The role of morphological similarity in lexical activation and unintentional transfer

Carles Fuster,Hannah Neuser

doi:10.1177/13670069211031308

Abstract

Aims:Within the current multilingual paradigm shift, transfer is increasingly conceptualised not only as an unintentional mechanism of “interference”, but also as an intentional mechanism used as a learner strategy. However, very little is known from an empirical perspective about (un)intentionality in transfer. This article builds on an exploratory study which suggested that background language words that fit well within the morphological constraints of the target language are highly activated during target language use and, consequently, likely to transfer unintentionally. The present study tests whether the correlation between morphological similarity and unintentionality in lexical transfer is statistically significantMethodology:A quasi-Poisson regression analysis was employed to test the significance of morphological similarity on the amount of unintentional transfer in the written production of Spanish by 78 highly multilingual school students, when tested together with additional variables (number of languages known, proficiency in the target and source languages, frequency of use, first language/second language status and psychotypology) that have also been proposed to affect lexical activation and transfer.Data and analysis:A picture-story description task was used to elicit written transfer. When a learner reported – introspectively or retrospectively – a word to have been transferred from a background language, this word was coded as an instance of intentional transfer. Reversely, non-target-like words traced back to a background language by the authors that were not commented on by the learner were coded as instances of unintentional transfer.Findings:A strongly significant ( p < 0.001), positive correlation was found between the amount of unintentional transfer and morphological similarity. A negative trend ( p < 0.1) was also found between amount of unintentional transfer and number of languages known by learners. Theoretical implications are discussed.Originality:This is one of few studies shedding light on (un)intentionality in transfer. It is also one of few studies to employ regression analysis to investigate the effect of several variables on transfer.Significance:The study provides empirical evidence to substantiate theoretical accounts of lexical activation. First, the results show that morphological similarity indeed seems to be the primary variable leading to high levels of cross-lexical activation and, second, the results show how highly activated words are more likely to be transferred unintentionally, further supporting these theoretical accounts.

Highlights

Conceptualised as an unintentional or unconscious mechanism of “interference”, transfer has traditionally been the most frequently provided explanation for the alleged “failure” of second language (L2) learners to learn the new language “successfully” (i.e., in a monolingual first language (L1)-like manner)
Given the notion that it is unintentional transfer, rather than intentional transfer, that is related to lexical activation, the current study focuses exclusively on the unintentional transfer items identified in the data
91 % of the students produced between 0 and 2 instances of unintentional transfer, while the remaining 10% of students were dispersed between counts 3 and 16, which contributed to a considerable degree of inter-subject variation (mean (M) 1.24, SD 2.31)

Summary

Introduction

Conceptualised as an unintentional or unconscious mechanism of “interference”, transfer has traditionally been the most frequently provided explanation for the alleged “failure” of second language (L2) learners to learn the new language “successfully” (i.e., in a monolingual first language (L1)-like manner) (see Cook, 1997; Ortega, 2019). Within the multilingual paradigm shift in the 21st century, the multilingual individual is no longer seen as two fractioned monolinguals in one person, but as a speaker who moves across languages and employs competencies that are not necessarily comparable to those of monolinguals (see, e.g., Cook, 2016; Grosjean, 2010; Meier, 2017) In line with this perspective, transfer is increasingly conceptualised as an intentional mechanism that language learners can use as a strategy. This conceptualisation is reflected in the recent model of pedagogical translanguaging (e.g., Cenoz & Gorter, 2014, 2020), which implies that raising (cross)linguistic awareness will help learners identify opportunities to use transfer creatively or intentionally This idea is referred to as “teaching for transfer” by Cummins (2008) and has been discussed in various studies as a pedagogical implication of research studies (e.g., Otwinowska et al, 2020; Ringbom & Jarvis, 2010; White & Horst, 2012)

Methods

Results

Conclusion