4.4 ILs are influenced by the learner's L1
4.4.2 The effect of the L1 on SLA: when (markedness)
A third 'constraint' on LI transfer proposed by Zobl and several other theorists is linguistic markedness. The general claim is that linguistically unmarked features of the LI will tend to transfer, but that linguistically marked LI features will not (e.g. Eckman 1977; Kellerman 1977; Gass 1979; Gundel and Tarone 1983; Zobl 1983b, 1984; Rutherford 1984;
Hyltenstam 1984, 1987; Kean 1986; but cf. White 1987a).
Linguistic notions of 'markedness' are usually defined in terms of complexity, relative infrequency of use or departure from something that is more basic, typical or canonical in a language. Thus, one argument for treating masculine members of pairs like man/woman and waiter/waitress as the unmarked (read 'simpler', base) forms is the fact that English adds forms to produce the morphologically more complex feminine form. The feminine form is therefore marked.
Similarly, morphemes are added to distinguish past from present, plural from singular, and so on, suggesting that present and singular are unmarked, past and plural are marked.
Markedness can also be ascertained typologically when cross-linguistic comparisons of languages show that the presence of some linguistic feature implies the presence of another feature. Languages which have voiced stops, for example, also have voiceless stops, whereas
some languages which have voiceless stops do not have voiced ones, suggesting that voiced (which involves
additional complexity in the form of an additional phonological feature) is marked, voiceless is unmarked.
Utilizing this last notion of implicational universals, with 'implied' terms being unmarked or less marked, one of the first and most interesting claims regarding transfer was Eckman's Markedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH) (Eckman 1977, 1985). The MDH makes three predictions (1977, p. 321):
1. Those areas of the L2 which differ from the L1, and are more marked than the L1 will be difficult.
2. The relative degree of difficulty of the areas of the L2 which are more marked than the L1 will correspond to the relative degree of markedness.
3. Those areas of the L2 which are different from the L1, but are not more marked than the L1, will not be difficult.
To support prediction (b), Eckman (1977, pp. 323-7) reanalysed the data on IL syntax in Schachter (1974), showing that the degree of difficulty with English relative clauses experienced by each of the four groups in that study - Farsi, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese speakers reflected the relative distance of their L1 from English on the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy markedness scale (Keenan and Comrie 1977). The CAH, he noted, could'at most simply predict difficulty for all groups, given that each L1 forms relatives differently from English in several ways, but could not make any principled (non-arbitrary) predictions about relative degree of difficulty. (For discussion of this reanalysis, see Kellerman 1979, 1984.)
Turning to predictions (a) and (c), Eckman further illustrated the explanatory power of the MDH using SL phonology data.
Dinnsen and Eckman (1975) had established that of three possible positions in words in which a voiced/voiceless distinction can be made, initial position (bit/pit) is the least marked in a markedness hierarchy, followed by medial position (biding/biting), with final position being the most marked (eyes/ice. Languages like English, Arabic and Swedish, which have voice contrasts in word-final position, will always also have them in medial and initial positions.
There are also languages, like German, Japanese and Catalan, however, which have voice contrasts in medial and initial position, but not in final position. Another group, including Corsican and Sardinian, have the contrast in initial position only. There are no languages which make the distinction in medial and/or final, but not initial position, or in final, but not medial and initial position.
With these facts in mind, the MDH predicts (correctly) that German speakers have difficulty making the word-final contrast with obstruents in English, which involves them in adding a more marked distinction in the SL (MDH prediction (a)), whereas English speakers have no difficulty with dropping the (most marked) word-final L1 distinction when learning German (MDH prediction (c)). The original CAH, on the other hand, again could not handle data like these, since an L1-L2 voice contrast difference exists whether English or German is the SL, and so should lead to difficulty in both cases, but does not. Eckman pointed out that a potential modification of the CAH to handle these data, namely, positing that what is difficult is a new contrast or new position of contrast, but not the suppression of a contrast, is
the German/English data, it could not explain other cases, such as the fact that English speakers have no difficulty in adding a contrast when they learn to use /ž/ in contrast with /š/ in initial position in French (Gradman 1971), as in 'je'.
(English has the /ž/ sound only in medial or final position, e.g.
measure, garage.) The MDH correcdy predicts the French data, on the other hand. Since English, the L1, has the /ž/-/š/
contrast in the more marked, medial and final, positions for voicing contrasts, adding the contrast in initial position in French involves adding a less marked contrast, and so is not expected to be difficult (MDH prediction (c)).
Eckman's MDH seems worthy of more research attention than it has received to date, although it appears that some refinement and modifications will be necessary. First, the precision of the claims needs to be enhanced by adding specific predictions as to the form(s) that 'difficulty' will take in each case, particularly as to whether marked and unmarked structures wil transfer, and under what circumstances.
Second, as noted earlier, Zobl has identified cases of difficulty and transfer where both L1 and L2 are marked.
Prediction (b) could handle these if each marked structure could be located at different points on a markedness hierarchy (such as Keenen and Comrie 1977), but would need further elaboration in cases of equal markedness. (See Eckman 1985 for discussion of these and other potential modifications.)