Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 10:3 (2020) ► pp.369–388

Cross-linguistic influence and the MGM

| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz , Germany

Language learning is an interactive, social effort and the role of grammar is no longer focused. Nowadays we consider most language learners to be pluricultural beings aiming at communicative language competence (cf. CEFR 2018) in another language. The role of grammar, thus, plays a subordinate role. Authentic language usage requires the analysis of authentic dialogues (via the Mixed Game Model, MGM) and awareness-raising regarding the phenomenon of language transfer (via Crosslinguistic-influence approaches). These two approaches will be merged within the article – addressed to linguists as well as language teachers.

Keywords: MGM, crosslinguistic influence, language learning and teaching, dialogue
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Mixed Game Model
  • 3.Language transfer – Crosslinguistic influence
  • 4.CLI and the MGM
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00075.gre
References
Alonso Alonso, Rosa
2016 Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol/ Buffalo/ Toronto: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amiri, Anita
2018 Authentizität und Wertkonflikte. DaF-Lehrwerke für den Iran. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Bickes, Hans and Ute Pauli
2009 Erst- und Zweitspracherwerb. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink UTB.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elite Olshtain
1984 “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied Linguistics 5(3): 196–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)
2018 Companion Volume with new descriptors Council of Europe. [URL]. Accessed on June 9, 2020.
Corder, Pit Stephen
1967 “The Significance of Learners’ Errors”. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5 (1–4): 160–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo
1994 “Speech Act Theory and Gricean Pragmatics: Some differences of detail that make a difference”. In Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Savas L. Tsohatzidis. 323–334. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Düwell, Henning
2003 „Fremdsprachenlerner“. In Handbuch Fremd¬sprachenunterricht, 4th edition, ed. by Christ Bausch et al.. Tübingen and Stuttgart: Francke.Google Scholar
Ecke, Peter
2015 “Parasitic Vocabulary Acquisition, Cross-linguistic Influence, and Lexical Retrieval in Multilinguals”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 181: 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, Willis and Juliane House
2006 Einführung in die Sprachlehrforschung. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Morkötter, Steffi
2019 “Interkomprehension und Transfer”. In Handbuch Mehrsprachigkeits- und Mehrkulturalitätsdidaktik, ed. by Christiane Fäcke and Franz-Joseph Meißner. 321–324. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempo.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. and Larry Selinker
(eds.) 1983 Language Transfer in Language Learning. Issues in Second Language Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gnutzmann, Claus
1990 Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Grein, Marion
2007 “The Speech Act of Refusals – German and Japanese”. In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand. 95–113. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “How Culture Affects Language and Dialogue”. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand. 347–365. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2018a “Progress in Language Teaching. From competence to dialogic competence-in-performance. In From Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes. 61–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “Foreign Language Teaching – Integrationism vs. MGM”. In Language and Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu and Adrian Pablé. Special issue. Integrating Dialogue 8:1, 5–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2019 “Interkulturelle Kompetenz für DaF-Lehrende – Dialogisches Handlungsspiel und Multikollektivität”. In Kompetenzen in DaF / DaZ, ed. by Ersch, Christina Maria. 125–142. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Mangado, Juncal M., Maria Martínez-Adrián, and Fransisco Gallardo-del-Puerto
(eds.) 2019 Cross-Linguistic Influence: From Empirical Evidence to Classroom Practice. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halimi, Florentina
2008 “L2 Macedonian in L3 English Production. Achieving multilingualism: wills and ways”. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multilingualism (ICOM), 439–452. Catello: Publications Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Harden, Theo
2006 Angewandte Linguistik und Fremdsprachendidaktik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Jessner, Ulrike, Manon Menges, and Stefanie Graus
2016 “Crosslinguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition”. In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Rosa Alonso Alonso. 193–214. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koike, Dale A.
2017 “Theory and Practice”. In. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand. 251–263. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lado, Robert
1957 Linguistics Across Cultures. Applied linguistics for language teachers. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Mehrpour, Saeed, Masoume Ahmadi, and Naser Sabourianzadeh
2016 “Cross–linguistic Comparison of Refusal Speech Act: Evidence from Trilingual EFL Learners in English, Farsi, and Kurdish”. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies 8(2):159–188.Google Scholar
Müller-Lancé, Johannes
2006 Der Wortschatz romanischer Sprachen im Tertiär-sprachenerwerb. Lernerstrategien am Beispiel des Spanischen, Italienischen und Katalanischen. 2nd edition. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence
1989 Language Transfer. Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Cross-linguistic Influence and Conceptual Transfer: What are the concepts?” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 251: 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Önalan, Okan and Abdulvahit Çakır
2018 “A Comparative Study on Speech Acts: formal complaints by native speakers and Turkish learners of English”. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 239–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfenniger, Simone E. and Davis Singleton
2016 “Age of Onset, Socio-affect and Cross-linguistic Influence: A long-term classroom study”. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 147–179.Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry
1972 “Interlanguage”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10(3): 209–231.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, Michael and Eric Kellerman
1986 “Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction”. In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Michael Sharwood Smith and Eric Kellerman. 1–9. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2009a Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b “Teaching a Foreign Language. A Tentative Enterprise”. In Language Teaching. Integrational Linguistic Approaches, ed. by Michael Toolan. 120–139. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010 Dialogue. The Mixed Game. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “The Mixed Game Model: A Holistic Theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand. 174–194. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1953 Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York, Reprint: The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar