Nativization and Denativization

            Roger Andersen (1979) proposed the Nativization Model which sought an explanation on how learners create and reorganize their interlanguage systems verbally interacting with more proficient speakers.  It says that L2 acquisition consists of two general processes: nativization and denativization.  Nativization is done when learners make the input based on their knowledge that they already possess (L1 knowledge and knowledge of the world).  In denativization, on the other hand, learners adjust their interlanguage system to make them fit with the input through inferencing strategies.  Consequently, Andersen (1990) has recognized that these two terms are not two separate forces but aspects of the same overall process of acquisition.

            Such instances are evident in the paper “Don’t Put Your Leg in Your Mouth: Transfer in the Acquisition of Idioms in a Second Language” by Suzanne Irujo (1986) of Brown University and Boston University.  Findings of the study states that the subjects were able to generalize from the meaning of the Spanish idiom to its meaning in English, even when the form is slightly different.  When the differences between the two languages are slight, more transfer from one language to another occurs.  When the differences are great, lesser or little transfer occurs.  The findings also support the notion that advanced learners of L2 whose L1 is related to the L2 can use their knowledge in L1 to comprehend and produce L2 language.  Hence, nativization is done in this part, where the language learners use their knowledge of the L1 to be able to comprehend the L2.

            In teaching in ESL or foreign language classes, it is substantial when language learners use their knowledge in their L1 to comprehend and produce their L2, and language teachers should take advantage of it.  During comparison in L1 and L2, language learners were able to identify which aspects can be transferred from L1 and which are likely to cause interference.  Hence, they will take advantage of those similarities and take careful moves on those which will cause interference to be able to master the target language.  From the study of Irujo (1986), results indicated that positive transfer was being used by the subjects.  Hence, it is also vital to teach the language learners on how to utilize positive transfer and avoid interference (negative transfer).  They must also be given the time and enough opportunity to practice their L2 in contextualized situations.  This would be of great help for them to produce the language correctly.

References:

Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t Put Your Leg in Your Mouth: Transfer in the Acquisition of Idioms in a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, 287-301.

Ellis, R. (1994). (De)nativisation. Retrieved from http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/learn_teach_FL/affiche_theorie.php?id_activite=75