Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Relationship between First and Second Language

There is some evidence regarding the complex relationship of second language learning with the first language learning. For the first, it has been shown that differences between L2 and the parent language L1 can itself manifest as an important variable in learning. This difference holds substantial potential in contributing to errors and learning difficulties (Odlin, 1989). Also, the gaps in the grammatical construction of the two languages can also manifest itself into learning problems related to L2 (White, 1991). Moreover, certain grammatical feature also varies between languages, leading to other learning difficulties (Schachter, 1974). Research also indicates that there are similarities between L2 and L1 which might also lead to learning problems under the wrong assumptions of the degree of similarity (Han&Selinker, 1999; J. White, 1998; Zobl, 1980, 1985). L1 has the most influence in a classroom setting when all learning audiences share the same L1 ability and comprehension.

 

In order to understand what cause Russian speakers make mistakes forming past perfect in English it would be a reasonable idea to understand how past perfect is formed in Russian language and how similar and differs it to English?

English and Russian are very different in many important aspects. In particular the grammar systems show significant variations. English has a fairly fixed word order. Meaning is expressed through the addition of words (for example auxiliaries) and movement of words within limited boundaries. Russian, on the other hand, conveys meaning largely through changes in the composition of words (e.g., by inflections or the addition of prefixes and suffixes). Its word order is very fluid. Because of these differences Russians often find learning English a serious challenge.

Russian refers to the Slavic language family, which is also known as (Slavonic languages). It is closely related to other Slav languages such as Polish, Czech and Serbo-Croatian. This group consists of closely related languages of the Slavic peoples and a subgroup of Indo-European languages, have speakers in mostly of Eastern Europe, also in the Balkans, in parts of Central Europe, and in the northern part of Asia. Nevertheless, English refers to the Germanic language family. As these two languages come from two different language families, their alphabets, sounds, vowel patterns, pronunciation, capitalization style, articles, grammar, sentence structure even the writing styles are different. Majority of the Russian students faced problem in pronouncing the English Language as there is a major difference in the initial learning parameter of both the language. Moreover, as it was considered as the key issue of this research, the major differences between these two languages implies in grammar structure (Bing, 1996, p.1).

Russian and English convey meaning through the verb systems in different ways. The Russian system is based in the concept of aspect: actions are either completed or not completed. This is shown by appending affixes to the verb stem. There are few auxiliary verbs. This contrasts with English which has progressive and perfect tense forms, and avoids the need for affixation or inflection by the extensive use of auxiliaries. These differences result in problems in many areas. For example beginning learners often ignore the auxiliary in questions or negatives: How you do that? / I no have it. The present simple is commonly used where the progressive form or perfect is needed: She has a bath now / How long are you in Germany?. In comparison with Russian the modal verb system in English is very complex. Mistakes such as Must you to work on Friday? / I will not can come, etc. are common for Russian learners of English.



When forming past perfect tense in Russian the rules are the same for both perfective and imperfective. In Russian all verbs in infinitive form have ending –òü/t’. In order to use the past tense you simply need to remove the final –òü/t’ of a verb, and add –ë, plus the appropriate final letter reflecting the gender of the subject (masculine, feminine, neutral or plural).

However, forming past sentences in English is completely different. In order to form the past simple tense in English we use in the infinitive form of verb without to and add past participle of all regular verbs end in –ed, for example; (I worked). The perfect is formed in English by adding the auxiliary verb to have and appending the verb's past participle form, for example; (I have worked).

 

In order to illustrate how past perfect is formed in Russian language and how similar and differ it to English I have designed the table below using the same verb (to work), as a sample:

 

To work = pàáîòàòü/ra-bo-tat’

 

Russian Past Tense
Tense forms Imperfective Perfective
He/oí/on Worked=pàáîòàë/rabotal Has/had worked= pàáîòàë/rabotal
She/îíà/ona Worked=pàáîòàëà/rabotali Has/had worked=pàáîòàëà/rabotali
It/îíî/ono Worked=pàáîòàëî/rabotalo Has/had worked=pàáîòàëî/rabotalo
They/îíè/oniy Worked=pàáîòàëè/rabotali Have/had worked=pàáîòàëè/rabotali

 

As we can see past tense in Russian is the same in both types of verbs (imperfective and perfective), whereas English has Past Simple and Perfect as separate tenses. Although students have comparable representations of the L2 system, the amount of interaction between them does not always reflect what Long (1996) and others see as ‘negotiation for meaning’ under which learners are able discover gaps or errors in their experiences of inter-language communication.

The inter-language patterns might be supported by the shared L1 learning through the means of reinforcement, sentence and input support in peer-to-peer interactions. In the area of SLA instruction, there is some literature showing growing interest in contrasting L1/L2 instruction to L2 learners sharing their first language. The newer versions of Contrastive Analysis (or CA) embed contrastive information in the communicative practice environment. This is different than earlier classroom studies on CA that earlier formed the basis of L2 teaching in the traditional structure-based classrooms. In their study, Kupferberg and Olshtain (1996) found two distinct linguistic features that were problematic for learners of English having Hebrew origin. The learners engaged in communicative tasks under the L1/L2 contrastive information scenario performed well (on the basis of grammaticality judgement, recognition and production tasks) in contrast to learners in a control group. In another study by Kupferbeg (1999), investigations were made to check the same phenomenon for pluperfect, and reports indicated similar

In a subsequent study investigating the pluperfect, Kupferbeg (1999) similar benefits were noted for L1/L2 contrastive information with respects to the given in communicative tasks. When a student informs an instructor that his written English is "good" or "rotten" or as they see it, they often take advantage of the opportunity to make inquiries about his written Russian, and response confirms what research shows about the relationship L1 - L2: good Russian (L1) writing is reflected in good English (L2) writing, and English "rotten" indicates a weakness in written Russian. An exceptionally good student whom the researcher asked to reflect on the effect of learning English as a second language on his Russian found that his spoken Russian had improved after she followed her English classes at college. His situation is however different from the majority of college students, in addition to two mandatory English classes, she also took a course in English Canadian literature (45 hours) and, especially, during a translation from Russian to English (for a total of 90 hours, given in the program Arts and Letters) (Bialystok, 1988): "I think mainly what we learned in translation, as Anglicism, false friends, idioms, etc.. All this has allowed me to have my best Russian and, especially, to express myself a little better, thinking about what I say. For example, I often wonder: "Is it an Anglicism?", "Should I not use a better word than this one?" "However, in terms of her written Russian," I do not see how my English classes could have influence," she said. As I mentioned, his exceptional skill level could explain this observation (White, 1998).

Now enrolled in a translation of a Russian-language university in Montreal, she has attended a course dealing only with Anglicisms and another on the difficulties of Russian writing "in which we have seen (or seen only for some) rules basic grammar" (Krashen, 1982). Several students, in the latter course, I had expressed concern about the consequences of their practice their Russian translation to English (that is to say the theme) - those for whom Russian is lower, without doubt - but they soon realized that, instead, they should first understand the meaning of the original text in Russian and that this exercise would require understanding the nuances of meaning, tenses and punctuation of the source language (Hulstijn & Hultstijn, 1984).

The effect of learning English as a second language on the Russian first language depends on the level of competence in both languages. Thus, a very competent student in both states that its syntax is "sometimes distorted": "I realize that sometimes, during a discussion in Russian, I would want to switch to English, since there is an expression in English, a word choice or a way to say that better reflects my thoughts. And it's not always easy to return to the Russian or to find an equivalent (Hu, 1999). "He's right to use the term switcher because it describes the code-switching, is an observable behaviour in all bilingual, which is voluntary, required. In a speaker or a speaker less bilingual, we find instead that code-mixing, it is not conscious and occurs when the speaker or the speaker does not know the word and therefore has no choice. The first behaviour is a kind of creation, while the second result is confusion and more contaminating first language (Hu, 2002).

 


Date: 2016-01-05; view: 919


<== previous page | next page ==>
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW | Developing the ability to regard language as an object of reflection
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.006 sec.)