SUMMARY: INTERLANGUAGE AND THE ‘NATURAL’ ROUTE OF DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this chapter to examine the claims that second language (L 2) learners acquire knowledge of a L2 in a fixed order (in stark contrast to behaviorist accounts of SLA).This emphasized the importance of environmental factors and first language (L1) interference.

To begin this chapter will briefly consider:

1. The background theory and research in L1 acquisition

2. The notion of interlanguage, a discussion of the L2 = L1 hypothesis

3. The caveats regarding the centrality of learner – internal process in accounts of SLA

MENTALIST ACCOUNT OF FIRST ALNGUAGE ACQUISITON

This sketch will consist of a composite picture drawn from the work of a number of psycholinguistics and linguistics.

Chomsky’s (1959) attack on skinner’s theory of language learning led to a reassertion of mentalist views of FLA. In place of the empiricist approach of behaviorist Chomsky’s stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and reinforcement. He claimed that the child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a universal grammar which specified the essential from that any natural language could take.

Lennerberg (1967) emphasized the biological prerequisites of language. Only homo sapiens was capable of learning language. Lennerberg argued that the child’s brain was specially adapted to the process of language acquisition, nut that this innate propensity was lost as maturation took place. Lennerberg argued that there was an age of resonance during which language acquisition took place as a generic heritage.

In summary, therefore mentalist views of L1 acquisition posited the following:

1. Language is a human-specific faculty

2. Language exists as an independent faculty in the human mind i.e. although it is part of the learner total cognitive apparatus; it is separate from the general cognitive mechanisms responsible for intellectual development.

3. The primary determinant of L1 acquisition is the child 'acquisition device', which is genetically endowed and provides the child with a set of principles about grammar.

4. The acquisition device atrophies with age.

5. The process of acquisition consists of hypothesis-testing, by which means the grammar of the learner’s mother tongue is related to the principles of the universal grammar.

The 1960s was also a period of intensive empirical research into L1 acquisition. Empirical research and theoretical developments in syntax longitudinal two major aspects: Many of the children early utterances were unique. Development was continuous and incremental, but could be characterized as a series of stages.

1. The length of children utterances gradually increases – Mean Length of Utterance

2. Knowledge of the grammatical system is built up in steps.

According to mentalist accounts of L1 acquisition, language acquisition is a universal process.

The term 'process' is used with two related meanings.

1. The stages of development that characterize the route the child follows (descriptive term)

2. How the child constructs internal rules and how he adjusts them from stage to stage. (Explanatory term)

INTERLANGUAGE

The term interlanguage was as first used by Selinker (1972) Nemser (1971): approximative systems Corder (1971): idiosyncratic dialects / transitional competence.

Interlanguage refers to the structured system which the learner constructs at any given stage in his development (i.e. interlanguage)second refers to series of interlocking systems(interlanguage continuum)

The assumptions underlying interlanguage theory (Nemser 1971)

1. At any given time the approximate system is distinct from the L1 and L2

2. At approximate systems form an evolving series?

3. The approximative systems of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide.

The concept of hypothesis-testing was used to explain how the L2 learner progressed along the interlanguage continuum. Corder (1967)

The notion of L1 interference was not rejected entirely. Selinker (1972) five principal processes operated in interlanguage

1. Language transfer

2. over generalization of target language rules

3. Transfer of training

4. Strategies of L2 learning

5. Strategies of L2 communication

Fossilization (Selinker): L2 learners stop learning when their interlanguage contains at least some rules different from those of the target language system. Fossilized structures can be realized as errors or as correct target language forms. Fossilized structures may not be persistent. The causes of fossilization are both internal and external. (Selinker and Lamendella)

The emphasis on hypothesis-testing and internal processes is direct borrowings from L1 acquisition theory. However mentalist theorizing cannot be easily carried over into SLA research.

Question for SLA: How did adults succeed in learning a L2 at all if recourse to the acquisition device responsible for L1 acquisition was not possible?

According to Slinker, SLA can proceed in two ways.

1. It can utilize the same mechanisms as L1 acquisition.

2. It can make use of alternative mechanisms.

Slinnker set out to address this issue. He suggested that those adult who successfully achieve native speaker proficiency in the TL do so because they continue to make use of the ‘acquisition device:

1. Lenneberg : latent language structure

2. Selinker: latent psychological structure

3. Dulay and Burt 1977: cognitive organizer creative construction

Selinker: three principal features of interlanguage focus:

1. Language-learner language is permeable

2. Language-learner language is dynamic

3. Language-learner language is systematic

“Interlanguage theory was based on behavioral events”.

ERROR ANALYSIS

Sridhar (1981) points out that error analysis have a long tradition prior to the early 1970s. The procedure for Error Analysis is spelled out in Corder (1974)

1. A corpus of language is selected.

2. The errors in the corpus are identified.

Corner (1971)points out the need of distinguish “Lapses”(i.e. deviant sentences that are the result of processing limitations rather than lack of competence) from Errors (i.e. deviant sentences that are the result of lack competence) he also points out that sentences can be “Overtly idiosyncratic” and “Covertly idiosyncratic”.

1. The errors are classified.

2. The errors are explained.

3. The errors are evaluated.

Error Analysis provides two kinds of information about interlanguage.

1. The linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners

2. The psycholinguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners

The most significant contribution of Error Analysis lies in its success in elevating the status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide to the inner workings of the language learning process.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE INTERLANGUAGE HYPOTHESIS

Empirical research was required to decide on the nature of the interlanguage continuum. Was the continuum to be conceived as stretching from learner’s mother tongue to the target language? Corner (1978a) refers to this view of the continuum as a restructuring continuum and recreation continuum.

CROSS-SECTIONAL RESEARCH

The morpheme studies were carried out to investigate the order of acquisition of a range of grammatical functions in the speech of L2 learners.

These studies were conducted according to a fixed procedure. Data were elicited from a sample of L2 learners. The produced an accuracy order (acquisition order).The acquisition order for various grammatical functions is more or less same. The only time that a different order occurs is when the elicitation instrument required the subjects to focus specifically on the form rather than the meaning of their utterances. Krashen (1977: 148)

The standard order that was reported was different from the order of morpheme acquisition reported for L1 acquisition.

LONGITUDINAL STUDIES

Longitudinal studies have tried to account for the gradual growth of competence in terms of the strategies used by a learner at different development points. The longitudinal studies discussed here are those that focus on the acquisition of particular grammatical subsystems–negatives, interrogatives, and relative clauses. It is from these studies that the strongest evidence for natural route of development comes.

Longitudinal studies of SLA provide data from different points of time and therefore enable a reliable profile of the SLA of individual learners to be constructed. The disadvantage lies in the difficulty of making generalizations based on the profiles of one or two learners.

A COMPOSITE LONGITUDINAL PICTURE

Ellis (1984) attempts to summarize the developmental progression which has been observed in longitudinal studies:

1. Characteristic by a standard word order, irrespective of weather or not this word order of the target language structure.

2. Developments of the learner expand his propositions to include all the most of the constituents required. And also begin to vary the word order of utterances in accordance with the word order pattern of the target language.

3. Grammatical morphemes begin to use systematically and meaningfully.

4. Consists of the acquisition of complex sentence structures such as embedded Wh-clauses and relative clauses modifying the subject of sentences.

SUMMARY

Interpreting the Empirical Evidence

L2 learners follow a standard sequence but vary in the order in which specific features are acquired.

The L2=L1 hypothesis

The L2=L1 acquisition hypothesis has not been proven in its strong form, although similar processes appear to operate in both types of acquisition. In SLA both the L1 and also maturational factors play a part.

Casden (1972) summary of the order of development for interrogatives in L1 acquisition is strikingly similar to that in SLA . here the main stages Casden identifies:

1. One word utterance used as questions.

2. Intonation question appear on a regular basis and there are some Wh-question learn as ready make chunks

3. Intonation question become more complicated , and productive Wh-question without inversion occurs

4. Inversion involving auxiliary e occur in yes/no question, but not in Wh-question.

5. Inversion occurs in Wh-question

6. Embedded Wh-question develop.

Sloben (1973) suggested that the way children process language in L1 acquisition can be explained in term of series of operating principles:

1. Pay intention to the ends of words.

2. The phonological of words can be systematically modified.

3. Pay intention to the order of words and morphemes.

4. Avoid interruption and rearrangement of linguistic units.

5. Underlying semantic should be marked overly and clearly

6. Avoid exceptions

7. The use of grammatical markers should make semantic sense.

SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES

Methodological problems

The empirical research of the 1970s was three types:

1. Error analysis

2. Cross sectional studies (e.g. morphemes studies)

3. Longitudinal case studies.

The focus of grammar

The major theories issues concern

1. The starting point of the interlangugae continuum

2. The extend to which an adequate explanation of SLA requires a consideration of factor external to the learner as well as internal factors

3. The problems posed for interlanguage theory and the natural sequence by variability inherent in language learner language.

Origins of interlanguage

Corder (1981) considers to possibilities of starting points:

1. The learner starts from scratch in the same way as an infant acquiring his mother tongue

2. The learner starts from “some basic simple grammar”

Corder (1981: 150) suggests that language learners regress to an earlier stage in their own linguistic development before starting the process of elaboration. Ellis (1982a) argue that there is no need to posit that the learner remembers early acquisition stages.

Neglect of external factors

Mentalist accounts of language acquisition originated in the rejection of behaviorist explanations of how language was learnt.

The problem of variability

One of the principles of interlanguage theory is that language learner language systematic. Interlanguage theory does not cope easily with learner variability it struggles to explain why or when variability takes place. The natural route of development also ignores another type of variability, that which derives from individual differences.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

1. What is Chomsky’s argue in Skinner theory?

He stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and reinforcement. He claimed that the child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a universal grammar which specified the essential from that any natural language could take.

2. What is principal views Chomsky’s and Lennerbeg theory about FLA?

Chomsky’s Lennerbeg

The child’s knowledge of his mother tongue was derived from a universal grammar Emphasized The Biological Prerequisites Of Language

3. According to mentalist account of L1 acquisition, language acquisition is a universal process. What does the process means?

The term 'process' is used with two related meanings.

1. The stages of development that characterize the route the child follows (descriptive term)

2. How the child constructs internal rules and how he adjusts them from stage to stage. (Explanatory term)

4. What is interlanguage?

Interlanguage refers to the structured system which the learner constructs at any given stage in his development (i.e. interlanguage) second refers to series of interlocking systems(interlanguage continuum)

5. According to Selinker there are five principal process operated in interlanguage, mentions its?

Five principal:

1. Language transfer

2. over generalization of target language rules

3. Transfer of training

4. Strategies of L2 learning

5. Strategies of L2 communication

6. What are differences among language learner, language is permeable, dynamic and systematic?

Permeable Dynamic Systematic

The rules that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage are not fixed, but are open to amendment The L2 learner’s interlanguage is constantly Despite the variability of interlanguage, it is possible to detect the rule based nature of the learner’s use of the L2.

7. What is Lapses and errors?

Lapses Errors

Deviant sentences that are the result of processing limitations rather than lack of competence deviant sentences that are the result of lack competence

8. What is longitudinal studies focus?

Longitudinal focus on the acquisition of particular grammatical subsystems negatives, interrogatives, and relative clauses.

9. What is Ellis summarize developmental progression which has been observed in longitudinal studies:

1. Characteristic by a standard word order, irrespective of weather or not this word order of the target language structure.

2. Developments of the learner expand his propositions to include all the most of the constituents required. And also begin to vary the word order of utterances in accordance with the word order pattern of the target language.

3. Grammatical morphemes begin to use systematically and meaningfully.

4. Consists of the acquisition of complex sentence structures such as embedded Wh-clauses and relative clauses modifying the subject of sentences.

10. What are the most important effects of mentalist interpretation of SLA?

Reassessment of errors, and serve as evidence of the learners active contribution to acquisition.

Read More......

THE ROLE OF THE FIRST LANGUAGE

INTRODUTION
It is a popular belief that second language acquisition (SLA) is strongly influenced by the learner’s first language (L1).and the role of the L1 in SLA is a negative one. That is the L1 gets in the way or interferes with the learning of the L2, such that feature of the L1 are transferred into the L2.
The research literature reveals considerable disagreement about how pervasive the L1 is in SLA. On the one hand the popular belief is given support:
Taking a psychological point of view, we can say that there is never peaceful co-existence between two language systems in the learner, but rather constant warfare is not limited to the moment of cognition, but continues during the period of storing newly learnt ideas in memory (Marton 1981: 150)
On the other hand, the popular belief is rejected and the role of the L1 if not denied totally, is at least minimized.
Our data on L2 acquisition of syntactic structures in a natural environment suggest that interference does not constitute a major strategy in this area …it seems necessary to me to abandon the notion of interference as a natural and inevitable phenomenon in L2 acquisition. (Felix 1980b: 107)
In order to understand why there is such disparity regarding the role of the L1, it is necessary to examine the evolution of the notion of interference that Felix talks about behaviorist learning theory its development in terms of the constructive analysis hypothesis and the theoretical and empirical attack on this hypothesis which followed.

1. Behaviorist learning theory
Two key notions can be indentified in these discussions:
HABITS
The associations of a particular responses with a particular stimulus constituted a habit, and it was this type of regular behavior that psychologist such as Watson (1924) or Skinner (1957) set out to investigate. They wanted to know how habits were established.
Behaviorist psychologists attributed two important characteristic to habit
1. Observable
2. Automatic
The learning of a habit than could occur through:
1. Imitation (i.e. the learner copies the stimulus behavior sufficiently often for it to become automatic)
2. Reinforcement (i.e. the response of the learner is rewarded or punished depending on whether it is appropriate ot otherwise, until only appropriate responses are given)

ERRORS
Behaviors theory predicts that transfer will take place from the first to the second language. Transfer will be negative when there is proactive inhibition. In this case errors will result. Transfer will be positive when the first and the second language habits are the same. In this case no errors will occur.
In behaviorist accounts of SLA, errors were considered undesirable. They were evidence of non learning, of the failure to overcome proactive inhibition. Some language teaching theorists even suggested that there was a danger of error becoming habit in their own right if they were tolerated.
The predict areas of potential error:
1. Classroom practice
2. Having examined
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
As Lado (1957), one of the prime movers of contrastive analysis, make clear, the teacher how has made comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what real problem are and can provide for teaching them.
Contractive analysis had both a psychological aspect and linguistic aspect. The psychological aspect was based on behaviorist learning theory, and the linguistic aspect, in the first place at least, on structuralism linguistic.

THE PSYCOLOGICAL ASPECT OF CONSTRACTIVE ANALYSIS
The psychological rationable takes the from of the contrastive analysis hypothesis. This exists in a strong and a weak form (Wardhaugh 1970). The strong form claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner first language. As lee (1968:180) notes, it stipulates that the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language is the interference coming from the learner’s native language. The weak form of the hypothesis claims only to be diagnostic.
Marton (1980) argues that whereas interference need not be a major in naturalistic SLA, it will always be present in classroom or foreign language learning. the difference of opinion represented in the two quotation in the introduction to this chapter can be explained in terms of this variable. Whereas Marton is writing about classroom SLA, felix is writing about naturalistic SLA.
Tylor (1975) argues that there are quantitative differences in errors produced by elementary and intermediate students

THE LINGUISTIC ASPECT OF CONSTRACTIVE ANALYSIS
A comparison of two languages can be carried out using any several different models of grammar. Initially the model used was that of structuralist linguist (e.g. bloomfield 1933; Fries 1952)
The differences (among languages) are great enough to prevent our setting up any system of classification that would fit all languages. (Bloomfield 1933) Chomsky’s (1967) theory of grammar proposed just such a model an as such offered a sounder theoretical basis for contrastive analysis (see Van Buren 1974 for fuller discussion of this point)
Most of contrastive studies carried out have been based on surface structure characteristic, such as those described by the structuralists, the procedure followed was:
1. Description (e.a. a formal description of the two languages; is made)
2. Selection (e.a. certain items, which may be entire subsystems such as the auxiliary system or areas known through error analysis to present difficulty, are selected comparison)
3. Comparison (e.a the identification of areas of difference and similarity)
4. Prediction (i.e. identifying which areas are likely to cause errors).
In (3), comparison, the simplest procedure was to identify which aspect of the two languages were similar and which were different. Here are some of the possibilities that comparison might reveal.
1. No difference between a feature of the first and second language
2. Convergent phenomena
3. An item in the first languages is absent in the target language
4. An item in the first language has a difference distribution from the equivalent item in the target language
5. No similarity between first language feature and the target language feature
6. Divergent phenomena
Such as (1) to (6) above, for classifying the way in two languages differ. It is quite another, however, to relate these linguistic differences to learning difficulty. Differences can be identified linguistically, but difficulty involves psychological considerations, Brown and martin (1965) and Prator (1967) has proposed that linguistic differences can be arranged in a hierarchy difficulty. Prator for example, suggests that (1) to (6) above are ordered from zero to greatest difficulty.
There several problems concerning the linguistic aspect of contrastive analysis:
1. The descriptive basis of the comparison has already been briefly considered.
2. Considered in the next section

CRITICISM OF THE CONSTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS
Since 1970s were of three major types of criticisms:
1. There were the doubts concerning the ability of contrastive analysis to predict error
2. There were a number of theoretical regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the methodology of contrastive analysis.
3. There were reservation about whether contrastive analysis had anything relevant to offer to language teaching.
The crisis in contrastive analysis was the result:
1. Empirical
2. Theoretical
3. Practical considerations.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND THE PREDICTABILITY OF ERRORS
Brooks (1960) for instance, gives four casus for learner error:
1. The learner does not the structural pattern and sp make a random response
2. The correct model has been insufficiently practiced
3. Distortion may be induced by the first language.
4. The students may follow the general rule which is not applicable in a particular instance.
Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974a) they indentified four type of error according to their psycholinguistic origins:
1. Interference like error
2. First language developmental errors
3. Ambiguous errors
4. Unique error
Dulay and Burt (1973) calculated the frequencies these error types in speech data of Spanish speaking children learning English.

THEORITICAL CRITICISME
The different issues will be considered under this heading, these are:
1. The attack on behaviorist accounts of language learning which was given impetus by Chomsky’s (1959). Review of skinner’s verbal Behavior
2. The nature of the relationship between the notion of difficulty as predictive by contractive analysis and error.
3. The problem concerning the linguistic basic of contractive analysis in particular translation equivalence and the need to accommodate the variability of learner performance when predicting error.
Chomsky’s attack on behaviorism struck at the psychological basis of the theories of language learning. It was argued by Chomsky and others that extrapolating from studies of animal behavior in laboratory condition, as skinner did could so nothing about how human being learn language in natural condition, the terms stimulus and response ere dismissed as vacuous when applied to language learning, because it not possible to tell what constituted the stimulus for a given speaker response.

PRACTICAL CRITISMS
The final set of criticism concern weather contrastive analysis is of any practical worth in language teachers. Sanders (1981), it was necessary to present learners with items which were similar to their first language and which were not therefore predicted to cause difficulty, as well as which items analysis appears less certain.

REAPPRAISAL
The reappraisal took two forms:
1. The nature of language transfer was re-examined in order to state more precisely the conditions under interference took place and the type of L1 knowledge that was utilized.
2. The contribution made by the L1 recast in a more cognitive framework to make it more acceptable to the mentalist views which dominated discussion of language acquisition following Chomsky’s attack on skinner neo behaviorist theory. The key concept in this new framework was that of “ strategy”

LANGUAGE TRANSFER RE-EXAMINED
There were three noteworthy development of the contrastive analysis hypothesis:
1. it was recognized that the difficulty predicted by contrastive analysis might be realized as avoidance instead of error
2. Empirical evidence was forthcoming to show that interference was more likely to take place where there was similarity between L1 and L2 items and when there was total difference.
3. Perhaps most important, it was recognize that error was multi factor phenomenon and that interference, as one of the factors interacted in complex ways with other factors.

AVOIDANCE
Schachter (1974) Schachter investigated the relative clauses produced by adult L2 learners from different language background. (e.g. Chinese and Japans). Bertkau also found that japans students scored lower of the comprehension relative clauses than Spanis learners. The criticism of contrastive analysis hypothesis advanced by Dulay and Burt on the basis of observed error frequencies was not fool-proof. Although contrastive analysis might fail to predict production error. It might still be successful in predicting comprehension error and avoidance of structures.

DEGREE OF SIMILARITY
The contrastive analysis hypothesis was founded on transfer theory, which stated that learning difficulty was the result of interference from old habits in the learning of new habit.
Lee (1968) reported that he experienced little interference from his mother tongue, English, when learning Chinese, and suggested that this was because the structures of the two languages were so different.
Interferences, in fact, appears to be more likely when there is a crucial similarity measure (Wode, 1976)between L1 and L2.he concluded that certain condition have to be met for what is commonly called interference to take place at all.
James (1980), notes that the Skaggs and Robinson hypothesis, framed in 1927, states that interference is greatest when there is certain degree of similarity, and cases when the learning task have what has been called “neutral resemblance”.
A MULTI FACTOR APPROACH
The early research that sought to challenge the role played by the L1 in SLA 9e.g. Dulay and Burt 1973) was conducted on the basis that an error was either the result of interferences or of some other factor such as developmental processing.
Hatch (1983a) explores in some depth the extend to which “naturalness” factors and interference can account for what is known about SLA. Hatch concludes that in the case of phonology and morphology both naturalness factor and L1 interference are at work, often in such a way that errors are doubly determined.
There are three sets of factors are involved in SLA
1. Universal Grammar
2. Specific factor about the learner’s L1
3. Specific factors about the L2
Gass (1980:180) proposes” the universal factors determine the general outline of learning. Language specific consideration (of either the native or the target language) can come into play where universal factors underdetermine the result.”

L1 INTERFERENCE AS ALEARNER STRATEGY
SLA as a process s in which the learner is actively engaged involves attributing to learners strategies for both sorting the L2 data into a form in which it can be stored and for making use of knowledge already in store.
As Srindhar (1981) points out, the notion of interference and strategy are no incompatible. Corder (1978b) outlines one away in which “interference” can be recast as a learner “strategy” in effect Corder’s proposal reframes the concept of interference as intercession. Whereas interference has been traditionally seen a feature of learning, intercession is to be considered, intercession is to be considered as a strategy of communication.

CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATICS
Contrastive analysis needs to consider not only linguistic contrasts but also pragmatics contrast such as the similarities and differences in the stylistic uses of items in the L1 and L2 and in form-function relationships. Contrastive pragmatics is a fairly recent development, although arguably it has its origins in Lados (1957) linguistic cross cultures, which sought to provide a frameworks for comparing cultural differences in the ways in which language are used.
Sajavarta (1981b) argues that the basic idea of contrasting language is a correct one. Riley (1981) suggested how this might be undertaken. One way is to take a particular function (e.g. suggesting). James (1981) notes that Widdowson (1975a) makes strong claims about the universality of specialized communicative functions such as those associated with scientific and technical discourse. James argues there can be such thing as contrastive pragmatics because there are no differences among languages at the level of use.
Contrastive pragmatics is not just about comparing the communicative functions of different languages. It is also about comparing how different languages express the same communicative function. Scharacter and Rutherford (1979), they observed these errors in the English of Chinese and Japanese learners.
1. Most of the food which is served in such restaurants have cooked already
2. Irrational emotion are bad but rational emotion must use for judging
3. Chiang’s food must make in the kitchen of the restaurant but Marty’s food could make in the house.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
1. How L1 language interference SLA
SLA is strongly influence by the learner’s first language. It is come from foreign accents in the second language (L2) speech of learners. For example when Frenchman speaks English, his English sound French.
2. Why “habits” and “errors” to be the key notions in behaviorism?
Because of Habit have two characteristic: Imitation (i.e. the learner copies the stimulus behavior sufficiently often for it to become automatic) Reinforcement (i.e. the response of the learner is rewarded or punished depending on whether it is appropriate or otherwise, until only appropriate responses are given).
While errors were considered undesirable. They were evidence of non learning, of the failure to overcome proactive inhibition. Some language teaching theorists even suggested that there was a danger of error becoming habit in their own right if they were tolerated
3. In contrastive analysis had both psychological aspect and a linguistic aspect, what does those means?
Psychological aspect was based on behaviorist learning theory and linguistic aspect in the first place at least, on structuralist linguistics.


4. What is different between structuralists linguists and contrastive analysis?
Structuralist Linguist a comparison of two languages can be carried out using any several different models of grammar. While contrastive analysis is an area of considerable theoretical interest for general linguistic, those studies that are concerned with SLA.
5. Which aspects of the two languages were similar and which were different?
a. No difference between a feature of the first and second language
b. Convergent phenomena
c. An item in the first languages is absent in the target language
d. An item in the first language has a difference distribution from the equivalent item in the target language
e. No similarity between first language feature and the target language feature
f. Divergent phenomena
6. Why contrastive analysis hypothesis be criticism?
a. There were the doubts concerning the ability of contrastive analysis to predict error
b. There were a number of theoretical regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the methodology of contrastive analysis.
c. There were reservations about whether contrastive analysis had anything relevant to offer to language teaching.
7. How many types of errors according to psycholinguistic?
a. Interference like error
b. First language developmental errors
c. Ambiguous errors
d. Unique error
8. What is the field discussion of reappraisal?
a. The nature of language transfer was re-examined in order to state more precisely the conditions under interference took place and the type of L1 knowledge that was utilized.
b. The contribution made by the L1 recast in a more cognitive framework to make it more acceptable to the mentalist views which dominated discussion of language acquisition following Chomsky’s attack on skinner neo behaviorist theory. The key concept in this new framework was that of “ strategy”
9. What is contrastive pragmatics?
Contrastive pragmatics is a fairly recent development, although arguably it has its origins in Lados (1957) linguistic cross cultures, which sought to provide a frameworks for comparing cultural differences in the ways in which language are used.
10. What is interference and intercession meaning according to Corder’s concept?
Interference has been traditionally seen a feature of learning, intercession is to be considered, intercession is to be considered as a strategy of communication.

Read More......