Ringbom 2007 Notes

Ringbom (2007) Ch. 2 „Different types of cross-linguistic similarities” 1. Similarity is basic, difference is secondary  natural procedure is to look for similarities (that enhance learning process), i.e. establish a relation between a new proposition/task and what already exists in the mind (p5). Differences are looked for only if similarities cannot be established. 2. cross-linguistic similarity relations are positioned on a continuum: SIMILARITY / CONTRAST / ZERO relation: •

SIMILARITY relation: TL item/pattern is perceived as formally and/or functionally similar to L1/Ln form or pattern;  a natural tendency in learners at early stages of lg learning is trying to establish oneto-one relationship with a unit in another known lg, usually L1. a. Word usage in SLA proved to be influenced by Semantic equivalence hypothesis: conceptual patterns and linguistic coding practices in L1 provide the essential criteria for those in L2 (Ijaz 1986:448); b. Cognates; Establishing CLI similarities is particularly essential for comprehension on a new lg; when both formal and functional similarities can be established, this makes for positive transfer;  English learner learning Swedish; •

CONTRAST relation: the learners perceives TL item/pattern as in important ways differing from L1/Ln form or pattern, though there is also an underlying similarity between them (in order to establish meaningful differences you must perceive some underlying similarity);  English learner learning German: he/she may have problems with producing correct verb forms, but he/she is basically aware of the existence of a system, so requires no great effort on learning to understand functions and endings;  both positive and negative transfer, but only the negative t is immediately visible to the researcher; •

ZERO relation: TL items/patterns at early stages of learning appear to have little or no perceptible relation to the L1/Ln: learner’s L1 may lack concepts necessary to perceive fundamental distinctions in TL;  Indo-European learning non-Indo-E • it takes time to understand the details of a totally different TL writing system • learner finds it difficult to relate anything to his/her previous linguistic knowledge; • zero relation poses great difficulties at early stages of learning:  “the worst possible transfer situation is when there is no overlap between two sets of productions, in which case transfer is ZERO, not negative” (Anderson 1989:114)

 clear similarities are not easily noticed: in LEXIS even if a closer inspection reveals a few parallels (e.g. loanwords), this usually refers to low-frequency words not encountered at early stages of learning; in STRUCTURE similarities normaly need to be pointed out to the learner in an explicit way. 3. Perceived and objective similarity • How to define (measure) linguistic similarity? symmetry: objective CLI similarity will be symmetrical (i.e. both ways); perceived similarity is not necessarily symmetrical (i.e. Xlg speakers may find it easier to understand Y than Ylg speakers to understand X) • Psychotypology – perception of proximity/distance between lgs; BUT in general genetic relatedness overlaps with perceived similarity, though in principle those two concepts should be distinguished; it is after all possible to perceive some similarities across wholly unrelated languges; by the same token, all aspects of a related TL can be hardly perceived to be similar; • p.79 If you know Finnish as L2, there will be no major problem in learning Swahili – the importance of perceived structural similarity across non-native lgs! • P.79 L2 proficiency plus extensive declarative knowledge may be more useful than L1 prof since it may be easier to understand and to verbalise what lies behind the concept/word/construction (the learner is not confined to his L1 subconcious feeling) 4. Formal and Functional/semantic similarity  FUNCTIONAL: In grammar; how easily the learner can establish working one-to-one correspondences between grammatical elements depends largely on the degree of congruence (agreement), i.e. the similarity of the functions of grammatical categories (GOTO p68); establishing functional sim is essential, and an understanding of basic linguistic structures in TL is needed for understanding and learning lexis;  learners of related lgs have this one basic understanding already built in;  FORMAL (and then semantic): in lexis; formal similarity to an existing L1 word is perceived first (getting the word form comes before getting the word meaning); if formal similarity can be established, it provides basis for a subsequent assumption of semantic similarity (if we find form familiar, we also tend to transfer meaning); and so, formal correspondences arouse hopes of semantic or functional equivalence; after meeting a familiar word form, learner doesn’t need to expend much effort on storing it in the mental lexicon – what is needed is merely a mental note ‘this word in a similar form works in TL too”.