Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:57:25.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Transfer and Non-Transfer: Where We Are Now

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Eric Kellerman
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen

Extract

Current research into second-language learning has tended to ignore (or at best to treat incidentally) a linguistic phenomenon that once used to be a particular preoccupation of applied linguists, the interference error. Instead, the limelight is now firmly focussed on developmental phenomena, with many studies using an approach to data gathering and analytical methodology strongly reminiscent of research into child language acquisition and language contact. There have been specific attempts to establish developmental sequences in the TL, in morpheme acquisition, for instance, so as to compare first and second language learning, and not a little attention is now being paid to such sociolinguistic notions as variability, continua and simplification. In other words, the main emphasis in interlanguage research has shifted from a rather static error-oriented view of language learning to a dynamic view of learners' language as a constantly evolving system. The calls for longitudinal studies of interlanguage of the late sixties and early seventies have not gone unheeded, eve if the word ‘longitudinal’ is sometimes rather liberally interpreted, as in those cases where a tacit (and probably justifiable) assumption is made that studying groups of learners of varying proficiency in respect of given TL features at one and the same time is really the same as following the progress of one group over a long period.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Dulay, H., and Burt, M.. 1972. Goofing: an indicator of children's second language learning strategies. Language Learning 22 (1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23 (1974) Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henzl, V. 1973 Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, G. 1977 The problem of Anglicized French at the University. The Canadian Modern Language Review 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobovits, L. 1971 Foreign Language Learning, Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. 1977a. Rules, grammatical intuitions and strategies in foreign language learning, Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2 (1977b) Sprachspezifisch oder sprachneutral? Zur Anwendung einer Strategie im Fremdsprachenerwerb. Paper given at V. Int. Deutschlehrertragung, Dresden, Aug. 1977, to appear in Deutsch als Fremdsprache 1978.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1977 Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2 (1978) Giving learners a break: native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15.Google Scholar
Levelt, W., van Gent, J., Haans, A., Meyers, A.. 1977. Grammaticality, para-phrase and imagery, in Greenbaum, S. (ed.), Acceptability and Language, Mouton.Google Scholar
Marton, W. 1977 Foreign vocabulary learning as problem no. 1 of language teaching at the advanced level. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2.Google Scholar
Miller, G. 1969 A psychological method to investigate verbal concepts, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 6.Google Scholar
Schachter, J., Tyson, A., Diffley, F.. 1976. Learner intuitions of grammaticality, Language Learning 26.Google Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M. 1978. Strategies, language transfer and the simulation of the second language learner's mental operations. Unpublished paper, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Sjohölm, . 1976. A comparison of the test results in grammar and vocabulary between Finnish- and Swedish-speaking applicants for English. In Ringbom H. and R. Palmberg: Errors made by Finns and Swedish-speaking Finns in the learning of English. AFTIL 5, Åbo.Google Scholar
Whinnom, K. 1971. Linguistic hybridization. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, C.U.P.Google Scholar