Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:20:30.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Avoidance of Phrasal Verbs—A Case for Contrastive Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Menachem Dagut
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
Batia Laufer
Affiliation:
University of Haifa

Extract

Schachter (1974) drew attention to the importance, in error analysis, of examining not only the L2 forms actually produced by the learners of a foreign language in their attempts to express themselves in L2, but also the L2 forms they seem consistently to avoid using. She also noted the close interrelation between such avoidance phenomena and the Contrastive Analysis approach to L2 teaching and learning: avoidance is the reverse side of negative transfer, since learners tend to avoid using in L2 those structures that have no parallel in their L1 and therefore provide them with no pattern for transfer. Of course, as Kleinmann (1977) has pointed out, “avoidance” implies that the structure in question is known to (i.e., can be passively recognized by) the learners, but not freely used by them; failure to use a structure or word that is unknown to the learners is an indication merely of ignorance, not of learning difficulty. Now a prime constructive purpose of error analysis is (or should be) to identify the sources of a learner's difficulties, as a necessary preliminary to helping him or her overcome them. Hence the importance of genuine avoidance phenomena that, when properly identified, can throw light on what would otherwise remain hidden recesses of uncertainty in the learner's mind. Levenston (1971) has convincingly argued, with numerous illustrations, that avoidance (“under-representation” in his terminology) of various English “clause (or group) structures” by Hebrew-speaking learners of English can be explained by the lack of Hebrew “translation-equivalents” for the English structures in question and the learners' consequent choice of less appropriate but more L1-equivalent structures. However, since Levenston was concerned not with avoidance phenomena as such, but rather with the evidence they provide of L1 interference with L2 learning and their stylistic effect on the learner's L2, he took the phenomena in question as established facts (on the basis, presumably, of his own teaching experience), without attempting to examine their frequency and extent.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Dagut, M. B., & Laufer, B.. 1982. How ‘intralingual’ are interlingual errors? In Nickel, G. & Nehls, D. (eds.), Error analysis, contrastive linguistics and second language learning. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag, pp. 1942.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1976. The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kleinmann, H. 1977. Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition, Language Learning 27; 93107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levenston, E. A. 1971. Over-indulgence and under-representation—aspects of mother-tongue interference. In Nickel, G. (ed.), Papers in contrastive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 115121.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. 1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24; 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar