论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Language transfer has always been an essential part in SLA research. As one of the most important constraints， markedness theory has gained much more attention these days. Researchers have made various studies on markdness from different perspectives， among which Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar （UG） and Eckman’s Markedness Differential Hypothesis （MDH） are the most influential ones. This thesis aims to make a review of previous studies in order to improve readers’ understanding of L1 transfer from the perspective of markdness theory.
【Key words】language transfer； markedness； SLA； UG； MDH
1. Language transfer
In the process of studying SLA， researchers have paid strong attention to the influence that native language has exerted on it. Language transfer can be divided into positive transfer and negative transfer. Positive transfer makes learning easier， and may occur when both native language and target language have the same form. On the contrary， when the rules in native language are different from those in target language， negative transfer would occur.
2. Markedness theory
2.1 Markedness and UG
Chomsky studies markedness from the perspective of UG. UG distinguishes the rules of a language that are core and periphery. Core rules are similar to language universality which reflects the common characteristics of human languages. Thus core rules are unmarked. Periphery rules have the distinct characteristics of some languages which are not governed by universal principles. Thus periphery rules are marked. Compared to marked forms， it is much easier to acquire unmarked forms.
2.2 Markedness Differential Hypothesis （MDH）
Eckman combined Greenberg’s Typological Markedness （TM） with CAH， and came up with the idea of MDH. Those areas of difficulty that a second language learner will have can be predicted on the basis of a comparison of the native language （NL） and the target language （TL） such that：
a. those areas of the TL that are different from the NL and are relatively more marked than in the NL will be difficult；
b. the degree of difficulty associated with those aspects of the TL that are different and more marked than in the NL corresponds to the relative degree of markedness associated with those aspects；
c. those areas of the TL that are different from the NL but are not relatively more marked than the NL will not be difficult. （Eckman， 1977）
3. Markedness and L1 transfer 1） Learners will transfer unmarked forms when the corresponding TL form is marked.
James （1998） got a conclusion from the errors that English people made when they were studying their second language， Portuguese， that the unmarked forms in the NL transferred. English sentences must have subjects while Portuguese sentences have no subjects. According to TM， having subjects in English sentences is the unmarked grammar rule and having no subjects in Portuguese sentences is the marked grammar rule. As a result， English people intend to add subjects when they learn Portuguese. In other words， the unmarked form in NL has transferred.
Liao （1998） noted that the unmarked forms in NL are possibly transferred when the corresponding TL forms are marked. In English， the basic sentence pattern is SVO. This kind of sentence pattern is the most common one and easy to learn， thus it is unmarked. However， OSV pattern occurs in Chinese， which is less common and hard to learn. Thus this sentence pattern is marked. English people often find it very difficult to understand OSV pattern. Under this circumstance， the English learners use the unmarked form， SVO pattern in English， to explain what they learn.
2） Learners will resist transferring marked forms， especially when the corresponding TL form is marked.
Zobl （1984） made an investment on French learners of English and compared the use of English sentence structure “How many…” with French sentence structure “Combien…”which are of the same meaning. In French， it is grammatically correct to put the noun phrase after “combien” at the end of the sentence. For example：
a. Combien d’oranges voulez-vous？
b. Combien voulez-vous d’oranges？
Zobl believes that the French structure “Combien…” is marked with its feature of extraction while the English structure “How many…” is unmarked. According to Zobl’s study， the French learners of English tend to use non-extraction form. As a result， the unmarked form in NL is more likely to transfer compared to the marked form in SLA.
4. Conclusion
Through the study of markedness， we know that some differences between NL and TL will not lead to difficulties in SLA. This thesis provides a brief review of the markedness theory from the perspective of UG and the MDH. Then it explains the influence that markedness has on L1 transfer in SLA. Markedness theory gives a more reasonable explanation for L1 transfer.
References：
[1]Eckman，F.Markedness and the Contrastive Ana1ysis Hypothesis[J].Language Learning.1977（27）.
[2]Greenberg，J.Language Universals[M].The Hague：Mouton.1966.
【Key words】language transfer； markedness； SLA； UG； MDH
1. Language transfer
In the process of studying SLA， researchers have paid strong attention to the influence that native language has exerted on it. Language transfer can be divided into positive transfer and negative transfer. Positive transfer makes learning easier， and may occur when both native language and target language have the same form. On the contrary， when the rules in native language are different from those in target language， negative transfer would occur.
2. Markedness theory
2.1 Markedness and UG
Chomsky studies markedness from the perspective of UG. UG distinguishes the rules of a language that are core and periphery. Core rules are similar to language universality which reflects the common characteristics of human languages. Thus core rules are unmarked. Periphery rules have the distinct characteristics of some languages which are not governed by universal principles. Thus periphery rules are marked. Compared to marked forms， it is much easier to acquire unmarked forms.
2.2 Markedness Differential Hypothesis （MDH）
Eckman combined Greenberg’s Typological Markedness （TM） with CAH， and came up with the idea of MDH. Those areas of difficulty that a second language learner will have can be predicted on the basis of a comparison of the native language （NL） and the target language （TL） such that：
a. those areas of the TL that are different from the NL and are relatively more marked than in the NL will be difficult；
b. the degree of difficulty associated with those aspects of the TL that are different and more marked than in the NL corresponds to the relative degree of markedness associated with those aspects；
c. those areas of the TL that are different from the NL but are not relatively more marked than the NL will not be difficult. （Eckman， 1977）
3. Markedness and L1 transfer 1） Learners will transfer unmarked forms when the corresponding TL form is marked.
James （1998） got a conclusion from the errors that English people made when they were studying their second language， Portuguese， that the unmarked forms in the NL transferred. English sentences must have subjects while Portuguese sentences have no subjects. According to TM， having subjects in English sentences is the unmarked grammar rule and having no subjects in Portuguese sentences is the marked grammar rule. As a result， English people intend to add subjects when they learn Portuguese. In other words， the unmarked form in NL has transferred.
Liao （1998） noted that the unmarked forms in NL are possibly transferred when the corresponding TL forms are marked. In English， the basic sentence pattern is SVO. This kind of sentence pattern is the most common one and easy to learn， thus it is unmarked. However， OSV pattern occurs in Chinese， which is less common and hard to learn. Thus this sentence pattern is marked. English people often find it very difficult to understand OSV pattern. Under this circumstance， the English learners use the unmarked form， SVO pattern in English， to explain what they learn.
2） Learners will resist transferring marked forms， especially when the corresponding TL form is marked.
Zobl （1984） made an investment on French learners of English and compared the use of English sentence structure “How many…” with French sentence structure “Combien…”which are of the same meaning. In French， it is grammatically correct to put the noun phrase after “combien” at the end of the sentence. For example：
a. Combien d’oranges voulez-vous？
b. Combien voulez-vous d’oranges？
Zobl believes that the French structure “Combien…” is marked with its feature of extraction while the English structure “How many…” is unmarked. According to Zobl’s study， the French learners of English tend to use non-extraction form. As a result， the unmarked form in NL is more likely to transfer compared to the marked form in SLA.
4. Conclusion
Through the study of markedness， we know that some differences between NL and TL will not lead to difficulties in SLA. This thesis provides a brief review of the markedness theory from the perspective of UG and the MDH. Then it explains the influence that markedness has on L1 transfer in SLA. Markedness theory gives a more reasonable explanation for L1 transfer.
References：
[1]Eckman，F.Markedness and the Contrastive Ana1ysis Hypothesis[J].Language Learning.1977（27）.
[2]Greenberg，J.Language Universals[M].The Hague：Mouton.1966.