic influence, which is also referred to as transfer, is the process by which
L1 can impact L2 in its process of acquisition. That is to say: “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, p.27). This
influence can have two facets: “Transfer is both a facilitating and limiting factor which
provides one basis for the learner to form and test hypotheses about the second language
he or she is learning” (Ringbom, 1985, abstract). In other words, transfer can be viewed
as positive or negative. Positive transfer is the transfer of a skill inspired from L1 (or any
other previously acquired language) that facilitates the learning of a skill in L2, given
similarities between the two skills at hand. Negative transfer is the transfer of a skill that
is different from that used in L2, and as such may actually impede learning (Noor, 1994).
Interferences, which are related to negative transfer, are “errors in the learner’s use of the
foreign language that can be traced back to the mother tongue” (Lott 1983, p. 256). 2
Learner errors can of course be traced to various different sources, as second language
learning involves more than a process of making use of L2 words to be placed in L1
sentence structures. Yet, interferences do account for many errors learners make (Ellis,
1997, Lightbown and Spada, 1999). Concepts of interference and transfer are related to
research in contrastive analysis, which has roots in behaviorism, and was especially
popular in the last half of the previous century. Given eventual shifts of paradigms in
language acquisition research, namely away from behaviorist views, this type of research
came to meet with resistance. In the words of Gregg: “contrastive analysis, error analysis,
etc. are not simply unrelated to linguistic theory in particular, they are dead meat in
general.” (qtd. in Swan, 1997). And yet, recent research has shown that overall patterns
of error do tend to be language specific, which explains why English might sometimes be
called “Thai English” or “Greek English.” “There is less disagreement than there used to
be about how far interlanguages are influenced by learners’ native languages, and most
linguists would probably now agree that the mother tongue can affect learners’ English in
several ways.” (Swan and Smith, 2001, p. xi)
Learners actually bring a tremendous amount of knowledge to the task of tackling L2
acquisition, among which is knowledge of L1. In the early stages of the acquisition
process, especially, it is expected they draw on L1 knowledge (Ellis, 1997). In fact, “the
learner tends to assume that the system of L2 is more or less the same as in his L1 until
he has discovered that it is not” (Ringbom, 1987, p. 135). Concurrently, if L1 and L2 are
related, it will be easier for the student to acquire proficiency, but if they are unrelated,
the process, especially in the earlier stages of acquisition, will prove more difficult and
time-consuming (Ringbom, 1987).
Our study focuses on “Japanese English.” Based on observation and teaching experience
in Japan, we, like others before us, have noticed that Japanese students tend to make
certain types/patterns of errors on a regular basis, and several among these can be traced
to influence from L1. We have found that identifying the source of an error, then
providing explanations along with practice drills that are based on a comparison of the L2
problem area with corresponding L1 patterns seems to be of benefit in such cases. This is
not to say that we always compare English to Japanese in explanations given to students,
nor that such explanations need to be made in Japanese. Rather, we are proposing that an
analysis of the cause of interference may reveal aspects explaining L2 usage that are
otherwise left implicit in generic explanations. Making these aspects explicit, and using
them to target usage explanations in such a way that the student might more readily
understand, seems to bear fruit. In the process, we thus try, when possible, to promote
positive transfer, encouraging students to make use of knowledge they already have,
albeit with some necessary adjustments.
We will provide two examples to this effect: usage of come and go, and usage of had
better. Our examples will not be expanded into extensive comparisons between both
languages, which are beyond the scope of this paper, but rather aim at highlighting some
illustrative key points in terms of L1 transfer and its potential impact. We will assume
the position of an English teacher who has little knowledge of Japanese and little
experience in teaching to Japanese students. The reason for these assumptions is to
illustrate how explanations of a language point may potentially gain from adding
elements linked to knowledge of corresponding L1 patterns.
Appropriate Usage of Come and Go:
In a conversation between a native English speaker and a native Japanese speaker, it is
not uncommon, in response for example to (1) “Will you come to my home on
Saturday?” to get a response from the Japanese speaker such as “Yes, I’ll go” or “Yes,
I’ll go in the afternoon” (inappropriate usage) as opposed to “Yes, I will” (come is
implied) or “Yes, I’ll come in the afternoon.”
In explaining generic rules of usage for come and go, a language teacher might consider
the following: come is used for movements to the place where the speaker or hearer is,
and go for movement to other places (Swan, Practical English Usage, 2005). In example
(1) above, movement flows in the direction of the speaker, and the answer thus follows
accordingly. The teacher might provide the following examples to further illustrate
(Swan, 2005):
(2) When did you come to live here?
(3) Can I come see you?
(4) I want to go and live in Greece.
(5) In 1577, he went to study in Rome.
(6) Let’s go and see Peter and Diane.
Analysis of usage in Japanese, on the other hand, shows that come and go varies
essentially according to speaker (not speaker and hearer), which explains the mistake
Japanese students might make in example (1), in fact a direct translation from Japanese.
In Japanese, come indicates a movement in the direction towards the speaker or the
speaker’s viewpoint, and go expresses movement away from the speaker or the speaker’s
viewpoint (Makino and Tsutsui, 1986). Consequently examples (2), (4), (5), and (6)
would essentially call for the same verbs as in the English examples, but (1) would imply
a different answer, and (3) would require go instead of come.3 Given both similarities
and differences in usage, English usage of come and go is often quite confusing for
Japanese students.
In view of this situation, can anything be supplemented to generic explanations to help
facilitate student understanding and awareness of appropriate usage? In addition to
English usage explanations, raising awareness of what one does in L1 as a comparison
appears to be useful in this particular case. To begin with, the following graphic
illustration can be considered: whereas Japanese is speaker-oriented, English is both
hearer and speaker oriented.
Japanese
来る（come） 行く（go）
English
Come Go
This difference in perspective leads to usage differences, especially with respect to come.
More specifically, we have observed that Japanese students often make L1-related
mistakes when answering questions, in reply to a prompt, or when making statements
using the first person (“I”). Other situations calling for come and go show that
inappropriate usage does not usually occur, though there may be underlying nuances in
intended meaning.4
The above diagram can therefore be shown to students, followed by an explanation of
how usage differs in English, firstly when answering questions or replying to prompts.
Simply put, in English, if the direction of the movement is the same in both question and
answer, the same verb will be used. For example, if someone asks: “What time are you
coming on Friday?” the answer could be “I’m coming at noon.” (not, as in Japanese, I’m
going at noon). We extrapolate to third person situations: “When will your brother come
see me? He will come after lunch (not: he will go after lunch).5 “When are you going to
Italy? I am going in July.” (here, usage is the same in both languages). Inappropriate
usage can also be seen in reply to a prompt: if A and B who live together have decided to
go shopping, but A, tired of waiting for B, states “I’m going!”on the doorstep, then B,
who wants to accompany A, would reply “I’m coming!” (not: I’m going!).
Using the diagram once again, explanations of the above paragraph can be summarized
using the following approximation: go is used in statements or questions when the goal of
the movement is not towards either the hearer and/or speaker. If it is, the statement or
question calls for come.6 Besides answers to questions or reply to prompts, Japanese
students must also pay attention to usage of come in terms of “I.” For example, in
English, appropriate usage would call for: “May I come see you this afternoon?” (not:
May I go see you?). Wrapping up, an example of a situation in which movement is
different between the question and the answer can be provided. This implies that the
choice of the verbs will vary: Did you come to the university on Tuesday after all? No, I
didn’t. I went to City Hall. Usage is similar to Japanese, but this example is used to
reinforce understanding of the above approximation.7
Carefully going over such an explanation, which in some respects parallels and contrasts
usage in Japanese, along with targeting examples and practice so that students become
more keenly aware of the mechanics of English usage in relation to what they know, in
our experience, facilitates the acquisition process. Though generic explanations of rules
of usage and generic exercises may certainly bring students to the same end result, if
targeted explanations and practice takes them there faster, we believe the latter will then
have been of benefit.
“Linguistic differences between L1 and L2 may not automatically mean learning
problems, but if the learner is able to perceive structural lexical similarities between L1
and L2 there will be an absolutely essential absence of some important learning problems
at the early stages, especially as far as comprehension and vocabulary learning are
concerned” (Ringbom, 1987, p.60). That is to say, if the learner is able to root his (her)
understanding of L2 in the understanding he has of L1, learning can be facilitated.
Though this will be easier to do in cases of obvious similarities between L1 and L2, it can
also apply to cases of dissimilarities provided the student develops a sense of what is
similar to L1 and what is not.
Appropriate Usage of Had better:
Our second example centers on the English modal had better. Consider the following
statements: (1) “You had better take your umbrella.” (2) “You had better go to Osaka
Castle to see the beautiful cherry blossoms.” (3) “You had better read this book.”
Though these are not uncommon in English used by Japanese native speakers, they have
sometimes struck English native hearers to whom they were addressed as somewhat odd,
if not inappropriate. The Japanese speaker who reported example (1) was eventually told
by his foreign visitor that this type of advice was not completely appropriate: the visitor
was able to decide for himself whether or not he needed to bring an umbrella – to the
surprise of the Japanese speaker. Similarly, though comments were not voiced, (2) and
(3) elicited reactions from native English speakers to the effect of: “What if I don’t go to
the castle – or read this book? Do I need to worry about something?” Of course,
depending on the context, usage of had better may not necessarily bring about such
reactions, but the fact that it can, we believe, needs to be addressed.
In questioning Japanese speakers/students, it appears that had better is essentially seen as
an equivalent for the Japanese expression ほうがいい. It is offered as a possible
translation in various Japanese-English dictionaries, and is translated as such by Makino
and Tsutsui (1986) in their dictionary of Japanese grammar. These linguists explain ほう
がいいit in the following way: “it is strongly suggested that someone do something.” In
Practical English Usage, Swan (2005) explains had better in terms of strong advice, or
telling people what to do (including ourselves) (Swan, 2005). ほうがいいand had
better therefore appear, at first glance, to be equivalent expressions.
Other English grammar books add to Swan’s explanation that usage of had better can
also imply that if the advice given is not followed, there is the possibility of a problem or
a danger (Murphy 2004, Azar 2002). Bearing this in mind, it might then be explained to
students that in example (2) for instance, usage of “had better” is not the best choice since
there is not any particular problem or danger in view of not seeing cherry blossoms at
Osaka Castle. Barker (2003) stresses this point using a similar example in 英語と仲直り
できる本 (Coming to Terms with English: A Reference Book).8
When examining the issue more closely, however, it seems that there are deeper issues at
stake, which stem from cultural differences. Informal discussions with Japanese speakers
have revealed that ほうがい also carries the implication of negative consequences. This
is actually the reason for giving the advice, and demonstrates concern for the hearer’s
welfare, or at least for the possibility of missed opportunities. Should the severity of the
consequence then be considered in terms of usage of had better? Makino, Tsutsui, and
Swan all refer to the idea of “strong” advice in their respective explanations of the
Japanese and the English expression. How strong, then, is strong? Cultural perspectives,
it appears, vary in this respect.
The relative strength of ほうがいい and had better appears to gravitate at opposite ends
of a spectrum when compared to other advice expressions in each respective language. In
English, had better is stronger than might/could, but weaker than have to/have got
to/need to; the negative form had better not is ranked as the strongest possible modal of
negative advice (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman,1999). In comparison, ほうがいい
is ranked as the weakest Japanese expression of advice (Makino and Tsutsui,1986).9 This
seems to confirm that “strong advice” is indeed culturally dependent.
The English hearer who reacted to the suggestions of bringing an umbrella highlights
another important issue: sensitivity to advice. Japanese people are generally receptive to
advice, even viewing it as normal, if not desirable. This is probably linked to the
Japanese proclivity towards maintaining group harmony which rests upon a series of
socially accepted rules. These serve as guidance towards maintaining harmony, and as
such, are necessary and useful. They in turn contribute to generating a strong sense of
duty, as well as, generally speaking, a sense of ease with respecting and following rules,
as well as an openness towards various forms of advice from other group members with a
similar concern for harmony. Westerners, on the other hand, tend to value individualism
and the capacity to decide for oneself, and as such, may react negatively to advice,
especially if it is perceived as unsolicited. In other words, whereas “strong” advice using
ほうがいいwould likely not ruffle a Japanese hearer, “strong” advice using had better
may not always be well received by an English-speaking hearer. We acknowledge that
the preceding explanation is a series of generalizations. We further acknowledge that
“cultural generalizations are necessarily statements of likelihood and potential, not of
certainty” (Storti, 3). Yet, it is not possible to talk about culture, about groups of people,
without making generalizations. As these do contain a kernel of truth, used wisely, along
with discrimination, generalizations can at least set a way towards clearer mutual
understanding. (Storti, 1999)
The context, tone of voice and relationship of speaker and hearer when expressing /
receiving advice need of course to be taken into consideration. Depending on these, had
better can take on different connotations. To this effect, a Japanese speaker may
consciously articulate had + better when uttering a statement, rather than use the
(pronoun)’d better abbreviation more common to everyday English. Furthermore, the
rhythm of the sentence may end up making the advice sound stronger/more threatening
than it is actually intended to be because it is stated by a non-native speaker not used to
English rhythm / inflection / pronunciation.
How does an English teacher then deal with explaining had better to Japanese students?
To begin with, one might emphasize that the English modal is not a translation for ほう
がいい, while explaining issues of sensitivity to advice in view of comparative cultural
considerations -- at least in terms of impact on a Western hearer. In the process, the
teacher can provide relevant examples of use, and situate had better in relation to other
advice modals in terms of relative strength -- the point might also be made that had better
and ほうがいいtend to be at opposite ends of a strength spectrum in each respective
language. The teacher might also show how the examples given at the beginning of this
section can be toned down, for instance by expressing them using might, could or should.
In fact, a good review of modals and advice expressions, along with targeted exercises
and drills in view of potential L1 interference, accompanied by discussion of impact on a
potential hearer should prove useful.
The study of modals can further lead to practice in the usage of imperatives, which
Japanese students find difficult to apply in English. “Bring your umbrella!” said in a
casual tone is not a forceful statement, but in Japanese, it is comparatively much stronger,
regardless of the tone of voice, which likely explains reluctance on the part of Japanese
speakers to use English imperatives. We shall not enter here into a comparative
discussion of imperatives, but we raise the issue to show how attention to cross-linguistic
influence and the difficulties they may cause can suggest instructional sequences that
may facilitate acquisition and understanding while following an order that might not
otherwise be taken in generic teaching methodologies. That is to say, linking the study of
imperatives to that of modals may facilitate understanding of their usage for Japanese
students.
.
Towards Tackling L1 Interference in L2:
One of the first steps in dealing with L1 interferences is to begin identifying them.
Personal experience in the classroom and with students can certainly be a valuable source
of information, as are exchanges with seasoned teachers on the subject. Published
literature on the topic may also be helpful. To this effect, we recommend two works of
reference. The first is Learner English – A teacher’s guide to interference and other
problems, edited by Michael Swan and Bernard Smith. This is a collection of essays,
each covering relevant features of a given language in relation to English, including
Japanese. It lists various typical mistakes that learners are apt to make, while providing
cultural notes. It does not provide teaching strategies or targeted exercises.
The second work is David Barker’s 英語と仲直りできる本 (Coming to Terms with
English: A Reference Book). The book is written in Japanese but it features indexes both
in Japanese and English. The work is an extensive collection of problem areas that
Barker has encountered in the course of over ten years teaching English to Japanese
students. Though it may not be accessible to teachers of English unfamiliar with
Japanese, it nevertheless remains a valuable tool: Japanese students may consult the work
as they see fit, or be advised to read about specific problem areas. Not only does Barker
explain appropriate English usage, he also makes several comparisons with Japanese,
which help clarify some of the points he makes. A few useful practice exercises are
interspersed within the book.
In a different article, Barker (2003) stresses the importance for English teachers who are
in Japan for an extended period of time to learn Japanese. Among various points, he
emphasizes that “a teacher with a detailed knowledge of the differences between the L1
and the target language will be better equipped to anticipate and overcome problems […]
the students are likely to face.” In this sense, a working knowledge of Japanese on the
part of the English teacher can indeed be useful. This is however not always possible.
Japanese teachers of English familiar with Japanese, for their part, have not necessarily
examined the phenomena of cross-linguistic influence closely, and may not have ready
access to concise information concerning the sources of difficulties they create, in
addition to possible strategies to overcome them. Our research is therefore concerned not
only with highlighting cross-linguistic difficulties, but with making such information
available to both teachers and students. More specifically, we are working towards the
design of a CALL system that helps identify difficulties related to cross-linguistic
influence, while providing relevant instructional strategies and activities to overcome
them. That is to say, a teacher working with such a system could access information on
such difficulties, for example when preparing a course or a given lesson, in addition to
teaching suggestions, targeted exercises and drills. The student working on an activity
might be prompted by the system concerning an area of difficulty, and directed to
specific explanations and activities for further practice.
We have been especially concerned with drawing out categories that have roots in
cultural differences. For instance, we have shown that the use of come and go is guided
by speaker/hearer perspective. We can therefore begin to deal with a concept called
“speaker/hearer perspective,” and examine whether other interferences might follow a
similar pattern and establish significant links. Usage of had better, as we have seen, can
also be linked to “speaker/hearer perspective,” as can the use of the imperative.
The mapping of cross-linguistic difficulties in our CALL system then does not follow
grammatical or linguistic categories, but considerations related to culture. Languages, as
we mentioned in our introduction, are imbued with culture. Cultural understandings, as
our examples have shown, are embedded within language use, and differences to this
effect can not only lead to errors in L2, but to potential misunderstandings, as the
example of had better has demonstrated. We therefore seek to not only reduce the impact
of cross-linguistic influence, but also to raise awareness in view of cultural similarities
and differences in the course of an L2 acquisition process. Furthermore, we hope the
concepts we identify will enable eventual comparison of different sets of L1 and L2 in
terms of cross-linguistic difficulties using similar parameters. We hope to elaborate on
the progress of our research in the near future.
Concluding remarks:
There is a Japanese pub on the outskirts of Kyoto with a most interesting name – at least
to an English speaker. It is called: Bar -- Sushi and Men. Is that to say – with a touch of
humour – that the Japanese like their men raw? As most foreigners living in Japan are
well-aware, roman characters and English words are commonly used in advertising, store
signs, stationary, fashion items, etc. In this particular case, the owner(s) of the bar linked
two Japanese words with an English conjunction, words which were written in roman
characters instead of characters used in Japanese. The result? L1 interference with an
interesting twist. To begin with, a bar generally does not serve meals, so to call the place
a “bar” was not completely appropriate. And for those not familiar with Japanese, “men”
in Japanese stands for “noodles.” Thus, what we had seen was a place to eat sushi and
noodles, while having a drink.
The process of acquiring L2, especially in the early stages, is not without challenges,
many of these stemming from L1 influence. In this presentation, we have given
examples of cross-linguistic influence and interference, illustrating potential difficulties
in bridging Japanese and English. We have also made some suggestions towards tackling
L1 interference in L2, while briefly examining the possibility of using CALL applications
to overcome some of the problems they create, with a focus on cultural considerations.
We hope to further elaborate on the results of our research in future presentations.
Acknowledgements:
This paper was one of three presentations within the Teacher Education SIG Forum: Can
Language and Culture Go Hand in Hand? It is dedicated to co-presenters, Anthony
Robins Brian Cullen. We are also indebted to Nicolas Gromik, Tohoku University for
valuable comments, Michael Swan, for kindly answering linguistic questions, especially
in terms of usage of come and go, and to students at Osaka University and Doshisha
Women’s College of Liberal Arts for relevant feedback when approaching the topics of
come and go and that of expressing advice.
References:
Azar, B. S. (2002). Understanding and Using English Grammar. New York: Longman.
Barker, D. (2003). 英語と仲直りできる本 (Coming to Terms with English: A
Reference Book). Tokyo: ALC (アルク) Press.
Barker, D. (2003). Why English Teachers in Japan Need to Learn Japanese. The
Language Teacher, 27 (2), 7-11.
Bourdeau, J. and Mizoguchi, R. (2002) Collaborative ontological engineering of
instructional design knowledge for an ITS authoring environment. Proceedings of the
6th International Conference, ITS 2002, Biarritz, France. IOS Press. 399-409.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language:
Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage.
International Education Journal, 1 (1), 22-32.
Celce-Murcia, M. Larsen-Freeman D. (1999) The Grammar Book, An ESL/EFL
Teacher’s Course, 2nd Edition. USA: Heinle and Heinle.
Ellis, Rod. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lightbown P. and Spada N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. 2nd Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lott, D. (1983). Analysing and counteracting interference errors. ELT Journal. 37 (3),
256-261
Makino S., Tsutui M. (1986). A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. Tokyo: The
Japan Times.
Makino S., Tsutui M. (1986). A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar. Tokyo:
The Japan Times.
Murphy, R. (2004). English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noor, Hashim H. (1994). “Some Implications of the Role of the Mother Tongue in
Second Language Acquisition.” Linguistica Communicatio. Vol. 6, no. 1-2, 97-106.
Odin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ringbom, H. (1985). Transfer in Relation to Some Other Variables in L2 Learning.
Abstract. Retrieved November 2005 from http://eric.ed.gov. ERIC # ED270967.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon, Philadephia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Storti, C. (1999). Figuring Foreigners Out. Yarmouth (USA): Intercultural Press.
Swan, M. (1997) “The Influence of the Mother Tongue on Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition and Use.” In. Schmitt N. and Mc Carthy M. (Eds). Vocabulary: Description,
Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 156-180.
Swan, M. (2005) Practical English Usage. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swan, M. and Smith, B., Ed. (2001). Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference
and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1 We concur with the definition of L2 as explained by Ellis. In the context of second language acquisition,
“second’ can refer to any language that is learned subsequent to the mother tongue. Thus, it can refer to the
learning of a third or fourth language. Also, ‘second’ is not intended to contrast with ‘foreign.’ Whether
you are learning a language naturally as a result of living in a country where it is spoken, or learning it in a
classroom through instruction, it is customary to speak generically of ‘second’ language acquisition [or …]
‘L2 acquisition.’ (Ellis, 1997)
2 We are aware that students may have learned other L2 which may be influential in the process of
acquiring the language at hand. This being said, we shall assume in the course of this paper that L2 is
English and L1 is Japanese, as Japanese native students acquiring English as L2 are the focus of our study.
This is also a population which, especially at the high school level, has generally not yet been exposed to
another L2.
3 We indicate “essentially,” because in Japanese, some of these examples would not need to be expressed
using come or go. For example (4) might be expressed as ギリシャへ移住したい (I want to
emigrate/settle in Greece), in order to convey the English idea of “go and live.” Otherwise, the movement
of going to Greece would be expressed using go in Japanese as well. Similarly, (5) might be translated as
1577 年にローマーへ留学しました（In 1577 he went to study in Rome）; in Japanese there is a specific
expression for the idea of “go to study,” and as such go is not required.
4 Let us consider an example: B and C are discussing A’s upcoming party (A is not present). In English, if
B asks C: “Are you coming to the party?” it generally implies that B is attending the party, without
necessarily being a comment on the relationship between B and A. In Japanese, if B uses the verb come in
the same question, it not only implies that B is going to the party, it also shows some kind of a positive
feeling towards A, more so than it would in English. If B felt little connection to A, then B would likely
say in Japanese: “Are you going to the party?” This being said, both come and go can be used in either
English or Japanese in this situation. There are some nuances in underlying meaning, but as they do not
lead to usage mistakes, we do not usually bring these issues up with students.
5 Objects that are related to speaker and / or hearer (in this case the hearer’s brother) can be considered,
both in English and in Japanese, to be an extension of either of them, so to speak. In other words, though
the brother is not physically present in this exchange, he is considered as if he were.
6 We are grateful to Michael Swan for corroborating that this is a valid approximation.
7 The same explanations also help in explaining usage of bring and take, another problematic area for
Japanese students.
8 The example of misuse that Barker gives is: If you go to London, you had better go to the British Museum.
He explains that if this is friendly advice, usage of had better is not appropriate. Had better should be
thought not only in relation to した方がいい, but also した方がいい、そうしないと嫌なことがある
(had better otherwise something undesirable might/will happen). (p. 111)
There are many possible English translations for the title of Barker’s book. The one suggested is one
among several possibilities.
Cross- Linguistic Influence in the L2 Acquisition Process
Danièle ALLARD,a Riichiro Mizoguchi,a Jacqueline Bourdeaub
a ISIR, Osaka University, 8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan
b LICEF, Télé-université, 100 Sherbrooke O., Montreal, Quebec, H2X 3P2, Canada
allard@ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp
Abstract:
Can Language and Culture go Hand in Hand? Using examples of Japanese as L1 and English as
L2, we seek to demonstrate how transfer and interference from one’s native language can impact
expression in a language being acquired. We make some suggestions as to how to tackle transfer
and interference, and briefly discuss the potential of further research to this effect in CALL.
言葉と文化は手と手を取り合うことができるか？この発表では日本語を母語とする人が
第二言語として英語を習得するケースを例にその習得過程においてどのように日本語の
バックグラウンドが英語表現に影響を及ぼしているかを検証し，その問題への取り組み
方を提案します．またコンピュータ支援言語学習の分野におけるこの研究課題の可能性
にも言及します．
Introduction:
Especially in the earlier stages of acquiring another language (L2), the transfer of patterns
from one’s native language (L1) can be a major source of errors in learner language
(Lightbown and Spada, 1999).1 Such errors reflect the fact that there are multiple ways
of viewing the world and talking about it; they also show that language, considered as a
social practice, is imbued with culture. People communicate in relation to each other,
and in relation to their prior experience. Their voice is not only individual, but collective:
they regularly express the knowledge and social patterns accepted within their native
community (Kramsch 1993). Whereas ways of speaking may be predictable between
native speakers, such is not always the case when communication involves non-native
speakers. The former often don’t share with the latter a common pool of knowledge,
memory, culture and linguistic patterns. This certainly does not prevent communication,
but it may sometimes lead to misunderstandings.
This paper builds on examples chosen within the context of Japanese students learning
English. It seeks to demonstrate ways in which L2 can bear traces of L1. It also
addresses the question of how language teachers might begin to tackle the difficulties and
interferences stemming from such influence. Finally, it proposes the use of CALL
(Computer-Assisted Language Learning) as a potentially useful tool to this effect.
Cross-linguistic Influence:
Cross-linguistic influence, which is also referred to as transfer, is the process by which
L1 can impact L2 in its process of acquisition. That is to say: “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, p.27). This
influence can have two facets: “Transfer is both a facilitating and limiting factor which
provides one basis for the learner to form and test hypotheses about the second language
he or she is learning” (Ringbom, 1985, abstract). In other words, transfer can be viewed
as positive or negative. Positive transfer is the transfer of a skill inspired from L1 (or any
other previously acquired language) that facilitates the learning of a skill in L2, given
similarities between the two skills at hand. Negative transfer is the transfer of a skill that
is different from that used in L2, and as such may actually impede learning (Noor, 1994).
Interferences, which are related to negative transfer, are “errors in the learner’s use of the
foreign language that can be traced back to the mother tongue” (Lott 1983, p. 256). 2
Learner errors can of course be traced to various different sources, as second language
learning involves more than a process of making use of L2 words to be placed in L1
sentence structures. Yet, interferences do account for many errors learners make (Ellis,
1997, Lightbown and Spada, 1999). Concepts of interference and transfer are related to
research in contrastive analysis, which has roots in behaviorism, and was especially
popular in the last half of the previous century. Given eventual shifts of paradigms in
language acquisition research, namely away from behaviorist views, this type of research
came to meet with resistance. In the words of Gregg: “contrastive analysis, error analysis,
etc. are not simply unrelated to linguistic theory in particular, they are dead meat in
general.” (qtd. in Swan, 1997). And yet, recent research has shown that overall patterns
of error do tend to be language specific, which explains why English might sometimes be
called “Thai English” or “Greek English.” “There is less disagreement than there used to
be about how far interlanguages are influenced by learners’ native languages, and most
linguists would probably now agree that the mother tongue can affect learners’ English in
several ways.” (Swan and Smith, 2001, p. xi)
Learners actually bring a tremendous amount of knowledge to the task of tackling L2
acquisition, among which is knowledge of L1. In the early stages of the acquisition
process, especially, it is expected they draw on L1 knowledge (Ellis, 1997). In fact, “the
learner tends to assume that the system of L2 is more or less the same as in his L1 until
he has discovered that it is not” (Ringbom, 1987, p. 135). Concurrently, if L1 and L2 are
related, it will be easier for the student to acquire proficiency, but if they are unrelated,
the process, especially in the earlier stages of acquisition, will prove more difficult and
time-consuming (Ringbom, 1987).
Our study focuses on “Japanese English.” Based on observation and teaching experience
in Japan, we, like others before us, have noticed that Japanese students tend to make
certain types/patterns of errors on a regular basis, and several among these can be traced
to influence from L1. We have found that identifying the source of an error, then
providing explanations along with practice drills that are based on a comparison of the L2
problem area with corresponding L1 patterns seems to be of benefit in such cases. This is
not to say that we always compare English to Japanese in explanations given to students,
nor that such explanations need to be made in Japanese. Rather, we are proposing that an
analysis of the cause of interference may reveal aspects explaining L2 usage that are
otherwise left implicit in generic explanations. Making these aspects explicit, and using
them to target usage explanations in such a way that the student might more readily
understand, seems to bear fruit. In the process, we thus try, when possible, to promote
positive transfer, encouraging students to make use of knowledge they already have,
albeit with some necessary adjustments.
We will provide two examples to this effect: usage of come and go, and usage of had
better. Our examples will not be expanded into extensive comparisons between both
languages, which are beyond the scope of this paper, but rather aim at highlighting some
illustrative key points in terms of L1 transfer and its potential impact. We will assume
the position of an English teacher who has little knowledge of Japanese and little
experience in teaching to Japanese students. The reason for these assumptions is to
illustrate how explanations of a language point may potentially gain from adding
elements linked to knowledge of corresponding L1 patterns.
Appropriate Usage of Come and Go:
In a conversation between a native English speaker and a native Japanese speaker, it is
not uncommon, in response for example to (1) “Will you come to my home on
Saturday?” to get a response from the Japanese speaker such as “Yes, I’ll go” or “Yes,
I’ll go in the afternoon” (inappropriate usage) as opposed to “Yes, I will” (come is
implied) or “Yes, I’ll come in the afternoon.”
In explaining generic rules of usage for come and go, a language teacher might consider
the following: come is used for movements to the place where the speaker or hearer is,
and go for movement to other places (Swan, Practical English Usage, 2005). In example
(1) above, movement flows in the direction of the speaker, and the answer thus follows
accordingly. The teacher might provide the following examples to further illustrate
(Swan, 2005):
(2) When did you come to live here?
(3) Can I come see you?
(4) I want to go and live in Greece.
(5) In 1577, he went to study in Rome.
(6) Let’s go and see Peter and Diane.
Analysis of usage in Japanese, on the other hand, shows that come and go varies
essentially according to speaker (not speaker and hearer), which explains the mistake
Japanese students might make in example (1), in fact a direct translation from Japanese.
In Japanese, come indicates a movement in the direction towards the speaker or the
speaker’s viewpoint, and go expresses movement away from the speaker or the speaker’s
viewpoint (Makino and Tsutsui, 1986). Consequently examples (2), (4), (5), and (6)
would essentially call for the same verbs as in the English examples, but (1) would imply
a different answer, and (3) would require go instead of come.3 Given both similarities
and differences in usage, English usage of come and go is often quite confusing for
Japanese students.
In view of this situation, can anything be supplemented to generic explanations to help
facilitate student understanding and awareness of appropriate usage? In addition to
English usage explanations, raising awareness of what one does in L1 as a comparison
appears to be useful in this particular case. To begin with, the following graphic
illustration can be considered: whereas Japanese is speaker-oriented, English is both
hearer and speaker oriented.
Japanese
来る（come） 行く（go）
English
Come Go
This difference in perspective leads to usage differences, especially with respect to come.
More specifically, we have observed that Japanese students often make L1-related
mistakes when answering questions, in reply to a prompt, or when making statements
using the first person (“I”). Other situations calling for come and go show that
inappropriate usage does not usually occur, though there may be underlying nuances in
intended meaning.4
The above diagram can therefore be shown to students, followed by an explanation of
how usage differs in English, firstly when answering questions or replying to prompts.
Simply put, in English, if the direction of the movement is the same in both question and
answer, the same verb will be used. For example, if someone asks: “What time are you
coming on Friday?” the answer could be “I’m coming at noon.” (not, as in Japanese, I’m
going at noon). We extrapolate to third person situations: “When will your brother come
see me? He will come after lunch (not: he will go after lunch).5 “When are you going to
Italy? I am going in July.” (here, usage is the same in both languages). Inappropriate
usage can also be seen in reply to a prompt: if A and B who live together have decided to
go shopping, but A, tired of waiting for B, states “I’m going!”on the doorstep, then B,
who wants to accompany A, would reply “I’m coming!” (not: I’m going!).
Using the diagram once again, explanations of the above paragraph can be summarized
using the following approximation: go is used in statements or questions when the goal of
the movement is not towards either the hearer and/or speaker. If it is, the statement or
question calls for come.6 Besides answers to questions or reply to prompts, Japanese
students must also pay attention to usage of come in terms of “I.” For example, in
English, appropriate usage would call for: “May I come see you this afternoon?” (not:
May I go see you?). Wrapping up, an example of a situation in which movement is
different between the question and the answer can be provided. This implies that the
choice of the verbs will vary: Did you come to the university on Tuesday after all? No, I
didn’t. I went to City Hall. Usage is similar to Japanese, but this example is used to
reinforce understanding of the above approximation.7
Carefully going over such an explanation, which in some respects parallels and contrasts
usage in Japanese, along with targeting examples and practice so that students become
more keenly aware of the mechanics of English usage in relation to what they know, in
our experience, facilitates the acquisition process. Though generic explanations of rules
of usage and generic exercises may certainly bring students to the same end result, if
targeted explanations and practice takes them there faster, we believe the latter will then
have been of benefit.
“Linguistic differences between L1 and L2 may not automatically mean learning
problems, but if the learner is able to perceive structural lexical similarities between L1
and L2 there will be an absolutely essential absence of some important learning problems
at the early stages, especially as far as comprehension and vocabulary learning are
concerned” (Ringbom, 1987, p.60). That is to say, if the learner is able to root his (her)
understanding of L2 in the understanding he has of L1, learning can be facilitated.
Though this will be easier to do in cases of obvious similarities between L1 and L2, it can
also apply to cases of dissimilarities provided the student develops a sense of what is
similar to L1 and what is not.
Appropriate Usage of Had better:
Our second example centers on the English modal had better. Consider the following
statements: (1) “You had better take your umbrella.” (2) “You had better go to Osaka
Castle to see the beautiful cherry blossoms.” (3) “You had better read this book.”
Though these are not uncommon in English used by Japanese native speakers, they have
sometimes struck English native hearers to whom they were addressed as somewhat odd,
if not inappropriate. The Japanese speaker who reported example (1) was eventually told
by his foreign visitor that this type of advice was not completely appropriate: the visitor
was able to decide for himself whether or not he needed to bring an umbrella – to the
surprise of the Japanese speaker. Similarly, though comments were not voiced, (2) and
(3) elicited reactions from native English speakers to the effect of: “What if I don’t go to
the castle – or read this book? Do I need to worry about something?” Of course,
depending on the context, usage of had better may not necessarily bring about such
reactions, but the fact that it can, we believe, needs to be addressed.
In questioning Japanese speakers/students, it appears that had better is essentially seen as
an equivalent for the Japanese expression ほうがいい. It is offered as a possible
translation in various Japanese-English dictionaries, and is translated as such by Makino
and Tsutsui (1986) in their dictionary of Japanese grammar. These linguists explain ほう
がいいit in the following way: “it is strongly suggested that someone do something.” In
Practical English Usage, Swan (2005) explains had better in terms of strong advice, or
telling people what to do (including ourselves) (Swan, 2005). ほうがいいand had
better therefore appear, at first glance, to be equivalent expressions.
Other English grammar books add to Swan’s explanation that usage of had better can
also imply that if the advice given is not followed, there is the possibility of a problem or
a danger (Murphy 2004, Azar 2002). Bearing this in mind, it might then be explained to
students that in example (2) for instance, usage of “had better” is not the best choice since
there is not any particular problem or danger in view of not seeing cherry blossoms at
Osaka Castle. Barker (2003) stresses this point using a similar example in 英語と仲直り
できる本 (Coming to Terms with English: A Reference Book).8
When examining the issue more closely, however, it seems that there are deeper issues at
stake, which stem from cultural differences. Informal discussions with Japanese speakers
have revealed that ほうがい also carries the implication of negative consequences. This
is actually the reason for giving the advice, and demonstrates concern for the hearer’s
welfare, or at least for the possibility of missed opportunities. Should the severity of the
consequence then be considered in terms of usage of had better? Makino, Tsutsui, and
Swan all refer to the idea of “strong” advice in their respective explanations of the
Japanese and the English expression. How strong, then, is strong? Cultural perspectives,
it appears, vary in this respect.
The relative strength of ほうがいい and had better appears to gravitate at opposite ends
of a spectrum when compared to other advice expressions in each respective language. In
English, had better is stronger than might/could, but weaker than have to/have got
to/need to; the negative form had better not is ranked as the strongest possible modal of
negative advice (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman,1999). In comparison, ほうがいい
is ranked as the weakest Japanese expression of advice (Makino and Tsutsui,1986).9 This
seems to confirm that “strong advice” is indeed culturally dependent.
The English hearer who reacted to the suggestions of bringing an umbrella highlights
another important issue: sensitivity to advice. Japanese people are generally receptive to
advice, even viewing it as normal, if not desirable. This is probably linked to the
Japanese proclivity towards maintaining group harmony which rests upon a series of
socially accepted rules. These serve as guidance towards maintaining harmony, and as
such, are necessary and useful. They in turn contribute to generating a strong sense of
duty, as well as, generally speaking, a sense of ease with respecting and following rules,
as well as an openness towards various forms of advice from other group members with a
similar concern for harmony. Westerners, on the other hand, tend to value individualism
and the capacity to decide for oneself, and as such, may react negatively to advice,
especially if it is perceived as unsolicited. In other words, whereas “strong” advice using
ほうがいいwould likely not ruffle a Japanese hearer, “strong” advice using had better
may not always be well received by an English-speaking hearer. We acknowledge that
the preceding explanation is a series of generalizations. We further acknowledge that
“cultural generalizations are necessarily statements of likelihood and potential, not of
certainty” (Storti, 3). Yet, it is not possible to talk about culture, about groups of people,
without making generalizations. As these do contain a kernel of truth, used wisely, along
with discrimination, generalizations can at least set a way towards clearer mutual
understanding. (Storti, 1999)
The context, tone of voice and relationship of speaker and hearer when expressing /
receiving advice need of course to be taken into consideration. Depending on these, had
better can take on different connotations. To this effect, a Japanese speaker may
consciously articulate had + better when uttering a statement, rather than use the
(pronoun)’d better abbreviation more common to everyday English. Furthermore, the
rhythm of the sentence may end up making the advice sound stronger/more threatening
than it is actually intended to be because it is stated by a non-native speaker not used to
English rhythm / inflection / pronunciation.
How does an English teacher then deal with explaining had better to Japanese students?
To begin with, one might emphasize that the English modal is not a translation for ほう
がいい, while explaining issues of sensitivity to advice in view of comparative cultural
considerations -- at least in terms of impact on a Western hearer. In the process, the
teacher can provide relevant examples of use, and situate had better in relation to other
advice modals in terms of relative strength -- the point might also be made that had better
and ほうがいいtend to be at opposite ends of a strength spectrum in each respective
language. The teacher might also show how the examples given at the beginning of this
section can be toned down, for instance by expressing them using might, could or should.
In fact, a good review of modals and advice expressions, along with targeted exercises
and drills in view of potential L1 interference, accompanied by discussion of impact on a
potential hearer should prove useful.
The study of modals can further lead to practice in the usage of imperatives, which
Japanese students find difficult to apply in English. “Bring your umbrella!” said in a
casual tone is not a forceful statement, but in Japanese, it is comparatively much stronger,
regardless of the tone of voice, which likely explains reluctance on the part of Japanese
speakers to use English imperatives. We shall not enter here into a comparative
discussion of imperatives, but we raise the issue to show how attention to cross-linguistic
influence and the difficulties they may cause can suggest instructional sequences that
may facilitate acquisition and understanding while following an order that might not
otherwise be taken in generic teaching methodologies. That is to say, linking the study of
imperatives to that of modals may facilitate understanding of their usage for Japanese
students.
.
Towards Tackling L1 Interference in L2:
One of the first steps in dealing with L1 interferences is to begin identifying them.
Personal experience in the classroom and with students can certainly be a valuable source
of information, as are exchanges with seasoned teachers on the subject. Published
literature on the topic may also be helpful. To this effect, we recommend two works of
reference. The first is Learner English – A teacher’s guide to interference and other
problems, edited by Michael Swan and Bernard Smith. This is a collection of essays,
each covering relevant features of a given language in relation to English, including
Japanese. It lists various typical mistakes that learners are apt to make, while providing
cultural notes. It does not provide teaching strategies or targeted exercises.
The second work is David Barker’s 英語と仲直りできる本 (Coming to Terms with
English: A Reference Book). The book is written in Japanese but it features indexes both
in Japanese and English. The work is an extensive collection of problem areas that
Barker has encountered in the course of over ten years teaching English to Japanese
students. Though it may not be accessible to teachers of English unfamiliar with
Japanese, it nevertheless remains a valuable tool: Japanese students may consult the work
as they see fit, or be advised to read about specific problem areas. Not only does Barker
explain appropriate English usage, he also makes several comparisons with Japanese,
which help clarify some of the points he makes. A few useful practice exercises are
interspersed within the book.
In a different article, Barker (2003) stresses the importance for English teachers who are
in Japan for an extended period of time to learn Japanese. Among various points, he
emphasizes that “a teacher with a detailed knowledge of the differences between the L1
and the target language will be better equipped to anticipate and overcome problems […]
the students are likely to face.” In this sense, a working knowledge of Japanese on the
part of the English teacher can indeed be useful. This is however not always possible.
Japanese teachers of English familiar with Japanese, for their part, have not necessarily
examined the phenomena of cross-linguistic influence closely, and may not have ready
access to concise information concerning the sources of difficulties they create, in
addition to possible strategies to overcome them. Our research is therefore concerned not
only with highlighting cross-linguistic difficulties, but with making such information
available to both teachers and students. More specifically, we are working towards the
design of a CALL system that helps identify difficulties related to cross-linguistic
influence, while providing relevant instructional strategies and activities to overcome
them. That is to say, a teacher working with such a system could access information on
such difficulties, for example when preparing a course or a given lesson, in addition to
teaching suggestions, targeted exercises and drills. The student working on an activity
might be prompted by the system concerning an area of difficulty, and directed to
specific explanations and activities for further practice.
We have been especially concerned with drawing out categories that have roots in
cultural differences. For instance, we have shown that the use of come and go is guided
by speaker/hearer perspective. We can therefore begin to deal with a concept called
“speaker/hearer perspective,” and examine whether other interferences might follow a
similar pattern and establish significant links. Usage of had better, as we have seen, can
also be linked to “speaker/hearer perspective,” as can the use of the imperative.
The mapping of cross-linguistic difficulties in our CALL system then does not follow
grammatical or linguistic categories, but considerations related to culture. Languages, as
we mentioned in our introduction, are imbued with culture. Cultural understandings, as
our examples have shown, are embedded within language use, and differences to this
effect can not only lead to errors in L2, but to potential misunderstandings, as the
example of had better has demonstrated. We therefore seek to not only reduce the impact
of cross-linguistic influence, but also to raise awareness in view of cultural similarities
and differences in the course of an L2 acquisition process. Furthermore, we hope the
concepts we identify will enable eventual comparison of different sets of L1 and L2 in
terms of cross-linguistic difficulties using similar parameters. We hope to elaborate on
the progress of our research in the near future.
Concluding remarks:
There is a Japanese pub on the outskirts of Kyoto with a most interesting name – at least
to an English speaker. It is called: Bar -- Sushi and Men. Is that to say – with a touch of
humour – that the Japanese like their men raw? As most foreigners living in Japan are
well-aware, roman characters and English words are commonly used in advertising, store
signs, stationary, fashion items, etc. In this particular case, the owner(s) of the bar linked
two Japanese words with an English conjunction, words which were written in roman
characters instead of characters used in Japanese. The result? L1 interference with an
interesting twist. To begin with, a bar generally does not serve meals, so to call the place
a “bar” was not completely appropriate. And for those not familiar with Japanese, “men”
in Japanese stands for “noodles.” Thus, what we had seen was a place to eat sushi and
noodles, while having a drink.
The process of acquiring L2, especially in the early stages, is not without challenges,
many of these stemming from L1 influence. In this presentation, we have given
examples of cross-linguistic influence and interference, illustrating potential difficulties
in bridging Japanese and English. We have also made some suggestions towards tackling
L1 interference in L2, while briefly examining the possibility of using CALL applications
to overcome some of the problems they create, with a focus on cultural considerations.
We hope to further elaborate on the results of our research in future presentations.
Acknowledgements:
This paper was one of three presentations within the Teacher Education SIG Forum: Can
Language and Culture Go Hand in Hand? It is dedicated to co-presenters, Anthony
Robins Brian Cullen. We are also indebted to Nicolas Gromik, Tohoku University for
valuable comments, Michael Swan, for kindly answering linguistic questions, especially
in terms of usage of come and go, and to students at Osaka University and Doshisha
Women’s College of Liberal Arts for relevant feedback when approaching the topics of
come and go and that of expressing advice.
References:
Azar, B. S. (2002). Understanding and Using English Grammar. New York: Longman.
Barker, D. (2003). 英語と仲直りできる本 (Coming to Terms with English: A
Reference Book). Tokyo: ALC (アルク) Press.
Barker, D. (2003). Why English Teachers in Japan Need to Learn Japanese. The
Language Teacher, 27 (2), 7-11.
Bourdeau, J. and Mizoguchi, R. (2002) Collaborative ontological engineering of
instructional design knowledge for an ITS authoring environment. Proceedings of the
6th International Conference, ITS 2002, Biarritz, France. IOS Press. 399-409.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language:
Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage.
International Education Journal, 1 (1), 22-32.
Celce-Murcia, M. Larsen-Freeman D. (1999) The Grammar Book, An ESL/EFL
Teacher’s Course, 2nd Edition. USA: Heinle and Heinle.
Ellis, Rod. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lightbown P. and Spada N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. 2nd Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lott, D. (1983). Analysing and counteracting interference errors. ELT Journal. 37 (3),
256-261
Makino S., Tsutui M. (1986). A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. Tokyo: The
Japan Times.
Makino S., Tsutui M. (1986). A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar. Tokyo:
The Japan Times.
Murphy, R. (2004). English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noor, Hashim H. (1994). “Some Implications of the Role of the Mother Tongue in
Second Language Acquisition.” Linguistica Communicatio. Vol. 6, no. 1-2, 97-106.
Odin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ringbom, H. (1985). Transfer in Relation to Some Other Variables in L2 Learning.
Abstract. Retrieved November 2005 from http://eric.ed.gov. ERIC # ED270967.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon, Philadephia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Storti, C. (1999). Figuring Foreigners Out. Yarmouth (USA): Intercultural Press.
Swan, M. (1997) “The Influence of the Mother Tongue on Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition and Use.” In. Schmitt N. and Mc Carthy M. (Eds). Vocabulary: Description,
Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 156-180.
Swan, M. (2005) Practical English Usage. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swan, M. and Smith, B., Ed. (2001). Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference
and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1 We concur with the definition of L2 as explained by Ellis. In the context of second language acquisition,
“second’ can refer to any language that is learned subsequent to the mother tongue. Thus, it can refer to the
learning of a third or fourth language. Also, ‘second’ is not intended to contrast with ‘foreign.’ Whether
you are learning a language naturally as a result of living in a country where it is spoken, or learning it in a
classroom through instruction, it is customary to speak generically of ‘second’ language acquisition [or …]
‘L2 acquisition.’ (Ellis, 1997)
2 We are aware that students may have learned other L2 which may be influential in the process of
acquiring the language at hand. This being said, we shall assume in the course of this paper that L2 is
English and L1 is Japanese, as Japanese native students acquiring English as L2 are the focus of our study.
This is also a population which, especially at the high school level, has generally not yet been exposed to
another L2.
3 We indicate “essentially,” because in Japanese, some of these examples would not need to be expressed
using come or go. For example (4) might be expressed as ギリシャへ移住したい (I want to
emigrate/settle in Greece), in order to convey the English idea of “go and live.” Otherwise, the movement
of going to Greece would be expressed using go in Japanese as well. Similarly, (5) might be translated as
1577 年にローマーへ留学しました（In 1577 he went to study in Rome）; in Japanese there is a specific
expression for the idea of “go to study,” and as such go is not required.
4 Let us consider an example: B and C are discussing A’s upcoming party (A is not present). In English, if
B asks C: “Are you coming to the party?” it generally implies that B is attending the party, without
necessarily being a comment on the relationship between B and A. In Japanese, if B uses the verb come in
the same question, it not only implies that B is going to the party, it also shows some kind of a positive
feeling towards A, more so than it would in English. If B felt little connection to A, then B would likely
say in Japanese: “Are you going to the party?” This being said, both come and go can be used in either
English or Japanese in this situation. There are some nuances in underlying meaning, but as they do not
lead to usage mistakes, we do not usually bring these issues up with students.
5 Objects that are related to speaker and / or hearer (in this case the hearer’s brother) can be considered,
both in English and in Japanese, to be an extension of either of them, so to speak. In other words, though
the brother is not physically present in this exchange, he is considered as if he were.
6 We are grateful to Michael Swan for corroborating that this is a valid approximation.
7 The same explanations also help in explaining usage of bring and take, another problematic area for
Japanese students.
8 The example of misuse that Barker gives is: If you go to London, you had better go to the British Museum.
He explains that if this is friendly advice, usage of had better is not appropriate. Had better should be
thought not only in relation to した方がいい, but also した方がいい、そうしないと嫌なことがある
(had better otherwise something undesirable might/will happen). (p. 111)
There are many possible English translations for the title of Barker’s book. The one suggested is one
among several possibilities.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar