Terence Odlin
4. IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMPARISON
Before considering the implications, it will help to highlight certain points of the comparison made so far. Some key findings of Arabski’s error analysis are consistent with the findings of JARVIS and ODLIN (2000). Both studies offer evidence for the influence of the L1 on prepositions in the English interlanguage, and both studies likewise indicate that the semantic information of case endings in the L1 can influence the choice of IL prepositions. More-over, both studies suggest that the simplification seen in the absence of a prepo-sition required in the target language owes something to the typological contrast between the L1 and L2. There are also some noteworthy differences between the two studies. Arabski’s explicitly focused on errors whereas Jarvis and Odlin looked at all uses of IL spatial references by Finns and Swedes in particular discourse contexts. While many of the spatial references did show problems of form or meaning, there was also considerable positive transfer, i.e., facilitating effects of the L1 on targetlike choices in the IL English of the film narratives.
Thus, for instance, the Swedes (unlike the Finns) never produced zero preposi-tions, and this contrast with the Finns can be explained by the typological simi-larity between Swedish and English in that prepositions are a major part of the spatial reference system of both languages. Another difference between the Arabski study and that of Jarvis and Odlin concerns the applicability of
pri-mary counterparts. Arabski’s method of having the same students write essays in their L1 and L2 allowed for inferences to be made about the normal corre-spondences constructed between Polish and English prepositions. In the Jarvis and Odlin study, the L1 narrations in Finnish and Swedish were not written by the same groups writing in English; moreover, the marginal role of prepositions in Finnish makes the search for primary counterparts usually a matter of corre-spondences between L1 case inflections and L2 prepositions. While primary counterparts cannot be ruled out in the Finnish context, the study discussed here suggests that learners vary in the L2 preposition they favor even when a particular case (such as the illative in the paddy wagon scene) is the preferred choice of the L1 writers.
As noted in section 2. Arabski sees a similar problem in what he calls “con-structions” as in ‘They cannot devote their children as much time as necessary’
(devote as much time as is necessary to their children). He cites a close Polish parallel in the sentence Nie mogą poświęcić swoim dzieciom tyle czasu, ile potrzeba. The word order of the Polish is reflected in the English version, but the latter does not show any overt case marking whereas the Polish swoim dzieciom (‘their children’) is marked for dative case. Although the rich inflec-tional system of Polish makes possible many word order permutations, a Polish word order similar to the target English order (‘devote as much time as is ne-cessary to their children’ — poświęcić tyle czasu, ile trzeba, swoim dzieciom) would seem awkward or emphatic to many Poles according to Agnieszka Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (p.c.), because of factors involving syntactic weight.
Thus a problem of negative transfer arises, since the English verb devote does not show the word order option of so-called dative movement as seen in verbs such as give (thus, give their children time, give time to their children). In con-trast, the verb poświęcić takes a dative (or an accusative) NP that normally comes before any other NP as long as it is the shorter of the two units. The in-terdependence of L1 Polish word order and case information thus leads to a global construction which proves to be transferable though not targetlike.
While the transfer here is clearly negative, what is especially interesting is the interdependence of L1 structures resulting in the IL English sentence.
Arabski’s use of “construction” with such examples can be seen as well ahead of its time. Recent approaches to cognitive linguistics and SLA have foregrounded the notion of form-function pairings that are often learned as chunks whether at the sentence level or below the sentence level, and the theo-retical term most often applied to such units is construction (e.g., ROBINSON and ELLIS, 2008). Considerable evidence indicates that learning constructions con-stitutes a central task of child language acquisition, and increasing evidence points in a similar direction in SLA, some of the evidence coming from work on transfer (cf. GOLDBERG and CASENHISER, 2008; GRIES and WULFF, 2005;
ODLIN, 2008). What makes the constructionist approach especially appealing is
On the transferability of cases, prepositions, and constructions 169
its emphasis on the interdependence of structures. Thus while prepositions may be transferable (as the discussions in 2. and 3. suggest) and likewise the seman-tic information in case inflections, the structures interact not only with each other but also with ones such as word order as discussed in this section. What the precise nature of such interactions is remains as a research question that will require much investigation. It does seem likely that further cognitivist re-search will pursue answers, especially since they can help clarify other issues such as the relation of concepts, meanings, and ultimate attainment in a new language (ODLIN, 2008). It also seems highly possible that the relevance of the ideas of a founder of cognitive psychology, Jean Piaget, to transfer and SLA will get closer attention as well. If so, Arabski’s invocation of Piagetian ideas will also be seen as cogently ahead of its time.
I would like to thank Agnieszka Otwinowska-Kasztelanic and Scott Jarvis for their very helpful comments on the paper.
REFERENCES
ARABSKI J. (1979): Errors as Indications of the Development of Interlanguage. Ka-towice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
GOLDBERG A. and CASENHISER D. (2008): “Construction learning and second language acquisition”. In: ROBINSONP. and ELLISN. (eds.): Handbook of Cognitive Linguis-tics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge, 197—215.
GRIESS. and WULFFS. (2005): “Do foreign language learners also have constructions?”
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 182—200.
JARVISS. (1998): Conceptual Transfer in the Interlanguage Lexicon. Bloomington: Indi-ana University Linguistics Club.
JARVIS S. and ODLIN T. (2000): “Morphological type, spatial reference and language transfer”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22 (4): 535—556.
ODLINT. (1989): Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ODLIN T. (2008): “Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions”. In: ROBINSON P. and ELLISN. (eds.): Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisi-tion. New York: Routledge, 306—340.
ROBINSONP. and ELLISN. (eds.) (2008): Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.