the 17th temple university japan campus applied linguistics colloquium · · 2015-02-17the 17th...

2/7/2015

1

The 17th Temple University Japan Campus Applied Linguistics Colloquium

Osaka – 2015/02/07

A li i di “Li i iA literature review regarding “Linguistic Distance” and its influence on TESOL

Masako Nishikawa – Van Eester

Nishogakusha University

1

Nishogakusha UniversityFree-lance Interpreter/Translator

Japanese, English & Dutch (all directions)

+ German, French & Afrikaans (as source languages)


“ it could be said that although the ... it could be said that although the distance between languages might be a factor in the learning of a foreign language, the external motivation provided by the social environment is

2

p yeven more important.”

Yoshida 2009


2/7/2015

2

Factors to improve English education in Japan

Wh th J lWhy are the Japanese poor learners of foreign languages?

⇒ “Linguistic Distance”

3

?Masako Nishikawa – Van Eester

Pieter BreugelThe Tower of Babel (1563)

4Masako Nishikawa – Van Eester

2/7/2015

3

5

Science 4/15/2011

All languages spring from the speech of our African ancestors. Two weeks ago, Quentin Atkinson of the University of Auckland published his findings on linguistic evolution. Here's the abstract ("Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa",


6

http://www.snipview.com/q/Linguistic%20distance

retrieved January 2015


2/7/2015

4

Linguistic Distance – FSI (1)

• Foreign Service Institute

(USA, United States Department of State)

well-educated Americans (adults) getting a special intensive language training to learn t t l

7

target languages...

"How difficult will learning language x be?"



"How difficult will learning language x be?”

Categorization (1973)

• Category I: Languages closely related to English

23-24 weeks (575-600 class hours)

8

Afrikaans, Danish, Dutch, French, Italian, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish...


2/7/2015

5


• Category II: Languages with significant Category II: Languages with significant linguistic and/or cultural differences from English

44 weeks (1100 class hours)

Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Finnish, G

9

Greek, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese...



• Category III: Languages which are quite diffi lt f ti E li h kdifficult for native English speakers

88 weeks (2200 class hours)

(about half that time preferably spent studying in-country)

Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Taiwanese (Hokkin Min Nan),

10

Mandarin, Taiwanese (Hokkin Min Nan), Wu (Chinese) ...


2/7/2015

6

Article 1 - Nerbonne & Hinrichs (2006)

“Linguistic Distances”

- from the perspective of theoretical andfrom the perspective of theoretical and applied areas of computational linguistics

“linguistic distance(s)” and “linguistic similarity”

11

y

⇒ in spite of frequent use of these notions, very little attention has been paid...


Article 1 - Nerbonne & Hinrichs (2006)

“We assume that there is a ‘hidden i bl ’ i th i il it l ti ”variable’ in the similarity relation.”

It is useful to deal with different notionsseparately.

three aspects1 Phonology

12

1. Phonology

2. Syntax

3. Semantics


2/7/2015

7

Article 2 – Isphording (2013)

“Disadvantage of Linguistic Origin: Evidence from Immigrant Literacy Scores”from Immigrant Literacy Scores

disadvantage in the formation of literacy skills of immigrates arising from the linguistic distance between mother tongue and host country language. (German)

13

CPH issue – the negative effect of late arrivals (age 12 )



Literacy test scores from the International Ad lt Lit SAdult Literacy Survey

significant difference o Linguistically distant immigrants face a strong

disadvantage in literacy scores

oCPH confirmed (arriving at the age of 12 or

14

oCPH confirmed (arriving at the age of 12 or later)

Matrix of Linguistic Distance


2/7/2015

8

Article 2 – Isphording (2013)Test lang. Dutch French English German Finnish Hungarian

Dutch 0.00 91.06 63.22 51.50 99.00 99.16

French 91 06 0 00 91 02 95 87 98 08 100 65French 91.06 0.00 91.02 95.87 98.08 100.65

English 63.22 91.02 0.00 72.21 102.27 95.22

German 51.50 95.87 72.21 0.00 96.31 98.43

Finnish 99.00 98.08 102.27 96.31 0.00 84.53

Arabic 100 97.20 97.95 98.96 98.15 98.68

Greek 96.02 95.08 97.15 97.25 100.2 96.76

Japanese 101.92 101.94 99.39 100.14 96.98 99.16


Japanese 101.92 101.94 99.39 100.14 96.98 99.16

Korean 99.04 102.74 99.12 104.3 100.18 100.92

Turkish 102.33 98.12 101.04 99.91 96.70 94.55

Vietnamese 100.81 101.81 104.06 96.14 97.80 98.86


the table is an excerpt of the matrix chart based on “Disadvantages of Linguistic Origin: Evidence from Immigrant LiteracyOrigin: Evidence from Immigrant Literacy Scores”

“Notes: - Source: Own calculations using programs for calculating ASJP distance matrices (version 2.1).

16

( )

ASJP: the Automatic Similarity Judgment Program. http://asjp.clld.org/ (wordlists & meanings)


2/7/2015

9

Article 3 – Chiswick & Miller (2004)

“Linguistic Distance: A Quantitative Measure f th Di t B t E li h dof the Distance Between English and

Other Languages”

a scaler of quantitative measure of the “distance” between English and a myriad

17

distance between English and a myriad of other (non-native American) languages.



This measure is based on the difficulty Americans learning other languagesAmericans learning other languages.

Then this measure is used in an analysis of the determinants of English language proficiency among adult immigrants in the USA and Canada.

18

Index of Difficulty of Learning a Foreign Language (Language Scores) see the table of the next slide:


2/7/2015

10


Language Score Language Score

Af ik 3 00 S di h 3 00Afrikaans 3.00 Swedish 3.00

Dutch 2.75 French 2.50

Spanish 2.25 German 2.25

Finnish 2.00 Greek 1.75

Vietnamese 1.50 Arabic 1.50

19

Mandarin 1.50 Cantonese 1.25

Japanese 1.00 Korean 1.00



Source of Language Score:

Lucinda Hart-Gonzalez and Stephanie Lindmann, “Expected Achievement in Speaking Proficiency, 1993”, School of Language Study, Foreign Services Institute, Department of State, April 15,

20

Institute, Department of State, April 15, 1993.


2/7/2015

11

Article 4 – Schepens, J., van der Slik, F., & van Hout, R. (2013)

“Learning Complex Features: A M h l i l A t f L2 L bilit ”Morphological Account of L2 Learnability”

(Job Schepens, ......)

Learning Dutch as a foreign language

dealing with “Speaking Proficiency”

21

“L2 learnability co-varies systematically with similarities in morphological features”



⇒This is more relevant if the L2 is more complex than the L1, less relevant in the opposite case.

the complexity: see the table of the next lid

22

slide


2/7/2015

12



“Linguistic Distance”- C. O. M. Ximo (Ed.) 2011

“Please note that the content of this book primarily consists ofthis book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Linguistic distance is a term loosely used to describe how different one language or dialect

24

g gis from another.”

!Masako Nishikawa – Van Eester

2/7/2015

13

“ it could be said that although the ... it could be said that although the distance between languages might be a factor in the learning of a foreign language, the external motivation provided by the social environment is

25

p yeven more important.”

Yoshida 2009


References (1) Chiswick, B. R. & Miller, P. W. (2004). Linguistic Distance: A

Quantitative Measure of the Distance Between English and Other Languages. Discussion Paper Series. Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (Institute for theForschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (Institute for the Study of Labor).

Isphoeding, I. E. (2013). Disadvantages of Linguistic Origin: Evidence from Immigrant Literacy Scores. Discussion Paper Series. Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (Institute for the Study of Labor).

26

Nerbonne, J. & Hinrichs, E. (2006). Linguistic Distances. Proceedings of the Workshop on Linguistic Distances, Association of Computational Linguistics, Sydney, July 2006. 1 – 6.


2/7/2015

14

References (2)

Schepens, J, van der Silk, & van Hout, R. (2013). Learning complex features: a morphological account of L2complex features: a morphological account of L2 learnability. Language Dynamics and Change. 218 -244.

Yoshida, K. (2009). Factors to improve English language education in Japan. Sophia Linguistica: working papers in linguistics, (57).


http://www.d-vecs.jp/Nishikawa/[email protected]

Thank you very much !ありがとうございました！

28

Dank u wel !


the 17th temple university japan campus applied linguistics colloquium · · 2015-02-17the 17th...

Documents