Cross-linguistic Influence Of L2(Chinese) On L3(English) Acquisition Of Xinjiang Minority Students

Research on third language acquisition is a newly-developed field that isbased on bilingualism and second language acquisition studies, and resultedfrom transfer theories in1980s. It has become one of the hot topics in today’slinguistic research. And one of its main focuses is cross-linguistic influence. Thefindings concerned abroad have shown that L2transfer is a significant feature inthird language acquisition: In either case that third language learners whosenative languages are non-Indo-European or their three languages are allIndo-European, they tend to transfer knowledge from their second language. Therole of L2in cross-linguistic influence has turned out to be of greater importancethan originally suggested.It is trilingualism when minority students in our country learn a foreignlanguage after learning Chinese. Their three languages usually are in the modeof mother tongue (L1)-Chinese (L2)-foreign language (L3). Therefore, this study,by focusing on L2(Chinese), will explore the cross-linguistic interactionsamong these three languages Kazakh/Uyghur-Chinese-English to see whetherits result can confirm the studies done abroad, or it can have some new findings.This study aims to find L2(Chinese) influence both on underlying andobservable language levels, based on the theoretical framework of interlanguagetransfer hypothesis, threshold hypothesis, developmental interdependencyhypothesis, and a dynamic model of multilingualism, by the quantitative and qualitative methods usually adapted in applied linguistics, with the participantsof Kazakh or Uyghur middle school students in Yining, Xinjiang. The keyresearch questions are:(1) Is L2(Chinese) the initial state of L3(English)acquisition of Xinjiang minority students?(2) What effects does L2(Chinese)have on L3(English) acquisition of Xinjiang minority students?(3) Is there athreshold of proficiency in the L3that learners need to acquire before their L2(Chinese) proficiency becomes relevant?(4) What are the factors that cause L2(Chinese) transfer?In underlying language level, the quantitative analysis of this study finds bymeans of SPSS (version11.0):(1) ANOVA analyses show that the L3(English) scores of those minoritystudents in Model Ⅲ, non-balanced bilinguals, have surpassed that of theminority students in Model Ⅰand Model Ⅱ,balanced bilinguals.(2) T-test analyses reveal that the L3(English) scores of those who areliterate only in L2(Chinese) in Model Ⅲ is better than that of those who areliterate both in their L1and L2, and belong to the same ethnic group in ModelⅠand Model Ⅱ.(3) Correlational analyses indicate that the scores only in L2(Chinese) andL3(English), L1(Uyghur) and L3(English) are interrelated.(4) Multiple regression analyses give the results that between these threelanguages Kazakh/Uyghur(L1)–Chinese(L2)–English(L3), L2(Chinese) hasa more significant effect on L3(English) scores, and can be used as a predictorfor it. These analyses suggest that L2(Chinese) is the initial state of L3(English)acquisition of Xinjiang minority students, and shows a significant effect on theirL3(English) acquisition: When L2(Chinese) proficiency is high, it facilitatesL3(English) learning. When it is low, it impedes it.In observable language level, the study of L2(Chinese) influence on theacquisition of the L3(English) grammar by the Uyghur students finds:(1) The source of cross-linguistic transfer in the acquisition of L3(English)grammar is L2(Chinese), which demonstrates mainly in morphological errorsand semantic errors. And typology, proficiency, and recency are the key factorsthat lead to L2(Chinese) transfer.(2) The learners do better in L3(English) syntax than in morphology. Apossible explanation is that cross-linguistic similarity in word order between theL3(English) and the L2(Chinese) facilitates the acquisition of L3(English)syntax, while the cross-linguistic difference in morphology between the twolanguages has some hindrances to the learning of the L3(English) morphology.However, this negative influence on morphology may diminish or overcome asthe proficiencies both in the L2(Chinese) and the L3(English) increase.(3) Within the first three groups of the L3(English) proficiency，thelearners of equal L3(English) proficiency but a higher L2(Chinese) proficiencydo outperform those learners with a lower L2(Chinese) proficiency on theacquisition of L3(English) morphology. A possibility is that language learnerswho have already acquired one or more non-native languages exhibit heightenedmetalinguistic expertise, better lexical knowledge and more developed cognitive skills, which aid them in triggering the setting of UG parameters.(4) It seems that there is a threshold in the L3(English) acquisition. As faras this study is concerned, the first threshold is90-104scores, and the secondone is120-135scores. There will no positive effect of bilingualism if a learner’sproficiency is lower than the first threshold. And a positive effect of bilingualismcan be seen obviously when a learner’s proficiency arrives at the secondthreshold.Besides, this study also discusses the issues of semantic transfer andconceptual transfer from the L2(Chinese). The semantic errors may resulte fromthe difference between the L2(Chinese) and L3(English) in the level ofabstraction at which categorization is made. A single category in L2(Chinese)may correspond to several categories in L3(English). On the other hand, theymay pertain to the way of learners’ mental association between the L2(Chinese)and L3(English). A negative transfer may occur when the form that a learnerselects in L3(English) does not match with the meaning of a L2(Chinese) word.In conceptual level, these transferred errors are in relation to the differencesbetween L2(Chinese) and L3(English) in three conceptual domains: number,time, and space. These errors may firstly stem from the differences between L2(Chinese) and L3(English) in the linguistic encoding and thus linguistic salienceof a particular domain in L2(Chinese) is not the same as L3(English): Chineseis a classifier language, while English noun class language. Chinese is short ofmorphology, while English rich in it. Secondly, it seems that the morphologicaland semantic errors also pertain to the learners’ limited knowledge in target language, low language awareness and automatization.Thirdly, the cause may liein English teaching where teachers tend to ignore the necessity of making adistinction for the meaning between implicit and explicit knowledge.As for the results of L2(Chinese) influence on the L3(English) acquisition,it is positive as far as the common underlying language proficiency is concerned,while it is negative in the production of English writing. Why is the L2(Chinese)influence on the L3(English) acquisition of Xinjiang minority students differenton underlying and observable language levels?Reasons may be the following ones. First, the retrieval mechanisms aresimply different between comprehension and production. Comprehensionprocess is from form (sound) to meaning, focusing on decoding of contextualmeaning. Production process is from meaning to sound. The speaker starts bycreating a meaning and then search for the word form associated with just thatmeaning. The word form is further converted into a phonological shape foronward processing into speech. This means that a greater task effort is requiredby the learner in production than in comprehension. Second, differentcross-linguistic similarities are used in comprehension and production. Incomprehension, perceived similarities are frequently employed by the learners totheir prior languages. In production, assumed similarities are used. They assumethat there will be similarities between the vocabulary and syntax of their priorlanguages and the meanings or functions of target language but, when thesesimilarities are merely assumed, there is a considerable risk of errors. Third, it isthe learners’ linguistic proficiency that matters. When their competence is beyond the upper threshold, their highly developed common underlyingproficiency will facilitate the transfer of cognitive/academic abilities from onelanguage into the other, and what’s more, transfer is more likely to occur with‘deeper’ aspects of language proficiency such as reading comprehension, sincereading comprehension is not to be taught separately twice over, but as onesingle underlying ability which can be practiced in more than one language.When their competence is at the low threshold, negative effects can not beavoided.The discussion for L2(Chinese) transfer is done from four perspectives:linguistic and psycholinguistic, cognitive linguistic, cumulative languageexperience and knowledge, and sociolinguistic. It suggests that L2(Chinese)transfer is the result of interaction of different factors, and language typologyand language proficiency are the key ones. Transfer is a necessary part ofmultilingual acquisition, and prior linguistic knowledge will definitely influencelater language acquisition.The conclusion drawn from this study is that L2(Chinese) proficiency isthe initial state of Xinjiang minority students’ L3(English) acquisition. L2(Chinese) has a more significant influence on their L3(English) learning,compared with their mother tongue, and can be used as a predictor for their L3(English) proficiency. It seems that there is a threshold in the L3(English)acquisition. Only when a learner’s proficiency arrives at the first threshold can apositive effect of bilingualism begin to demonstrate.The findings may have certain implications for trilingual education in the minority areas of our country. That is, L2(Chinese) learning will have a positiveeffect in that it can promote and assist the development of learners’metalinguistic awareness, which will in turn facilitate L3(English) acquisition.Therefore, it is better for minority learners to learn L2(Chinese) well in order toacquire proficiency in L3(English).