This paper examines the article system in interlanguage grammar focusing on Russian L1 teachers of English L2, whose native language lacks articles. Conclusions made would help teachers know the future steps to be taken in assisting students in becoming proficient in English and also to improve the proficiency of Russian L1 teachers of English L2, who usually do not have an opportunity to spend some time abroad.
English possess overt system of articles (a/an, the). Although Russian does not employ article system, it will be argued that Russian definiteness and indefiniteness as semantic features are hidden in the syntax and lexis of this language.
It will be hypothesized that Russian L1 teachers of English L2 will make articles substitution and omission errors, which are resulted from the first language interference (L1 transfer). It will be also suggested that as all the test participants belong to the advanced group of learners they will acquire articles in the following order Ø > a> the. These suggestions will further be supported empirically by a fill-in-the article task.
It will be concluded that Russian L1 teachers of English L2 understand the system of the English articles fairly well, but due to their L1 transfer, which does not possess the system of articles they have trouble understanding how to use articles with abstract nouns or in the context of generalisation. Majority of test participants have made more than one articles substitution and omission errors.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Previous research
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Definiteness and Indefiniteness in English and Russian
2.2 Deviation of L2 articles production from L2 language norms
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
3.2 Test Instrument and Procedures
3.3 Measure System
4. Results
5. Discussion of Results
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper investigates the acquisition of the English article system by Russian L1 speakers who are teachers of English as a second language (L2). The primary objective is to determine the accuracy and order of article acquisition in this specific demographic, while exploring the extent to which their native language (which lacks articles) influences their production through L1 interference.
- Article system acquisition in interlanguage grammar
- L1 (Russian) to L2 (English) language transfer
- Distinction between definite and indefinite articles
- Comparison of SOC (Supplied in Obligatory Contexts) and TLU (Target-Like Use) metrics
- Analysis of substitution and omission errors in advanced learners
Excerpt from the Publication
2.1 Definiteness and Indefiniteness in English and Russian
According to Cho definiteness is encoded differently across languages and in languages with articles, definiteness is overtly by free form of articles (a/an, the in English) or by bond form articles (mand-en, ‘man-the’ in Danish) (Cho: 2). Talking about the languages that lack articles Cho explains that in languages without overt articles (Russian, Polish, Czech, Serbian, Croatian, Korean, Japanese, etc), definiteness and indefiniteness can be expressed by word order (mal’chik spit,‘(the) boy sleeps’; spit mal’chik ,‘sleeps (a/the) boy’ in Russian) or by context/discourse (Cho: 2).
The prototypes of definiteness and indefiniteness in English are the definite article the and the indefinite article a/an and singular noun phrases (NPs) determined by them (Abbott 1999: 1). Trenkic defines articles as belonging to a syntactic class determiner whose primary function is to structurally, or grammatically, signal a nominal phrase (Trenkic 2009: 135). Trenkic points out that nominal definiteness concerns the identifiability of reference in discourse: a discourse referent is definite if the speaker intends to refer to it, and expects the referent to be uniquely identifiable to the hearer (Trencik 2009: 117). When the conditions for unique indentifiability are not met – the referent either does not yet exist in a pragmatically delimited domain, or it is not unique within it – the referent is indefinite (Trencik 2009: 117). Trencik also makes an argument that every nominal context can be classified as definite or indefinite, irrespective of whether it is formally marked in a language as such (Trencik 2009: 117).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the study regarding L1 Russian teachers and their challenges with the English article system due to native language interference.
2. Theoretical background: Explores the linguistic definitions of definiteness and how Russian speakers navigate article-less syntax compared to English requirements.
3. Methodology: Details the experimental group of 10 L1 Russian teachers and the utilization of gap-fill tests evaluated through SOC and TLU metrics.
4. Results: Presents the statistical findings of the article usage accuracy among participants, highlighting observed preferences and error patterns.
5. Discussion of Results: Analyzes the specific types of errors, such as article substitution and omission, in relation to the learners' L1 background.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes that even advanced users face persistent variability and difficulties, particularly with abstract nouns and generalisation contexts.
Keywords
English articles, L2 acquisition, L1 transfer, Russian speakers, Interlanguage grammar, Definiteness, Indefiniteness, Article omission, Article substitution, SOC, TLU, Language proficiency, Nominal domain, Pedagogical linguistics, Advanced learners.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how Russian-speaking teachers of English as a second language acquire and use English definite and indefinite articles despite their native language lacking an article system.
Which linguistic group is being analyzed?
The study focuses on 10 L1 Russian teachers of English who possess an advanced level of proficiency but have not lived in an English-speaking country.
What is the main research question?
The study asks how well and in what order these specific participants acquire English articles and what role L1 transfer plays in their production errors.
What scientific methods were employed?
The author used an elicitation test consisting of 30 gap-fill items, analyzed through the Supplied in Obligatory Contexts (SOC) and Target-Like Use (TLU) measurement systems.
What does the main body cover?
It covers theoretical frameworks of definiteness, an overview of previous studies, detailed methodology of the test, and a discussion of the specific errors identified.
What are the characterizing keywords of the work?
Key terms include L1 transfer, English article system, interlanguage, article omission, and article substitution.
Did the participants find the article system difficult?
Results show that despite their advanced status, participants continue to struggle with abstract nouns and generalization contexts, indicating that the article system remains a "stumbling block."
Which measurement system did the author find more reliable?
The author concluded that TLU (Target-Like Use) is more reliable than SOC because it accounts for the over-suppliance of articles in non-obligatory contexts.
What specific acquisition order was observed?
Based on the TLU results, the acquisition order for these participants was determined to be: Zero article > Indefinite article (a) > Definite article (the).
- Citar trabajo
- Viktoriia Donchuk (Autor), 2015, The acquisition of definite and indefinite articles by L1 Russian learners of L2 English, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/334203
