THE STUDY OF LEARNERS’ APPROXIMATIVE SYSTEMS

I. INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, second language acquisition can refer to the scientific study of

the second-language learning process. It means that second language acquisition

refers to what the learner does, it does not refer to what teachers 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

however, the question of second language acquisition could be viewed as the

juxtaposition of two systems.

Lado (1957) tended to emphasize points of contrast between two language

systems. Contrastive analysis subsequently arose as a field of research. To be sure,

contrast between systems was understood not to be only factor involved in second

language learning.

1

According to Corder (1967) linguists study the process of language

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

phonological categories. Errors which did not fit systematically into the 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

grammar of his sentences in the new language. It is reflected in a growing

terminology for a field of research which deals with the learner’s attempts to

internalize the grammar of the language he is learning. This terminology includes

error analysis, idiosyncratic dialects, interlanguage, approximative systems,

transitional competence, l’etat de dialecte.

The small amount of research and speculation about learners’ approximative

systems mention seven factors that may influence and characterize the second

language learner systems:

1. Language transfer.

Sentences in the target language my exhibit interferences from the

mother tongue. Interference analysis tends to be from the deviant sentence back

to the mother tongue, while contrastive analysis predicts errors by comparing

the linguistic 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

factors is more understood, it is not possible to evaluate the amount of

systematic interference due to language transfer alone.

2

2. Intralingual Interferences.

Richards (1970) proposed intralingual interferences refer to items

produced by the learner which reflect not the structure of the mother tongue,

but generalizations based on partial exposure to the target language.

Furthermore, he found systematic intralingual errors to involve

overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incompete 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,

subjects sometimes adopted a consistent word order diffferent from either

Russian or English. In line with this experiment, Brudhiprabha (1972) on his

studies of Thai Learner of English, many intralingual errors represent 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.

Sociolinguistics situation leads to inclusion of the general motivational

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

language learning. According to Ferguson (1971) the phenomenon of

simplification in some language contact situations, represented by the absence

of the copula, reduction of morphological and inflectional system, 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 is operating. Sampson (1971) suggested that varying situations evoke

different kinds of errors in varying quantities when children are trying to use

the target language.

4. Modality.

The learner’s language may vary according to the modality of exposure

to the target language and the modality of production. Vildomec (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

primary language acquisition, postulated to be biologically determined,

beginning when the child starts to walk and continuing until puberty.

In some ways adults are better prepared for language learning 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 tongue development is primarily in terms of vocabulary. The

adult’s strategies of language learning may be more vocabulary oriented than

syntactic.

6. Successions of Approximative Systems.

4

It concerns the lack stability of the learner’s approximative 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 language learners systems have dealt with

the learner’s production rather than his comprehension of language, the

question also arises as to whether the grammar by which the learner

understands speech is the same as that by which he produces speech.

According to Troike (1969) assuming the learner hears and understands

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.

Evidence from earlier studies indicates that many phonological

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 for man of certain phonological,

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 Second language learning

learning of the mother tongue is the

part of the whole maturational

process of the child

Learning a second language

normally begins only after the

maturational 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