NATIVE LANGUAGE INFLUENCE ON THE PRODUCTION OF ENG

TheReadingMatrixVol.1,No.2,September2001NATIVELANGUAGEINFLUENCEONTHEPRODUCTIONOFENGLISHSOUNDSBYJAPANESELEARNERSErdoganBadaEmail:[e-mail]____________________Theinfluenceofthenativelanguageinlearningaforeignlanguageiscertainlyindispensable.Thisinfluencecanbeeitherpositiveornegative.Inordertoobservethecircumstancesunderwhichthisinfluenceispositiveand/ornegative,thefollowingstudywasconductedinEnglishphonology.ThestudydescribesthephonologicalanalysisofJapanesespeakerslearningEnglishasaforeignlanguage.Itwascarriedoutataphonemiclevel,andreflectslearners’performanceinthetargetlanguageataspecificstageofinterlanguage.Anon-comprehensivecomparisonbetweentheEnglishandtheJapanesesoundsystemswasmadeandthe“so-called”problemcausingsoundswerediagnosed,andwereemployedintextsandpresentedtolearnersforreading.Resultsobtainedfromthisstudysuggestthatwhilesomesoundswerefoundtoposesomedifficultyofproduction,andthatthedifficultyisattributabletoNL,otherswereproducedwithmuchlessdifficultyduetothealready-presentNLsystemofphonology.Othernon-interlinguallearningstrategieswerealsoobservedtobeemployedbythelearnersinproducingEnglishsounds.____________________IntroductionAimingtoshedlightonEnglishphonemicproductionofJapanesespeakersofEnglish,thisstudydrawsitstheoreticalrootsfromcontrastiveanalysisandtheinterferencetheory.Thus,beforeweproceedwiththeactualstudyitself,wewouldliketoprovideaconciseintroductiontothesetwoapproachestowardsFLlearners’languageoutput.Throughoutthetwentyyearsofitsinfluenceonthefieldofappliedlinguistics,contrastiveanalysishasprovedtobeoneofthemostimportantstudiesevermadeindescribingsystemsoflanguages.TwomainversionsofCAhaveassertedthemselvesinthefieldofforeign-languageteaching.ThetwoversionsarebasedontheassumptionsofL1interference1.Thestrongversion(apriori)claimstohavethepowertopredictlearners'errors,whiletheweakversion(expostfacto)diagnoseserrors.AsL1interferenceiscentralinbothversions,thelearner'snativelanguageisconsideredtobeanobstacleduringthelearningprocess.Itisthelearner'snativelanguagethatimpedesorfacilitateslearning;correspondingpointsareeasytolearn,andthustheyoffernoproblems,whilecontrastsleadtoimportantproblems.OnlywhenlinguistictransferfromL1toL2isminimized,oreradicated,canlearningofaforeignlanguagebepossible.Lado(1957)claimsthatthegrammaticalstructureofthenativelanguagetendstobetransferredtotheforeignlanguage,andforhimhereliesthemajorsourceofproblemsinstudyandacquisitionoftheforeignlanguage.Thosestructuresthataredifferentwillbedifficult....inthecomparisonbetweenthenativeandforeignlanguageliesthekeytoeaseordifficultyinforeignlanguagelearning.Fries(1945),whoisconsideredtobeoneofthemostauthoritativescholarsincontrastivelinguisticsstudies,wrotethatthemosteffectivematerialsarethosethatarebaseduponascientificdescriptionofthelanguagetobelearned,carefullycomparedwithaparalleldescriptionofthenativelanguageofthelearner.Fromwhatweunderstandintheabovestatements,contrastiveanalysisproponentsbelievethatthroughdescriptionofbothsystemsofthelanguages(L1andL2),theareasthatmighteaselearningand/orcausedifficultytothelearnerwouldberevealed,andaschedulepreparedaccordinglywouldprovidetheclassroomteacherwithreadymaterialtomakeuseofintheclassroom.Dulay,Burt,andKrashen(1982:97-98),resistingcontrastiveanalysis-basedmaterial,presenttheresultofavailableempiricaldatathataddresstheCAhypothesis:1.InneitherchildnoradultL2performancedothegrammaticalerrorsreflectthelearner'sL1.2.L2learnersmakemanyerrorsofgrammarthatarecomparableinboththeL1andL2errorsthatshouldnotbemadeifpositivetransferwereoperating.3.L2learners'judgementsofthegrammaticalcorrectnessofL2sentencesaremorerelatedtoL2sentencetypethantotheirownL1structure.4.PhonologicalerrorsexhibitmoreL1influencethandogrammaticalerrors,althoughasubstantialnumberoftheL2phonologicalerrorschildrenmakearesimilartothosemadebymonolingualfirstlanguagelearners,andonlyasmallportionofphonologicalerrorsinreadingaretraceabletothelearner'sL1.TheaboveresultsmaydemonstratethatCAnotonlyfallsshortinpredictinglearners'errors,butalsomaymisleadteachersintoadoptingmaterialregardlessofthelearners'orderingofacquisitionoftheforeignlanguage.Butstill,contrastiveanalysismayhaveagreatdealtocontribute,andthiscontributionisnottobeignored.Sajavaara(1981)statesthattheprinciplesconstitutingcontrastiveanalysishavegreatlychanged,anditisthischangethatledtocriticismsmadeaboutcontrastiveanalysis:...thetheoreticalobjectiveswerealmostentirelyforgotteninthewakeofWeinreich's(1953)andLado's(1957)work,andafterwards,CAtendedtoconcentrateonpracticalstudiesofteachingtheforeignlanguage,whichmaylaterbecalledthestrongversionofCA,andmaybeconsideredasoneoftheprimarycausesofthecontroversywhichensuedinthe1960's.Althoughculturalinteractionandculturaltransfer(otherthanthepsychologicalinfluenceofoldhabitsonL2:interference)wastheotherprincipalobjectiveofCA,itsproponentshavegreatlyignoredsuch,andmainlyconcentratedon`interference'only.Eitherwithitsverylimitedmeaning(asinthetransferofnative-languagerulestosecondlanguage)orbroadmeaning(bi