Jacob Burdis and Professor Ray Graham – Education

For decades, researchers have explored various aspects of the development or morphology in second language learners of English. Undoubtedly, one of the most popular models describing this development is the natural order hypothesis. Stephen Krashen (1977) presents an average morphological order of acquisition for English where learners, “acquiring English as a second language also show a “natural order” for grammatical morphemes, regardless of their first language” (p. 146). Many recent studies have challenged the assertion that a learners’ native language does not influence this order, but plays a vital role in its development. This study examines an aspect of the acquisition of English by native Russian speakers that has received comparatively little attention in the literature: the acquisition of definite and indefinite articles.

This research deals with two debated topics in modern linguistic literature. The first topic revolves around the question: Do linguistic features of L1 (first language) transfer and affect the acquisition of L2 (second language)? If it is true that L1 has no effect on the acquisition of L2, then the study of a linguistic feature of L1 is fruitless in attempting to predict any phenomenon occurring during the acquisition of an L2. The next debatable topic addressed in this paper is articulated by the question: Do speakers of [-art] languages (languages lacking articles), such as Russian, Polish, Mandarin, etc., acquire the articles of English in any particular order? This paper will narrow this question even more by analyzing the order of acquisition of the English definite article “the” and indefinite article “a” of native Russian speakers.

As a brief summary of the previous research on this topic, Krashen and others claim that in L2 acquisition, there is no L1 transfer; rather learners rely either on L2 input or innate knowledge such as a universal grammar model. This means that there exists a natural order for English acquisition of morphemes for all learners of English as an L2. Since the emergence of this theory, many studies have been conducted both in support of and against the notion that there is no L1 transfer in L2 acquisition. These researchers show that the article acquisition of English as an L2 gives evidence for L1 transfer. They argue first of all that L1 and L2 acquisition of English articles do not always coincide with each other, as would be expected if there were truly no L1 transfer in L2 acquisition. Additionally, English article acquisition differs depending on the L1 of the learners, specifically between [-art] and [+art] languages. For these reasons, recent research disproves the notion that there is no L1 transfer in L2 acquisition of English.

The analysis of past research gives rise to several important questions. The first is whether Russian L1 speakers learning English will follow the tendency of other [-art] languages to initially omit both articles, acquire “the” and then acquire “a.” The next, if the first is proven to be true, is: if L1 transfer is responsible for this order of article acquisition, what is it inherent in Russian that can account for this? These are the questions that drive this current research. I hypothesize in answer to the first question, that Russian will follow suit for [-art] languages – articles will be omitted initially, followed by the article “the” and followed by “a.” The second question is investigated in this research by analyzing the expression of (in)definiteness in Russian. An analysis of Russian shows that although there is no explicit morphological marker to express (in)definiteness (such as articles in English), it is marked in other ways. A closer analysis

shows that definiteness in Russian is more morphologically marked than indefiniteness, which is expressed more semantically by context. I attribute this phenomenon in the Russian expression of (in)definiteness accounts for the L1 transfer for L2 article acquisition of English that differs from the L1 article acquisition of English. Because definiteness is more morphologically marked in Russian, Russian learners of English will acquire the definite article “the” before the indefinite article “a.”

Five learners of English from Almaty, Kazakhstan participated in this study. The learners were comprised of various levels of English Proficiency, from lower intermediate to lower advanced and were involved in various types of instruction. I conducted conversation practice for an hour 3 times a week over a 10-week period with each student at their own level with no explicit grammar instruction. Each week, I collected both spontaneous oral and written responses to various topics. I digitally recorded the oral responses, which I later transposed onto word documents. On separate days, Learners composed written responses on different topics from the oral topics (in order to maintain true spontaneity). I collected these responses and recorded them into word documents. All the responses consisted of roughly 150-300 words.

This study confirms the notion presented by similar studies for [-art] languages; there exists L1 transfer in L2 article acquisition. From the research listed above, native L1 acquisition of English articles shows an order, in which the zero article is acquired first and slightly overgeneralized, followed shortly by the indefinite article “a” and the definite article “the.” My research coincides with the previous research listed above that in L2 acquisition of English articles, there are 2 primary distinctions. First is the omission of both articles in early acquisition. This phenomenon is unique to [-art] L1 learners acquiring English. The next is that the definite article “the” is acquired before the indefinite “a.” These two pieces of evidence support the claim that there is L1 transfer during L2 acquisition of English articles.

While this research presents conclusive evidence regarding L1 transfer for L2 acquisition, it also addresses the question: what is it about Russian that accounts for the L1 transfer when acquiring English articles. The first evidence of L1 transfer – that of early omission of articles – is easily explained by the fact that Russian lacks an explicit system for marking (in)definiteness morphologically. In regards to the second evidence for L1 transfer, however, this paper has presented research concluding that definiteness in Russian is more morphologically marked than indefiniteness. Since Russians are accustomed to morphologically mark definiteness more than indefiniteness, they will naturally do better in acquiring the morphological marker of definiteness than indefiniteness for English. I admit, however, that this explanation is not much more than speculation. More research needs to be done in order to make definite claims about the types of L1 transfer for various languages. Research must be conducted with the other [-art] languages that follow this pattern of acquisition to see if similar phenomenon exist in these languages in order for a conclusion to be made.

Reference

• Krashen, S. D. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio and R. Crymes (Eds.) On TESOL ’77: Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice. Washington: TESOL. pp. 144-158.