1、1Some Researches on Native Language Interference in ESL StudentsWritingsAbstract. In all the aspects of English learning, writing is the students weakness. Many linguists put native language interference on the top when listing various reasons that cause errors in students writing. This paper attemp
2、ts to figure out how native language interferes with the writing of the target language so as to help students better understand such interferences and improve their writing ability. Key words: native language interference, ESL, writing The interference of the learners first language on the acquisit
3、ion and use of a second has long been a focus of interest within applied linguistics. ESL (English as a second language) students often mention that when they write in English as a second language they translate, or attempt to translate, first language words, phrases, and organization into English.
4、Just as Kaplan asserted that the linguistic and rhetorical conventions of the first language interfere with writing in the second language. So ESL teachers often comment that ESL students use patterns of language and stylistic 2conventions that they have learned in their native languages and culture
5、s. Although no systematic theory about native language interference has been developed, related research has been done by many scholars. Robert Lado initiated the cultural comparison as early as the 1950s. Kaplans (1966) research was the first major study that analyzed how L1 thinking and discourse
6、structures are manifested in L2 writing. Kaplans major thesis is that different linguistic and cultural interpretations lead to different rhetorics, or modes of communication. This causes difficulties for nonnative speakers writing in the target language. Kaplans was the first attempt at ESL to cons
7、ider the rhetoric of writing. He found that Chinese and Korean students writing was marked by an approach of indirectionwriting in a cultural pattern which takes a long time to come to the point when compared with native English speakers directness. I. Transfer and Language Transfer Study of transfe
8、r began in the 1950s. It was considered the most important factor in the theories of L2 (Second Language) learning as well as in approaches to L2 teaching. Transfer is a psychological term and is generally regarded as the influence 3of some kind of learning on the others. A lot of research reveals t
9、hat anyone who wants to offer sufficient interpretation of second language acquisition has to take the critical factorlanguage transfer into consideration (Gass Ellis, 1994; Gass the long language distance between Chinese and English resulting from quite different language families that they belong
10、to. So English teaching in China should consider teaching situations and conditions and language transfer can serve as one of the ways to cross the threshold. II. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis In the middle of 20th century, one of the most popular pursuits for applied linguists was the study of tw
11、o languages in contrast. It was originally developed by Charles Fries (1945) and expanded by Lado(1957), which maintained that mistakes made by L2 learners were caused by the native language. Lado held 7the view that the differences between L1 and L2 make learning more difficult while similarities m
12、ake learning easier. Eventually the stockpile of comparative and contrastive data on a multitude of pairs of languages yielded what commonly came to be known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). Deeply rooted in the behavioristic and structuralist approaches of the day, the CAH claimed that
13、 the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language system with the second language system, and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two languages in question would yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which in turn would enable t
14、he linguist to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter. It was at that time considered feasible that the tools of structural linguistics, such as Friess (1952) slot-filler grammar, would match those two descriptions against each other to determine valid contrasts, or differences, between
15、them. Behaviorism contributed to the notion that human behavior is the sum of its smallest parts and components, and therefore that language learning could be described as the acquisition of all of these discrete units. Moreover, human learning theories highlighted interfering elements of learning,
16、concluding that where no 8interference could be predicted, no difficulty would be experienced since one could transfer positively all other items in a language. The logical conclusion from these various psychological and linguistic assumptions was that second language learning basically involved the
17、 overcoming of the differences between the two linguistic systems-the native and the target languages. CAH exists in a strong and weak form (Wardhaugh 1970). The strong form claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learners first l
18、anguage. As Lee (1968:180) notes, it stipulates that “the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is of the hypothesis” was common before research began to show that many of the errors produced by L2 learners could not be traced to the L1. The weak f
19、orm of the hypothesis claims only to be diagnostic. CAH is the application of the theory of language transfer in applied linguistics. It is the core or foundation of the theory of language transfer. Therefore peoples approval or disapproval of language is always connected with the reliability of CAH
20、. III. Contrastive Rhetoric 9Contrastive rhetoric is an area of research in second language acquisition that identifies problems in composition encountered by second language writers and attempts to explain them. Initiated almost thirty years ago by the American applied linguist Robert Kaplan, contr
21、astive rhetoric maintains that language and writing are cultural phenomena. As a direct consequence, each language has rhetorical conventions unique to it. Furthermore, Kaplan asserted that the linguistic and rhetorical conventions of the first language interfere with writing in the second language.
22、 In the 1990s, significant changes have taken place in contrastive rhetorical research. Two leading ESL composition experts, Ann Raimes and Ilona Leki, each wrote about the importance of contrastive rhetoric as a means of raising awareness among teachers of different L1 backgrounds on L2 writing. Ra
23、imes (1991a) calls for a broader definition of contrastive rhetoric in which students L1 is shown to be an important resource rather than a hindrance in writing. Leki (1991) focuses on the benefits of contrastive rhetoric for ESL teaching. In a recent article, Chen (1997: 13) draws on this tradition
24、 within contrastive rhetoric to compare approaches to 10academic writing in the United States and China.U.S English writing is very direct and formulaic. Writers should first clearly identify the topic or goal of an article and then support their argument with specific examples. The paragraph and es
25、say structure should clarify the relationship between details and the unifying ideas, and the conclusion should once again stress the unifying ideas. The judgment of writing as good or weak is based on straightforward criteria: clarity, accuracy, detail and structure. The goal is clear communication
26、. In contrast, Chinese writers prefer indirection and rely on metaphors to present their ideas. Writers do not assert their goal, or even their topic at the beginning of a paper; instead; they use metaphor to make subtle, implied connections between ideas. Examples must be subtly inserted, so that c
27、onnections are neither obvious nor direct. Contrastive rhetoric in the context of applied linguistics is taking new directions in five domains: contrastive text linguistics (comparison of discourse features across languages); the study of writing as a cultural activity (comparing the process of learning to write in different cultures); contrastive studies of the classroom dynamics of L2 writing; contrastive rhetoric studies conducted in a variety of genres in a variety of situations for a variety
