Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T07:56:58.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Fred R. Eckman
Fred R. Eckman
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is intended as a programmatic contribution to the work of a number of scholars in second language acquisition (SLA) who are attempting to explain various facts about SLA in terms of an interaction between native-language transfer and language universals (Gass & Selinker, 1983). In the present paper, some of the theoretical assumptions and consequences of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) (Eckman, 1977) are discussed in comparison with the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Crucial differences between the two hypotheses are presented, and empirical evidence in favor of the MDH is reviewed. Pedagogical implications of the MDH are then taken up, and a strategy for interlanguage-intervention is discussed in light of an empirical study. Finally, several problems for the MDH which have been proposed in the literature are considered.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , October 1985 , pp. 289 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Azar, B. 1981. Understanding and using English grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bens, A. 1977. Active English: Pronunciation and speech. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Benson, B., 1983. The markedness differential hypothesis: Implications for Vietnamese speakers of English. Paper presented at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.Google Scholar
Bowen, J. D. 1975. Patterns of English pronunciation. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Brière, E. 1966. An investigation of phonological interference. Language 42; 768–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E. 1973. What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. Cartesain linguistics. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
d'Anglejan, A. & Tucker, G. R.. 1975. The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. Language Learning 25; 281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D. & Eckman, F.. Some substantive universals in atomic phonology. Lingua 45; 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, F. D. M. 1972. An outline of Mandarin phonetics. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.. 1972. Goofing: An indicator of children's second language acquisition strategies. Language Learning 22; 235–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23; 245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. 1974. National sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24; 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27; 315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1981a. Markedness and degree of difficulty in second language acquisition. In Savard, J-G. & Laforge, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the International Association of Applied Linguistics. Quebec: Les Presses de l'Universite Laval.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. 1981b On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning 31; 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1981c. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4; 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D.. In preparation. On the generalization of relative clause instruction in ESL.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29; 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. 1982. From theory to practice. In Crymes, L. & Rutherford, W. (eds.), On TESOL 82. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L.. 1983. Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gradman, H. 1971. Limitations of contrastive analysis predictions. Working Papers in Linguistics 3; 11–15.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1966. Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1978. Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A., & Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.), Universal of human language. Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1981. The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the European-North American Workshop on Cross-Linguistic Second Language Acquisition Research, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8; 63–99.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1979. The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 4; 27–46.Google Scholar
Krohn, R. 1971. English sentence structure. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1971. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching 25; 204–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32; 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. 1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24; 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. 1980. Coordinate structures and language universals in interlanguage. Language Learning 30; 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, R. 1970. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4; 123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. 1980. The formal and developmental selectivity of LI influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning 30; 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. 1983. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning 33; 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar