Approximative System

THE STUDY OF LEARNERS’ APPROXIMATIVE APPROXIMATIVE SYSTEMS

I. INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, second language acquisition can refer to the scientific study of  the second-lan second-language guage learning process. It means that second second language language acquisition acquisition refers to what the learner does, it does not refer to what teachers do. do. As stated by Menyuk (1971) that study of the child-learner’s errors does indeed throw light on the types of the cognitive and linguistic processes that appear to be part of language learning process. In addition, Corner (1971) stated that in second language learning, the learner’s errors are indicative both of the state of the learner’s knowledge, and of  the ways in which a second language is learned. According to Richard and Sampson that while current linguistic theories are more insightful than previous ones, there has not been a corresponding increase in the desriptive or explanatory powers of theories of second language acquisition. Furthermore, they also added that the data gathered could perhaps provide corrective feedback to general linguistic theory and to language teaching practice.

II. THE STUDY OF LEARNERS’ APPROXIMATIVE SYSTEMS

The concept of second language acquisition and how it is to be described and understood is widely debated. Boaz (1889) suggested that learners perceived sounds in new languages in terms of their native language or other languages to which they had earlier been exposed. With the emergence of the notion of language as a system howev however, er, the questi question on of second second language language acquis acquisiti ition on could could be viewed viewed as the  juxtaposition of two systems. Lado (1957) tended to emphasize points of contrast between two language systems. systems. Contrastive Contrastive analysis subsequently subsequently arose as a field of research. research. To be sure, contrast between systems was understood not to be only factor involved in second language learning.

1

Acco Accord rdin ing g to Cord Corder er (196 (1967) 7) ling lingui uist stss stud study y the the proc proces esss of langu languag agee acquisition and the various strategies learners may use. In line with this statement, Strevens (1969) hypotesized that errors should not be viewed as problems to be overcome, but rather as normal and inevitable features indiating the strategies that learners use. On the contrary, Nemser (1971) in his early work aimed at the collection and evaluation of relevant interference data. In line with Nemser, Briere (1968) attempted to test empirically the amount of interference that would ensue from competing   phono phonolog logical ical catego categories ries.. Errors Errors which which did not fit syste systemat matical ically ly into into the native native language or target language systems were, for the most part, ignored. Current research tends to focus on the learner himself as generator of the gram gramma marr of his his sent senten ence cess in the the new new lang langua uage ge.. It is refle reflecte cted d in a grow growin ing g termin terminolo ology gy for a field field of resear research ch which which deals deals with with the learne learner’s r’s attemp attempts ts to internalize internalize the grammar grammar of the language language he is learning. learning. This terminology terminology includes includes erro errorr

anal analys ysis is,, idio idiosy sync ncrat ratic ic dial dialec ects ts,,

inter interla lang ngua uage ge,,

appr approx oxim imati ative ve syst system ems, s,

transitional competence, l’etat de dialecte. The small amount of research and speculation about learners’ approximative syste systems ms mentio mention n seven seven factors factors that that may influe influence nce and charact characteriz erizee the second second language learner systems: 1.

Language transfer .

Senten Sentences ces in the target target langua language ge my exhibi exhibitt interfe interferen rences ces from from the mother tongue. Interference analysis tends to be from the deviant sentence back  to the mother tongue, tongue, while contrastive contrastive analysis predicts predicts errors by comparing comparing the linguistic linguistic systems systems of the mother tongue and the target langauge. As stated  by George (1971) that one-third of the deviant sentences from second language learners could be attribute to language transfer. However, until the role of other  facto factors rs is more more unde unders rsto tood od,, it is not not poss possib ible le to eval evalua uate te the the amou amount nt of  systematic interference due to language transfer alone.

2

2.

Intralingual Interferences Interferences.

Rich Richard ardss (197 (1970) 0) prop propos osed ed intr intral alin ingu gual al inte interfe rferen rence cess refer refer to item itemss  produced by the learner which reflect not the structure of the mother tongue,   but but gene genera rali liza zati tion onss base based d on part partia iall expo exposu sure re to the the targ target et lang langua uage ge.. Furt Furth herm ermore, ore,

he

fou found

syst system emat atic ic

intr intral alin ingu gual al

erro errors rs

to

inv involve lve

overgeneraliz overgeneralization, ation, ignorance of rule restrictions restrictions,, incompete incompete application application of  rules, and semantic errors. Like first language learners, the second language learner tries to derive the rules behind the data to which he has been exposed, and may develop hypotheses that correspond neither to the mother tongue nor target language. As stated by Torrey (1966) in his experiment on learning Russian word order, subjec subjects ts someti sometimes mes adopte adopted d a consis consisten tentt word word order order difffer diffferent ent from from either  either  Russian or English. In line with this experiment, Brudhiprabha (1972) on his studie studiess of Thai Thai Learne Learnerr of Englis English, h, many many intrali intralingu ngual al errors errors repres represent ent the learning difficulty of what are often low level rules in the target language. 3.

Sociolinguistics Situation.

Different settings language use result in different degrees and types of  language learning. Terms of the effects of the socio-cultural setting on the learner’s language are different from terms of the relationship holding between the learner and the target language community and the respective linguistic markers of these relations and identities such as the effects of the learner’s  particular motivations for learning the second language as well as the effects of  the socio-cultural setting. Sociolingu Sociolinguistics istics situation leads to inclusion inclusion of the general general motivation motivational al variables which influence language learning. Psychologists have related the types of language learning achieved to the role of the language in relation to the learner’s needs and perceptions. In focusing on the type of relationship holding between the learner and the target language community it would be appropriate to consider non-standard dialects, pidgins, creoles, and immigrant

3

langu languag agee learn learnin ing. g. Acco Accord rdin ing g to Ferg Fergus uson on (197 (1971) 1) the the phen phenom omen enon on of  simplification in some language contact situations, represented by the absence of the the copu copula la,, redu reducti ction on of morp morpho holo logi gica call and and infl inflect ectio iona nall syst system em,, and and grammatical simplification, may likewise be socially motivated. In addition, Mackey (1962 noted that in describing interference one must account for variation according to medium, style, or register in which the speaker speaker is operating. operating. Sampson (1971) suggested suggested that varying varying situations situations evoke different kinds of errors in varying quantities when children are trying to use the target language. 4.

Modality.

The learner’s language language may vary according according to the modality of exposure exposure to the target target langua language ge and the modalit modality y of produc productio tion. n. Vildom Vildomec ec (1963) (1963) observed that interferences between the bilingual’s languages is generally in the productive rather than in receptive side. Some of the modalities affecting the learner’s approximative system are auditory cues, spelling pronunciations, and confusions of written and spoken styles. 5.

Age.

Some aspects of the child’s learning capacities change as he grows older  and these may affect language learning. Lenneberg (1967) noted a period of    prima primary ry langua language ge acquis acquisiti ition, on, postul postulate ated d to be biolog biologica ically lly determ determine ined, d,  beginning when the child starts to walk and continuing until puberty. In some some ways ways adults adults are better better prepar prepared ed for language language learnin learning g than than children. Adults have better memories, a larger store of abstract concepts that can be used in learning, and a greater ability to form new concepts. Children however are better imitators of speech sounds. Ervin-Tripp (1970) suggested tht adult mother mother tongue tongue development development is primarily in terms of vocabulary. vocabulary. The adult’s strategies of language learning may be more vocabulary oriented than syntactic. 6.

Successions of Approximative Systems .

4

It concern concernss the lack stabil stability ity of the learne learner’s r’s approx approxima imativ tivee system system.. Because the circumtances for individual language learning are never identical, the acquisition of new lexical, phonological and syntactic items varies from one individual to another. Since most studies of second second language language learners systems have dealt with the learne learner’s r’s produc productio tion n rather rather than than his compre comprehen hensio sion n of langua language, ge, the ques questi tion on also also aris arises es as to whet whethe herr the the gram gramma marr by whic which h the the lear learne ner  r  unde unders rsta tand ndss speec speech h is the the same same as that that by which which he prod produc uces es speec speech. h. Accordi According ng to Troike Troike (1969) (1969) assumi assuming ng the learne learnerr hears hears and unders understan tands ds standard English but produses a significant number of deviant sentences, the distinction between his receptive competence (the rules he understands) and his  productive competence (the rules he uses) may be useful. Evid Eviden ence ce from from earl earlie ierr stud studie iess indi indica cate tess that that many many phon phonol olog ogic ical al replacements found in the speech of second language learners are unique to the approximative system. 7.

Universal Hierarchy of Difficulty .

It concerns with the inherent difficulty difficulty for man of certain phonologi phonological, cal, syntactic or semantic items and structures.

III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER SYSTEMS The difference between first language acquisition and second language learning: First language acquisition learning of the mother tongue is the

Second language learning Learning a second language normally

  par partt

  begin beginss only only after after the matura maturation tional al

of the the who whole matu aturati ratio onal nal

 process of the child

 process

The learner’s errors provide evidence of the system of the language that is using at the particular point at the course. For the teacher, it can give information about how far the goal has been reached, and what remains for him/her to be learned.

5