Volume 57, Issue 4 -

First language (L1) transfer is a common phenomenon in second language (L2) acquisition. However, it will be argued in this article that although there are indeed pervasive influences of learners’ L1 in L2 acquisition, L1 transfer is not everywhere and it can be directional. We compare data from Chang’s (2001b. Discourse effects on the second language acquisition of English and Chinese dative structures. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa PhD dissertation, 2004. Discourse effects on EFL learners’ production of dative constructions. Journal of Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences 33. 145–169.) studies of Chinese-speaking learners of English with data of our study of English-speaking learners of Chinese to examine whether their L2 English discourse and L2 Chinese discourse are equally influenced by their L1 discourse rules. We focus on learners’ answers to wh -questions with a double object construction or a prepositional object construction. The results demonstrate that L1 transfer takes place in Chinese-speaking learners’ L2 English discourse but not in English-speaking learners’ L2 Chinese discourse. This directionality of L1 transfer is accounted for on the basis of computational complexity of linguistic structures involved and on an economical consideration.

English tense presents second/foreign language learners with considerable cognitive challenges and, it will be argued, grammars and textbooks are generally inadequate sources of knowledge of the tense system as system. A modified version of Reichenbach's (1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic . New York: Macmillan) tense model is then presented. The original model has been criticized for its inability to deal with temporal relationships in natural text (e. g. Declerck, R. 1986. From Reichenbach (1947) to Comrie (1985) and beyond. Towards a theory of tense. Lingua 70. 305–364; Declerck, R. 2015. Tense in English. Its structure and use in discourse . London: Routledge; Carroll, M., C. Von Stutterheim & W. Klein. 2003. Two ways of construing complex temporal structures. In F. Lenz (ed.), Deictic Conceptualisation of Time, Space and Person , 97–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins). It is argued here instead that speakers employ the limited choices the system provides creatively, to express a wide range of temporal and interpersonal relations in the real world. The tense - aspect and tense - modality interfaces are briefly discussed. A pedagogical Language Awareness approach (Svalberg, A. M-L. 2007. Language Awareness and Language Learning. Language Teaching 40(4). 287–308) is then illustrated, with the theoretical model as mediating artefact providing visual and metalinguistic scaffolding, allowing learners to investigate tense use in context while drawing on both intuitive understanding and conscious knowledge.

Little is still known about the factors which make L2 speakers self-categorize as bilinguals and the ways in which bilinguals self-perceive and evaluate their language proficiency. This replicational study aims to contribute to a better understanding of this problem by analyzing linguistic and sociobiographical factors determining self-identification as a bilingual, as well as validating the findings of (Sia, Jennifer & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2006. Are you bilingual? BISAL 1. 1–19). While both studies show that self-assessed overall L2 proficiency and self-rated skill proficiencies (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) have an effect on self-classification as a bilingual, discrepancies were identified in sociobiographical variables, which means that further research is necessary in this area. The present study was also extended by obtaining qualitative data concerning participants’ definitions of bilingualism and reasons for self-categorizing as bilinguals or not. It was hypothesized that this type of information would shed new light on the results of the original study, which was confirmed by the analysis of the collected responses. The fractional view of bilingualism (Grosjean, François. 1985. The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6. 467–477), stemming from the monolingual bias (Cook, Vivian. 1997. Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 34. 35–50), seems to be deeply ingrained in the lay perception of the phenomenon, making bilinguals underestimate and see their skills inaccurately. This indicates that the lay view, drawing extensively on the notion of ideal native speaker as the benchmark, and the current academic approach to bilingualism diverge considerably. It is argued that relevant steps ought to be taken to change the status quo.

While a lot of research has been conducted into the effects of different instructional techniques, little is known about how their contribution is moderated by individual (ID) difference variables. The study aimed to fill this gap by investigating the effect of three different types of input-based intervention as a function of the use of grammar learning strategies and beliefs about grammar instruction. The experimental groups received instruction in the use of stylistic inversion in English during three 45-minute segments of regularly-scheduled classes, which took the form of three types on input enhancement, i. e. visual input enhancement, aural input enhancement, and a combination of the two, whereas the control group focused on regular curricular issues. The mastery of the target features was tested on a pretest, an immediate posttest and a delayed posttest which were intended to tap both receptive and productive dimensions of explicit and implicit knowledge. The use of strategies and beliefs was measured by means of the instruments designed by one of the authors. The analysis demonstrated that although all experimental groups outperformed the control group, there were in most cases no statistically significant differences. It also turned out that grammar learning strategies and beliefs were important moderating variables, although their impact could not be fully established.