Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/324154?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Inter- and Intra-Lingual Interference
Effects in Learning a Third Language
JOSHUA G.W. AHUKANNA, NANCY J. LUND and J. RONALD GENTILE
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
282 Ahukanna, Lund and Gentile
Other researchers have studied the interfer- forms were confirmed by reference to Le Fran-
ence from African languages in learning fais fondamental, a handbook published by the
European ones but to our knowledge none French Ministry of Education (1959).
have described or controlled for the interfer- Fifteen items were written to reflect each
ence effects from two base languages on the source of error. In addition, fifteen correct
target language.7 This study, to be specific, French statements were included, to give a
total of seventy-five randomly ordered items
controls for this factor while it: 1) analyzes in-
terlinguistic interference effects traceable to in the entire test.10 Table I provides a fre-
Igbo, English, or either Igbo or English (am- quency distribution of each grammatical cate-
biguously), or to intralingual factors in gory tested for each source of interference.
French; 2) analyzes the errors made according Examples of test sentences from each source
to the nature of structural similarities in the of interference follow, with a brief discussion
base and target languages; and 3) examinesof each.
the influence of relative proficiency in the tar- Interference from Igbo (Item 10): Maisje vous ai
get language in susceptibility to interference.8 dit que ma mere allait marche hier; But I told you
that my mother was going market yesterday
METHOD
(English translation); Ma a gwara m gi na nne m
nara eje ahia nyaa (Igbo translation). In both
English and French, the preposition "to" (au)
Subjects. Two experiments were plus conducted
an article is required to make it gram-
two years apart. In the first, all ofmatically
the students
correct. In Igbo, on the other hand,
(N = 40) in their second year in the Depart- no preposition or article is required, so knowl-
ment of French at Alvan Ikoku College of edge of the Igbo rule could lead incorrectly to
Education (AICE), Owerri, Nigeria, consti- judging this sentence to be "correct" French.
tuted the subjects. Of those, twenty subjects Interference from English (Item 50): Oko parlera
had no previous instruction in French before a son fils quand il arrive; Oko will speak to his
attending AICE (Group A). The remaining son when he arrives (English translation). In
twenty subjects had all had five years of in- French, the future tense is used after quand
struction in secondary school prior to matricu-(when) in the context illustrated. In English,
lation at AICE (Group B).9 the present tense is used. Igbo uses the perfect
In the second experiment, twenty subjects tense. A student who did not mark item fifty
from each category (Group A or B defined incorrect, therefore, may have applied the
above) were randomly selected from a class of English rule of tense agreement.
second year students matriculating in AICE Interference from both Igbo and English (Item
two years later. Except for one change in pro- 13): Tu aimes riz; You like rice (English trans-
cedure (described below), these subjects pro- lation); Osikapa na adi gi nma (Igbo transla-
vided a replication of the first experiment. For tion). In item thirteen, the correct French ver-
all eighty subjects the native language was sion is: Tu aimes le riz. In this context, French
Igbo; English was the second language. No uses a form of the definite article le, la, or les
languages other than Igbo, English, and (the) after the verb aimer (to like), if a generic
French were spoken by these subjects. reference is intended. This practice does not
Instrument. The items for the grammar test, hold true in Igbo or English. In both lan-
written especially for this study, each con- guages the article is omitted.
tained one structure that had a parallel but Overgeneralization from French (i.e., Intralingual
differently executed structure in Igbo or Eng- Errors) (Item 28): Pour la fete, elle a acheti des
lish. The test was thus designed to reflect jolies chaussures; For the feast she has bought
errors that could be attributable to interfer- beautiful shoes (English translation). Here the
ence from each of the following sources: I - error is in the use of des, in place of de before a
Igbo, but not English; E-English, but not preceding adjective. This error is an overgen-
Igbo; B-both Igbo and English; F-incorrect eralization of the French rule that adjectives
applications of rules in French, not reflecting agree in number and gender with the words
Igbo or English patterns. The structures se- they modify. Since no corresponding form
lected for testing were based on observed exists in Igbo or English, the error is probably
classroom and examination errors; correct a result of previous learning in French.
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Interference Effects in a Third Language 283
TABLE I
Frequency of Incorrect Items in the Test by Grammatical Category and Source of Interference
Source of Interference
Igbo and
Grammatical Category Igbo English English French Total
Semantic 2 4 2 1 9
Syntactic (Word Order) 5 6 4 3 18
Preposition 3 1 2 2 8
Article 1 1 1 - 3
Adjective 3 1 - 1 5
Tense - 1 1 2 4
Quand + Future - 1 - - 1
Object Pronoun I - - 1 2
Subject-Verb - - - 2 2
Negative - - 1 1 2
Partitive - - 2 1 3
Infinitive - - - 1 1
Reflexive - - I - 1
Adverb - - 1 - 1
Total 15 15 15 15 60
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 Ahukanna, Lund and Gentile
TABLE II
Mean Errors and Standard Deviations for Each Interference Source and Correct French for Groups A and B
in Each Experiment
Source of Interference
Groups Igbo English Igbo and English French Correct French
(4)** (1) (3) (2)
Exp. I A Mean* 4.90 5.70 5.30 5.60 2.25
S.D. 1.65 1.59 2.39 2.46 1.86
(4) (1) (3) (2)
B Mean* 2.20 5.20 3.00 3.10 1.50
S.D. 1.58 1.51 1.84 1.59 1.57
*N = 20 in each cell.
**The numbers in parentheses are ranks of the means from greatest to least number of errors within each group.
TABLE III
Summary 2 x 2 x 4 Factorial Analysis of Variance With Repeated Measures on the Last Factor*
Source of Variation df MS F
Between Subjects 79
A. Exp. I vs. Exp.II 1 208.013 13.83**
B. Beginning vs. Advanced Group 1 904.513 60.12**
AB. Interaction 1 148.512 9.87**
Ss Within Groups (Error) 76 15.045
respectively [F = more
3.63;than thirty-three
df percent
= 1,76; as contrasted
p > .
with fifty percent
3) the interaction of 1) and 2) errors on the average).
[F Why < 1].
this difference
results indicate that all groupsoccurred is not clear, but it was
recognize
rect French about reflected
equally in the significant
well AB interaction
forin this the s
of items, althoughrepeated measures analysis effect
a ceiling of variance re- ma
occurred-that is, ported
the in Table
itemsIII. Significant
weremain effects
not
ciently difficult toalso showed up between
induce Groups A and B as
a spread ofal- sco
The other columns in Table II bear on the ready described, and between Experiments I
main issue and provide variability of scores and II, indicating -that the original sample
(i.e., show no evidence of a ceiling effect). In made fewer errors of all kinds than the later
both experiments, for example, the advanced sample.
students (Group B) made fewer errors than the Of greatest interest is the differential per-
beginners (Group A); overall Group B'S errors formance on the interference sources. For all
averaged about twenty percent. The original groups, the greatest number of errors (i.e., the
Group A sample, however, was much better most times subjects judged an incorrect sen-
than the replication Group A sample (slightly tence to be correct) occurred on the items
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Interference Effects in a Third Language 285
traceable to interference from English. And under examination, the sums of ranks would
with one exception, the least number of errors be lowest for English interference and highest
always occurred on Igbo items. This overall for French interference with the other two
regularity was responsible for the significant sources between. Table IV presents the
main effect for Error Source in Table III [F = summed ranks for each A and B group indi-
19.74; df = 3,228; p < .01] and implies that vidually and combined, along with the results
French items were most likely to be incorrectly of the Friedman Two-Way ANOVA by Ranks. 12
judged correct if the structure of the item These data give a slightly different picture
would be correct in English. In fact, for both of the susceptibility of the various subjects to
beginning samples (the A groups), the rank interference from the four sources, showing
order was the same. The rank order of fre- more consistency within the advanced group
quencies of French item structures being in- than within the beginning students. For each
correctly judged correct was as follows: 1) group, nevertheless, English provides the
English; 2) French; 3) Igbo and English; 4) most interference, and Igbo the least.
Igbo.
These results are somewhat complicated by DISCUSSION
the fact that the B groups did not replicate as
perfectly as the A groups, resulting in the sig- The above results suggest that suscept
nificant BC interaction in Table III. Neverthe- to interference effects in language lear
less, they also found the items that conformed related to a number of factors. The amount of
more correctly to English semantics or syntax experience with the target language is one; be-
more convincing of correctness in French than ginning language learners show more interfer-
any other inter- or intralingual interference. ence from base languages than do more profi-
As a further check on these data, the errorscient language users. Another factor is that
made by each subject were ranked for each of some languages appear to cause interference
the four interference sources. For example, if more than do others, possibly due to their
a subject made eight errors traceable to Eng-greater degree of similarity to the target lan-
lish, six to French, five to Igbo plus English,guage.13
and three to Igbo, his errors would be ranked The type of similarity between the target
one, two, three, and four, respectively, for and the base language appears to be a factor in
English, French, Igbo plus English, and Igbo. interference. An attempt was made in the
The ranks within each category can then be present study to write items representative of
summed across all twenty subjects in each many linguistic patterns, as Table I indicates.
group to detect whether a similar trend is oc- However, the number of items is not suffi-
curring for all subjects. Under the null hy- ciently balanced to allow a systematic analysis
pothesis the sums of the ranks for each error of the results by grammatical forms. Of the
source would be equal. With the hypothesis sixty items having interfering effects, nine (or
TABLE IV
Sums of Ranked Errors by Interference Source for Beginning and Advanced Groups
Source of Interference
Group Igbo English Igbo and English French x,2*
A (Beginners)
Exp. I (N- =20) 56.5 41.5 51.5 50.5 3.51
Exp. II (N= 20) 58.0 42.0 52.5 47.5 4.21
Combined (N- 40) 114.0 83.5 104.0 98.0 7.53**
B (Advanced)
Exp. I(N= 20) 68.0 27.0 46.5 58.5 28.12**
Exp.II(N = 20) 63.0 25.5 48.5 63.0 28.21**
Combined (N= 40) 131.0 52.5 121.5 95.0 55.56**
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
286 Ahukanna, Lund and Gentile
15 %) were semantic interference effects, ference effects is likely related to the high pro-
eighteen (30%) were based on word order, portion of English-based semantic items.
and the remaining thirty-three (55%) were of There is less evidence of interference from
varied syntactic forms. syntactic similarities between the target and
In contrast to this distribution of items, base languages. These results are consistent
however, was the actual proportion of errors with other observations that studies which re-
made. The percentage of errors to each of strict their investigations to syntax have not
these three categories of items ranged across demonstrated interference. 14
the four subject samples (i.e., Groups A and B There are admittedly many limitations to
in both experiments) as follows: Semantic Items:this study; most notable is the exclusion of
21%-38%; Word Order Items: 26%-31%; Syn-data on errors in discourse to determine: 1) if
tactic Form Items: 32%-46%. Clearly, the the errors on our test accurately reflect natu-
semantic items were more difficult than those rally occurring errors; and 2) if our test of
based on similar syntactic forms, at least ac- comprehension corresponds to errors of pro-
cording to the relative frequencies of errors duction. One can only generalize with ex-
expected on the basis of the number of items. treme caution from a contrived, structured
An example of a semantically-produced in- task to hypothesizing the processes through
terference concerned item seven: Mes sujets which the language learner actually goes. It
preferes a l'ecole sont le francais et l'anglais (My appears, however, that a potential for interfer-
favorite subjects at school are French and ence increases with the number of languages a
English). Structurally and grammatically, this student knows. The potential for interference
sentence is correct in both English and from semantically-related items in other lan-
French. However, in French the word "sub- guages appears to be particularly strong. This
jects" does not refer to school subjects as it interference can be counteracted by the in-
does in English. The French prefer "matieres" structor of the target language if the learners'
in place of "sujets." In accepting the above sen- other languages are known. Fortunately, the
tence as correct, subjects had interference more skill students develop in the target lan-
from an English semantic form. guage, the more resistant they become to all of
The fact that English had the largest inter- these sources of interference.
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Interference Effects in a Third Language 287
causes of errors are assigned, and for inadequacy of with many audio-visual aids in the target language.
samples-e.g., Jacquelyn Schachter & Mariane Celce- Group B'S prior instruction in secondary school was a tra-
Murcia, "Some Reservations Concerning Error Analy- ditional textbook approach to learning grammar, taught
sis," TESOL Quarterly, 11 (1977), pp. 441-51. We feel each in English.
of these approaches has serious shortcomings when at- l?The complete test is available in a pre-publication
tempting complete descriptions of the language learner's version of the paper for $1.00 from the Learning and In-
knowledge, although both together can be used produc- struction Research Group, 379 Baldy Hall, State Univ.
tively to aid our understanding of second language learn- of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260.
ing processes. For a description of a language system, we 1"B.J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design
recommend structural analysis of samples from a prag- (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962).
matic perspective. See Nancy J. Lund & Judith Duchan, 12Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statisticsfor the Behavioral
Language Assessment: A Structural Approach (Englewood Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956).
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, in press). 13K. Sey, Ghana English: An Exploratory Survey (London:
9All subjects were receiving instruction in French at Macmillan, 1973).
Alvan Ikoku College of Education by a direct method '4Ioup & Kruse (note 4 above).
This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms