Victorita Trif, University of Bucharest
Cross linguistic influence in foreign language learning. The case of
University of Bucharest
Abstract
This paper explores several assumptions concerning the image of First Language Acquisition and
Second Language Acquisition in a longitudinal study with several objectives: to discover students'
view about FLA and SLA, to examine their perceptions concerning the learning of foreign language
and to investigate the students’ motivation regarding learning foreign languages. The applied part of
the research consists in three sections: part I – personal dates, part II – survey of factors involved in
learning of another language, part III – the foreign language's motivation. As similar surveys in
other countries the most important conclusions of our pilot questionnaire are the curiosity to learn;
well prepared and smart teachers, well prepared and smart students; cross cultural borders, cross
linguistic influences in learning language (Can be compared 'pattern by pattern' as contrastive
linguistics propose?). The data collected comprised statistical measurement (SPSS), interviews
(with bilingual and non-bilingual students in French and Romances Studies), observations (of
students' cognitive behavioral) and the findings cover problem as learning foreign language (FLA
and SLA), motivations, atypical responses. This study has show several conclusions, social remarks
and limits but the most important question rest: Has become philosophy for FLA and SLA a kind of
ideology?
This paper is about First and Second Language Acquisition in context of -formal and informalhigher education pedagogical reflections and our purpose is to explore several assumptions
concerning the image of the field:
1. Is the philosophy of the researcher reflected in theoretical approaches on First and Second
Language Acquisition or do we witness the absence of a coherent vision in the transfer of
many questions from philosophy to language? (Perhaps the shift from philosophy of science
or from applied linguistics to First and Second Language Acquisition is not the best solution
for this level of knowledge development)
2. Are there any contradictions between basics of First and Second Language Acquisition and
the results of measurement? (For example: the data collected on neurological studies and
interpretations and reinterpretations of First and Second Language Acquisition)
3. What is the point of reference concerning the development and acquisition of the language?
(To accomplish cultural, political or social acts is necessary to accept critical theory, data,
applications or mind discovery)
4. What is the significance of academic changes in First Language Acquisition and the Second
Language Acquisition for the industry in this field and for the person wanting to study foreign
language? Why '1+1' does not equal '2' in this case?
5. Has philosophy for First Language Acquisition and for Second Language Acquisition
became a kind of ideology? (In this case we are speaking about language as power, not about
language as meaning)
6. Are predictions in First and Second Language Acquisition founded on empirical research?
(Sometimes they are based only on atypical cases)
7. In such conditions it is no doubt about changing direction guidelines in sense of establishing
the aims for re-designing the First and Second Language Acquisition. To locate our argument
in the critical debate and to clarify the terms of the discussion we begin: to reconstruct an
epistemological view of cross linguistic influence in foreign language acquisition; to reflect on
ways if improving actual practices of raising children bilingually; to assess and to create new
tools for student teachers' diagnosis of their own learning; to disrupt prejudices against mental
representation of the word;
to outline several relevant scientific theories and the
corresponding models underpinning pedagogical practice; to make a selection of important
and relevant studies and research tools to be used in foreign language teaching and learning
(“spontaneous” and “guided”, “introspective” and “retrospective”).
This paper has been concerned with arguments: to translate the concepts of First Language
Acquisition and Second Language Acquisition into indicators; to correlate qualitative and
quantitative approaches; to reveal the significance of findings and establish causation as
appropriate; to use reflective descriptions based on interpretative data; to challenge current
academic/theoretic controversies (the theoretic foundation of each study introduces a 'philosophical
field of ideas about language' – Karin Aronsson);to debate the judicial argument concerning
language rights ('the minorities achieve rights, the majority needs to have their rights affirmed,
whereas the guiding principle of human rights law is that is oppressed that need protection ' -David
Crystal).
Our paper up to this point has emphasized several limitations of the research in First and Second
Language Acquisition. We shall now devote some time to reconsidering the original hypotheses and
to clarify their meaning: preliminary conceptualisation; pre – thesis; anti-thesis; the enunciation of a
causal relationship in a way that allows empirical checking; a relationship between variables, but
the relationship is not certain, it is probable; '....a dialogue....between what might be true and what is
in fact the case' (Medawar 1972:22)
1. In the literature there are some objections to stating hypotheses in the first place:'... the
formulations of hypothesis is irrelevant to – and impossible for – many fact-collecting
enquiries ' (Moser and Kalton 1971:4)
2. 'We should by all means formulate hypothesis as predicted answers to research questions,
and test them. If not, we can proceed simply with research questions. After all, there is no
logical difference between research questions and research hypothesis, when it comes to
their implications in design, data collection and data analysis.' (Punch 1998:40)
Our approach draws extensively on the role of hypothesis as persuasive overview. At this stage in
our argument, it is appropriate to note the following comments:
- In First and Second Language Acquisition the hypothesis is a probabilistic wording
regarding the essence, interrelations (conditions) and the causal balance of phenomena,
processes and facts.
- We don't formulate an 'axiom' or ‘principle’.
-Sometimes is difficult to formulate only one category of assumptions because the difference
between two types of hypotheses – explicit vs. implicit (recognized in the objectives) – in the
social and human sciences is not always clear.
-We assume that the great part of studies on First Language Acquisition and Second
Language Acquisition establish more 'a priori' hypotheses (academic constructions),
quantitative rather than 'a posteriori' hypotheses (as result of collecting data and
documentation, as result of testing). Theoretical hypotheses can be indirect tested and may
enable scientific “revolutions”, but working hypotheses and empirical hypotheses are a
condition for the evolution of “normal” science. At the same time the factors involved in the
methodological and metaphysical constraints around hypothesis construction are diverse and
complex: the quantitative or qualitative approach, the growth of science, the ethos of the
researcher, the origins of the hypothesis (generated from theory, from direct science or from
analogy), or the types of suppositions (for the uniformity of cases, for empirical correlations).
Rethinking the specificity of assumptions in First and Second Language Acquisition is thus a
condition for research coherence.
This is not the only problem to identify and to reconstruct from the part of hypothesis that is
the reason to constructing a technical offensive (What is problematic in the hypotheses of First and
Second Language Acquisition?) that contribute to the contradictory character of research
components. From a sociological point of view we suggest a real lesson to be learned from the
investigation:
- Research in the field often uses ‘gentle' hypotheses that don't take into account the strengths
and weaknesses, the limitations and the suggestions of existent studies.
-The problem of the dependence of the hypothesis on the open-ended and generally-accepted
theory is an important one.
-Because 'the distinction between <competence> and <performance> it is not accepted by all
SLA researchers' (Ellis 1996: 690), the gap between “real” problems of the language and the
social construction of the reality grows bigger. Our classifications of theories and hypotheses
and of others, our perceptions of the language and others’ perception, rest outside
epistemology. In fact the question 'What is it that our brain receives?' .
-Some ideas with hypothetical 'pretension' are only a body of language that can be described
as an ideology; the authors don't do experimental research and don't refine the theoretical
foundations of Applied Linguistics, but only rename existent patterns, as result of polite
acceptance of pluralism in science. Beyond the fashion adopted in current studies we note that
the most cited studies are from the early '70 and '80; in our opinion the same conclusion is
valid in the case of the experimental studies of First Language Acquisition and Second
Language Acquisition. As an example, we argue that the philosophical role and the
controversies in FLA and SLA should not be ignored, although many of the actual
investigations undertaken in recent years prove a poor relationship between practice and
theory. Presumably something is problematic within the styles of the papers and books.
We consider that our hypotheses must evidence an intellectually flexible, logical sequence and
thinking with argument and counter – argument. In disagreement with some researchers in the field,
we found the following ideas useful:
-'Biology in Philosophy? Why not?' (Popper)
-'The brain an organ - hypothesis or a hypothesis – organ?'(Popper)
-In the spirit of the poet Novalis, the hypothesis in our research is a 'formal agreement', a
'trawl' for fishing qualitative and quantitative data, for using our intuition and predictive
dimensions of the supposition, to describe contrastive analysis and to promote critique.
The dimensions of the research are: psychological, social, sociological, neurological but it is
difficult to establish a hierarchical structure of these dimensions or to construct an ideal
hierarchy.
This research objectives and outcomes impose:
-To discover students' view about First Language Acquisition and Second Language
Acquisition.
-To examine their perceptions concerning the learning of foreign languages.
-To establish a report between independent variable and dependent variable.
-To investigate the students' comments regarding their motivation of learning foreign
languages.
After the descriptive part of the research (what?) we are presenting the inferential statistic
part (why?) in sense to draw implications from the special category of target - case study of
Romanian students at the University of Bucharest. The applied part of this paper consist of three
sections: part I-personal data, part II- survey of factors involved in learning of another language,
compared to mother tongue, part III-the foreign language learners' motivation. As in similar surveys
in other countries, the most important conclusions of our pilot questionnaire are: the curiosity to
learn; well prepared and smart teachers, well prepared and smart students; cross cultural borders,
cross linguistic influences in learning language (Can languages be compared 'pattern by pattern' as
contrastive linguistics proposes?).
In what follows, we show the results and findings to investigate the consequences. The data
collected consist of three categories of results: statistical measurement (SPSS), interviews (with
bilingual students and 12-16 students in French and Romances Studies),observations (of cognitive
behaviour of students).
The findings cover learning of foreign language (First Language
Acquisition and Second Language Acquisition), motivations, atypical responses, bilingual problem
(as result of interviews).
In the interplay between the research conclusions and social remarks our paper has shown that:
- The approach to learning is essential: the great part of the students like to work managed by
teachers, while others prefer to work in foreign languages independently.
-The cultural background of students’ influences their perception about the role of the teacher
in learning foreign languages; students prefer a 'communicative learning style' and an
'analytical learning style' and like to use different strategies: social strategies, metacognitive
strategies and compensation strategies. The teachers need to improve their teaching strategies.
–
In Upper Secondary schools the first or second language acquisition was more successful
when: interacting with others in English (37); teaching in a 'pleasant manner' (42); using
debating, free discussions (34) and resources (6); good lesson' organization / planning (9);
teachers took into account that the language was assimilated / learned different by their 30
students (35); interest , motivation creativity and implication of the teachers(38, 39 10, 2);
watching TV and movies in foreign languages (41, 47); teachers pay more attention to their job
(54); focus is 'more on practice rather theory' (37); neutral responses: 'I studied what I wanted'
(36).
–
In lower secondary and primary school language acquisition was successful when: the foreign
language was taught by the same teacher (sometimes the teacher ‘ changed every year or even
every semester') (7,40, 42,13): the students need the continuity in the programme; learning the
foreign language 'early' in the childhood (44); understanding the utility of learning a foreign
language (45); reading books in languages learned (47); much more time for studying foreign
languages (4,52, 51); communication with teachers (55).
Comparing the findings of this research with the 'Learning strategies checklists'
(Willing 1988: 8-9) we argue that the perception of Romanian students of learning foreign
languages is similar. From all the 25 items of the checklist the following were consistent for
the target population investigated in the study reported here:
„2. When listening or reading, directing attention to a specific feature (e.g. a syntax structure:
a verb tense, discourse elements, main ideas; etc.) thus, 'selective focusing'”
„5. Listening and watching (and deriving meaning from) observed situations, over-heard
conversations, etc.”
„7. Interacting with a native speaker, utilizing learning techniques (e. g. asking for repetition,
clarification, correction; paraphrasing and asking if that is accurate etc.)”
„10. Focusing on understanding meanings socio-culturally: customs, expectations,
interpretations, cues, etc.”
Our explanation of the statistics is that singly, these instances of learning strategies do not
prove much but taken together, however, they speak about the cultural dimension of teaching
and learning foreign languages and invite researchers to reflect on the best assessment
philosophy in First and Second Language Acquisition.
To conclude:
1 Our research presents a new perspective about the epistemology worried face to First and Second
Language Acquisition: the linguistic diversity can not be constrained into a ideology as a distinct
field of study.
2 The cultural diversity, the indigenous vs. non-indigenous languages, the socioeconomic and
political emancipation, learning of FLA and SLA as a way to eliminating material poverty, or to
improving tourism industry sets new trends for the researchers.
3 Unfortunately for the moment the neurobiological basis of language is controversial one, the
theories of language acquisition have not a significant contribution to the progress of the studies and
the revitalisation of mental space in case of FLA and SLA from a pedagogical perspective is null.
How could I use the brain for multilingualism? Which area of the brain map is involved in FLA and
which is working in SLA? What are neurological and psychological costs in case of bilingualism?
Our brain contains 11-16 million neurons but we are using in learning process only a few cells.
What it is happening with the rest of neurons in FLA and SLA? Perhaps the assumption 'The mind
is essentially a function of the brain: the brain is the organ; the mind is the pattern of activity within
it. Understanding learning will mean understanding the process of making minds' (Kelly 2008: 142)
is not valid in this area of FLA and SLA. We consider that the thinking is prefiguring the language.
Or the wording of Stephen D. Krashen (1988: 76) 'There is also no necessary relationship between
cerebral dominance and second language ability' may be only a schema theory because of the
cortical structure of language. The lateralization is involved in mind or we have one mind and two
hemispheres but in the case of language there is probably a predisposition for both right and left
hemisphere and we have two minds – left mind and right mind but we have not a negotiated map of
cerebral exchanges between left and right. If this is a valid assumption perhaps the language
learning in First and Second Language Acquisition is variable first of all because of the
predisposition of language (left or right) and secondly from the part of characteristics of mother
tongue and of foreign languages.
We set an alarm concerning the moral hazard of speculations on the interpretations of neurological
functions of two hemispheres and neurological correlates of language acquisition in case of First
and Second Language Acquisition: [„Joseph Bogen has speculated that the two sides of the brain
utilize two different cognitive modes, one 'propositional' (analytic, digital) and one 'appositional'
(analogical, synthetic).] (Krashen 1988:71).
4The conceptual framework is similarly to researchers linking mental map principles and in this
case we would show clearly the possible fashion in First and Second Language Acquisition. Ours
research questions are modelling for building and using data management system and with aims to
generate feed back and conclusions for human behaviour involved in First and Second Language
Acquisition and for drawing implications for theories, policies, and practices. Other common
arguments (linguistics, philosophy, psychology) are correspondingly to our interests and
experiences in instrumentation plan and processing data and the originality of the research is our
purpose to explore and to establish the connections of the hypotheses content in the area of First and
Second Language Acquisition.
5The framework of designing the hypotheses in First and Second Language Acquisition differ from
the techniques used similarly because the brain and the mind, the learning, the logical thinking are
not often comparable to the routinized mechanisms of thinking about research. „What exactly is a
word?” (Aitchison 1997: 34) What is the mental representation of the word in First Language
Acquisition? In Second Language Acquisition we can explore the learning of the same word in the
same mental representation or it is necessary to add new ingredients to the mental lexicon because
of the particularities of cortex map processing? Firstly the danger of confuse coding is enormous
and might be possible to reconsider the research topic.....”since we cannot actually look into the
head and see the connections we hypothesize” (Aitchison, pp.36).
Secondly from the part of the research strategy in case of analysing qualitative and quantitative data
we call attention concerning the meanings of members and meanings of numbers and meanings of
words and the importance of re-examining the conclusions of the research in face to disseminating
data in First and Second Language Acquisition: „However, the distinction between words and
numbers is not as precise as it might appear to be at the first sight. Both offer representations of
what we as individuals perceive of as our 'reality'” (Blaxter, Hughes, and Tight 2003: 199).Written
words, spoken words, recognized words, measured words, assessed words are broadly interpreted
without careful and we are not able to interrogate its authentic features within the research with its
effect - the improvisation and the risk to promote not reflexive critique, dialectical critique or plural
structure of the research material but the researcher promote contradictions from the part of his own
values.
The limitations of the research are presented in the part of hypotheses recommendations and error
correction supposedly provides new ideas about what is know and what is not know in the field
about hypotheses, about the report demand between answer and question, about the innocence rule
of the research and the rule of skepticism. The correction of the hypotheses errors as a consequence
of this paper might be a result of our reflexive investigation and the statement of the hypotheses
require re-examining the theories and practices difficulties in case of the First and Second Language
Acquisition.
References
1.Aitchison, J., 1997, Words in the mind. An introduction to the mental lexicon (second edition),
Blackwell, Oxford.
2.Baylor, J., Smith, S., 2006, The Globalization of world politics (third edition) An introduction to
international relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
3.Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., Tight, M., 2003, How to research (second edition), Open University
Press, Maidenhead.
4.Buzan, T.,2003, Brain child. Smart parents, smart kids, Thorson -Harper Collins Publishers
Ltd.,London.
5.Crystal, D., 1997, English as a global language, Cambridge University Press.
6.Davies, A., Elder, C., 2006, The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Blackwell, Oxford.
7.Ellis, R., 1996, The study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, London and
New York.
8.Hasley, A. H., Lauder, H., Brown, P.,and Stuart Wells, A., 2003, Education. Culture, economy and
society, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
9.Kelly, P., 2008, Making Minds, Routledge, London and New York.
10. Krashen, S., 1988, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Prentice Hall,
New York.
11.Krashen, S., 1998, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning', Prentice Hall,
New York.
12.Richards, J., Lockart, 1994, Reflective teaching in Second Language Classroom, Cambridge
University Press.
13.Trif, V., 2007, Staff teaching evaluation in romanian academic profession. General aspects,
University of Bucharest Publishment, Bucharest.
13.Willing, K., 1988, Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education, Adelaide:Australia: National
Curriculum Resource Centre.