The within-task data comparison: Overuse

The section first discusses the Chinese learners’ performance on the English DT, because it is consistent with previous research findings. As shown in Table 5 and Figure 3, the Chinese learners’ performance data in the English DT exhibit a downward linear curve: 69.57% at Level 1, 55% at Level 2, and 27.78% at Level 3.

These are the percentages in which the Chinese learners use a marked L2 pattern (i.e.

because-initial structure), although it is considered unmarked in their L1. These performance data fit in well with previous research claims that there is a negative relationship between L2 proficiency and forward transfer (e.g. Takahashi and Dufon 1989, Maeshiba, Yoshinaga, Kasper and Ross 1996). That is, the least proficient Level 1 Chinese learners are found to aptly transfer their L1 discourse pattern of because-initial information sequencing into their L2 (69.57%), whereas the most proficient Level 3 Chinese learners resort less to this L1-based discourse strategy in their L2 writing (27.78%) with the Level 2 intermediate Chinese learners in between (55%).

In contrast, the Chinese learners’ performance data in the English SCT, as shown in Table 5 and Figure 2, exhibit a U-shaped behavior pattern¹¹ (Kellerman 1979, 1983, 1985, Gatbonton 1983, Lightbown 1985, Gershokoff-Stow and Thelen 2004).

That is, the frequency rate of using L1-based discourse strategy in their L2 writing is initially high (69.05% at Level 1), then declines (13.57% at Level 2), and rises again (31.58% at Level 3). These results do not support the negative relationship between L2 proficiency and forward transfer. That is, the Level 2 (intermediate)

11 The notion of U-shaped behavior in SLA is first proposed by Kellerman. That is, L2 learners may sometimes pass through an early stage of development where they exhibit correct use of a target-like L2 form if this form corresponds to an L1 form and then replace it with a developmental non-target-like L2 form before finally returning to the correct target-like L2 form again. Thus, error frequency in the three stages is initially low, then rises, and finally declines again; conversely, accuracy level is initially high, then declines, and finally rises again, yielding the U-shape in a graphic representation of the performance data.

Chinese learners (13.57%) are found to produce less of non-target-like L2 because-initial structure than both the Level 1 (beginning) Chinese learners (69.05%) and the Level 3 (advanced) Chinese learners (31.58%). In other words, the Level 2 Chinese learners produce significantly more of target-like L2 because-medial structures (86.25%) than both the Level 1 (30.95%) and the Level 3 (68.42%) Chinese learners. The Level 2 Chinese speakers even outperform the native English baseline group (80.23%) in producing this target-like L2 unmarked pattern in the English SCT (see Appendix 1.1). It is unlikely that the Level 2 intermediate Chinese ESL learners are actually ‘better’ than the Level 3 advanced Chinese ESL learners and the English native speakers in acquiring the target-like L2 English pattern of because-medial information sequencing. Thus, the U-shaped pattern may have resulted from a so-called ‘overuse’ behavior by the Level 2 Chinese learners in overindulging in their use of this target-like L2 pattern, thus leading to their underrepresented use of the L1 discourse pattern (Levinston 1971).

Overuse of because-medial structure as a result of transfer of training

How can the overuse behavior of the Level 2 Chinese learners be explained?

The reason may have been due to transfer of training (Selinker 1972). In other words, in a context of learning L2 writing in the U.S. academic environment, the Level 2 Chinese learners might have been instructionally directed toward the unmarked L2 use of because-medial information sequencing, and thus have made a conscious effort to approximate this usage (Corder 1978). Because of this likely transfer of training effect, they appear to overuse the target-like unmarked L2 pattern in the English SCT. This explanation via a transfer of training effect seems plausible since six of the eight Level 2 Chinese students, whose TOEFL scores are lower than 575, come from a university which has required them to take additional ESL courses.

L2 availability and restructuring process

However, why did overuse behavior, as a possible result of the transfer of training effect, occur only to the Level Chinese 2 learners, but not to the Level 1 and the Level 3 learners? Two major theories in SLA may help to interpret this result.

Firstly, it may be related to the Chinese learners’ L2 processing level, an issue of learnability (Pienemann 1984). Moreover, it has been pointed out that the L2 resources and access level available to learners might act as constraints on development (Freeman and Long 1991). Secondly, the research view of SLA as a

restructuring process offers a further explanation. According to Lightbown (1985), SLA is not simply linear and cumulative, but is characterized by a processing of restructuring according to a U-shape, first declining as more complex internal representations replace less complex ones, and increasing again as skills become proficient. Similarly, Corder (1978) views the process of SLA as a restructuring continuum in which learners first utilize their L1, gradually restructuring it as they discover how it differs from the L2. In other words, learners’ IL is viewed as a series of stages consisting of the gradual replacement of L1 rules by L2 rules.

Moreover, Anderson (1983) maintains that the early stages of SLA involve the creation of independent and autonomous linguistic systems, at least partly distinct from the L2, which he termed nativization; this is distinguished from denativization, referring to the later stages of SLA, in which the circumstances cause learners to restructure their linguistic system to conform more closely to that of the L2.

Thus, at the earler stages of the IL continuum, it is only natural for the Level 1 Chinese learners to utilize their L1 for hypotheses about the L2, as evidenced by their high frequency of use in the L1 discourse pattern of because-initial information sequencing (69.05%) in the English SCT. This result suggests that forward transfer from L1 to L2 is primarily a processing and acquisition strategy in the autonomous, pre-restructuring stage in L2 learners’ IL system. On the other hand, the Level 3 Chinese learners, who are more fluent in L2, may have been approaching the later stages of restructuring and therefore have a better command of the target-like unmarked L2 pattern. This could explain their relatively fewer use of because-initial information sequencing (31.58%) in the English SCT, as compared to that of the Level 1 Chinese learners (69.05%), although still considerably more than that of the English baseline group (19.77%). In contrast, the level 2 Chinese learners, at the intermediate course of IL development, may have begun to separate the L1 and L2 systems, as a result of their developing an independent set of L2 rules distinct from those of L1. But since they are still at the transitional stages of restructuring, the Level 2 Chinese learners may not yet have a proper sense of the natural (unmarked) use of this target-like L2 item but tend to overuse it.

The theories of L2 processing level and restructuring process can also account for why the transfer of training effect may not affect the Level 1 and Level 3 Chinese learners. Transfer of training does not appear to be an issue for the Level 1 Chinese learners, due to their heavy reliance on L1 acquisition strategy (i.e.

because-initial information sequencing) in an autonomous, pre-restructuring stage in their IL (Anderson 1983). Moreover, even if the Level 1 Chinese learners were exposed to the linguistic pattern (i.e. because-medial information sequencing) under investigation in an ESL classroom, transfer of training would not take effect so

easily (Pienemann 1984, Freeman and Long 1991) before their processing level is elevated (say, to the intermediate level). Additionally, transfer of training does not affect the Level 3 Chinese learners, because they are advanced learners who might have developed crosslinguistic awareness of the markedness difference between information sequencing in Chinese and English, and would not regard because-medial structure as the sole information sequencing strategy in English.

By contrast, the Level 2 Chinese learners are presumably at the unstable, transitional stages of restructuring in their IL and are therefore more susceptible to the transfer of training effect.