Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:11:43.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Causes Avoidance in L2 Learning

L1-L2 Difference, L1-L2 Similarity, or L2 Complexity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Batia Laufer  and
Stig Eliasson
Batia Laufer
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
Stig Eliasson
Affiliation:
Uppsala University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Among the structural and lexical factors claimed to account for avoidance in second language learning are (a) cross-linguistic difference, (b) cross-linguistic similarity, and (c) intrinsic complexity of the second language features avoided. This paper examines patterns of avoidance and preference for phrasal verbs or equivalent single-word verbs among Swedish learners of English. We assumed that if the subjects avoided English phrasal verbs, particularly the figurative ones, even though phrasal verbs exist in Swedish, this would indicate that inherent semantic difficulty of second language forms was the main factor contributing to the avoidance behavior. If, on the other hand, the learners did not show any preference for one-word verb forms in English, or indeed favored the phrasal forms, this would support the assumption that avoidance or nonavoidance depends largely on differences or similarities between the native and the foreign language.

A multiple-choice test and a translation test were given to two groups of advanced Swedish-speaking learners of English. Each test consisted of 20 sentences, allowing for the choice of either a phrasal or a synonymous single-word verb. The test answers showed that the Swedish learners avoided neither phrasal verbs in general nor the figurative ones in particular, regardless of whether the verbs were similar to, or different from, their Swedish translation equivalents. Furthermore, the results were compared to the avoidance patterns of a group of advanced Hebrew-speaking learners of English. From the comparison it emerged that the Swedish learners usedsignificantly more phrasal verbs than the Israelis, notably figurative ones. These results suggest that the avoidance is determined more by a systemic incongruence between the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) than by the inherent difficulty of L2 forms.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 35 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blum, S., & Levenston, E. A. (1978). Universals of lexical simplification. Language Learning, 28, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. (1977). Phonological factors in vocabulary acquisition: A case study of a two-year-old, English-French bilingual. Working Papers in Bilingualism (Vol. 13, pp. 27–41). Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Cornell, A. (1985). Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs. IRAL, 23, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, R. (1983). Longman dictionary of phrasal verbs. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, C. (1977). The ignorance hypothesis in interlanguage studies. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 152–165.Google Scholar
Johansson, S., & Hofland, K. (1989). Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar based on the LOB Corpus: Vol. 2. Tag combinations and word combinations. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. (1977). Rules, grammatical intuitions and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 5–76.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterisation of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers in Bilingualism (Vol. 15, pp. 59–92). Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1986). An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. In Kellerman, E. & Sharwood, M. Smith (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 35–48). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinmann, H. H. (1978). The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications (pp. 157–174). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levenston, E. A. (1971). Over-indulgence and under-representation: Aspects of mother-tongue interference. In Nickel, G. (Ed.), Papers in contrastive linguistics (pp. 115–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mukattash, L. (1984). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and learning difficulty. In Fisiak, J. (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics. Prospects and problems (pp. 333–348). Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In Brown, D., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL '77. Teaching and learning English as a second language. Trends in research and practice (pp. 194–203). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., & Dumas, G. (1976). A closer look at some interlanguage terminology: A framework for communication strategies. Working Papers in Bilingualism (Vol. 9, pp. 76–90). Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Váradi, T. (1980). Strategies of target language learner communication: Message-adjustment. IRAL, 18, 59–72.Google Scholar