Ringbom (2007) Ch. 2 Different types of cross-linguistic similarities 1.

Similarity is basic, difference is secondary natural procedure is to look for similarities (that enhance learning process), i.e. establish a relation between a new proposition/task and what already exists in the mind (p5). Differences are looked for only if similarities cannot be established. 2. cross-linguistic similarity relations are positioned on a continuum: SIMILARITY / CONTRAST / ZERO relation: SIMILARITY relation: TL item/pattern is perceived as formally and/or functionally similar to L1/Ln form or pattern; a natural tendency in learners at early stages of lg learning is trying to establish oneto-one relationship with a unit in another known lg, usually L1. a. Word usage in SLA proved to be influenced by Semantic equivalence hypothesis: conceptual patterns and linguistic coding practices in L1 provide the essential criteria for those in L2 (Ijaz 1986:448); b. Cognates; Establishing CLI similarities is particularly essential for comprehension on a new lg; when both formal and functional similarities can be established, this makes for positive transfer; English learner learning Swedish; CONTRAST relation: the learners perceives TL item/pattern as in important ways differing from L1/Ln form or pattern, though there is also an underlying similarity between them (in order to establish meaningful differences you must perceive some underlying similarity); English learner learning German: he/she may have problems with producing correct verb forms, but he/she is basically aware of the existence of a system, so requires no great effort on learning to understand functions and endings; both positive and negative transfer, but only the negative t is immediately visible to the researcher; ZERO relation: TL items/patterns at early stages of learning appear to have little or no perceptible relation to the L1/Ln: learners L1 may lack concepts necessary to perceive fundamental distinctions in TL; Indo-European learning non-Indo-E it takes time to understand the details of a totally different TL writing system learner finds it difficult to relate anything to his/her previous linguistic knowledge; zero relation poses great difficulties at early stages of learning: the worst possible transfer situation is when there is no overlap between two sets of productions, in which case transfer is ZERO, not negative (Anderson 1989:114)

 clear similarities are not easily noticed: in LEXIS even if a closer inspection reveals a few parallels (e.g. loanwords), this usually refers to low-frequency words not encountered at early stages of learning; in STRUCTURE similarities normaly need to be pointed out to the learner in an explicit way. 3. Perceived and objective similarity How to define (measure) linguistic similarity? symmetry: objective CLI similarity will be symmetrical (i.e. both ways); perceived similarity is not necessarily symmetrical (i.e. Xlg speakers may find it easier to understand Y than Ylg speakers to understand X) Psychotypology perception of proximity/distance between lgs; BUT in general genetic relatedness overlaps with perceived similarity, though in principle those two concepts should be distinguished; it is after all possible to perceive some similarities across wholly unrelated languges; by the same token, all aspects of a related TL can be hardly perceived to be similar; p.79 If you know Finnish as L2, there will be no major problem in learning Swahili the importance of perceived structural similarity across non-native lgs! P.79 L2 proficiency plus extensive declarative knowledge may be more useful than L1 prof since it may be easier to understand and to verbalise what lies behind the concept/word/construction (the learner is not confined to his L1 subconcious feeling) 4. Formal and Functional/semantic similarity FUNCTIONAL: In grammar; how easily the learner can establish working one-to-one correspondences between grammatical elements depends largely on the degree of congruence (agreement), i.e. the similarity of the functions of grammatical categories (GOTO p68); establishing functional sim is essential, and an understanding of basic linguistic structures in TL is needed for understanding and learning lexis; learners of related lgs have this one basic understanding already built in; FORMAL (and then semantic): in lexis; formal similarity to an existing L1 word is perceived first (getting the word form comes before getting the word meaning); if formal similarity can be established, it provides basis for a subsequent assumption of semantic similarity (if we find form familiar, we also tend to transfer meaning); and so, formal correspondences arouse hopes of semantic or functional equivalence; after meeting a familiar word form, learner doesnt need to expend much effort on storing it in the mental lexicon what is needed is merely a mental note this word in a similar form works in TL too.