Inter- and Intra-Lingual Interference Effects in Learning a Third Language

Author(s): Joshua G. W. Ahukanna, Nancy J. Lund and J. Ronald Gentile

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 281-287
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/324154
Accessed: 28-08-2019 23:03 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/324154?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Inter- and Intra-Lingual Interference
Effects in Learning a Third Language
JOSHUA G.W. AHUKANNA, NANCY J. LUND and J. RONALD GENTILE

AN ONGOING CONTROVERSY IN THE FIELD OF increase as a speaker increases the number of

second language acquisition revolves around languages learned. The number of languages
the role of interference from the first language spoken by subjects may be a significant but
in explaining errors in the target language.1 uncontrolled confounding factor in some
The point at issue is whether interference has studies.
explanatory adequacy for errors, or whether This study was undertaken to assess inter-
other factors, such as the structural com- ference from two languages for learners of
plexity of the target language, are more criti-French. Almost every Nigerian who studies
cal causes of errors. While this has been exten- French has proficiency in at least two other
sively researched, the issue is not resolved languages. As a country with approximately
since the work of some researchers negates in- 400 local languages, none of which is suffi-
terference as a significant learning-factor,2ciently dominant to qualify as the national
while that of others finds evidence for interfer- language, Nigeria has settled on English as the
ence-caused errors.3 official language. English is not only the lan-
A few studies have been designed with guage of government, law, medicine, com-
speakers of different mother tongues learning merce, and the mass media, it is perhaps most
English to determine the relative interference importantly the medium of instruction at all
from structures that are similar in English and levels of education above the third grade of
the speaker's first language.4 The structures primary school. In the school curriculum Eng-
investigated were selected because of particu- lish is a compulsory subject, success in which
lar difficulties they were expected to present to (in class and on standardized examinations)
each language group. A pattern of random determines the quality of the certificate of
errors, or errors that are common for all lan- graduation and the potential for job place-
guage groups, would argue against interfer- ment or admission to institutions of higher
ence as a significant factor. Results of these education.
studies were mixed, and these differences are Because of the importance attached to
not easily explained by methodological differ- learning English, many local languages were,
ences.5 until recently, all but ignored in the schools.
One issue to be considered in explaining re- They were optional subjects in the school cur-
searchers' inability to confirm or disconfirm riculum and were taught in a manner de-
the role of interference in second language scribed by Adekunle as a "patch-work of prac-
learning is the type of errors being investi-
tices and exercises which varies from one state
gated. It may well be that some components of
to another."6 For many, especially western-
language are more susceptible to influence educated Nigerians, English has for all practi-
from the first language than are others. An- cal purposes become the dominant language,
other issue is the relative proficiency of the
despite the fact that it is the native language of
speakers in the non-native language. Interfer-almost no Nigerian. With the introduction of
ence may be strongest at the beginning of sec-French in Nigerian secondary schools, col-
ond language acquisition, and be less impor-
leges, and universities, three languages are
tant as proficiency increases. It also seems brought into contact. In the state of Imo in
likely that the potential for interference wouldEastern Nigeria, French is learned in the con-

Modern Language Journal, 65 (Autumn 1981): 281-87

text of the mother tongue, Igbo, and, the na-
tional language, English.

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
282 Ahukanna, Lund and Gentile

Other researchers have studied the interfer- forms were confirmed by reference to Le Fran-
ence from African languages in learning fais fondamental, a handbook published by the
European ones but to our knowledge none French Ministry of Education (1959).
have described or controlled for the interfer- Fifteen items were written to reflect each
ence effects from two base languages on the source of error. In addition, fifteen correct
target language.7 This study, to be specific, French statements were included, to give a
total of seventy-five randomly ordered items
controls for this factor while it: 1) analyzes in-
terlinguistic interference effects traceable to in the entire test.10 Table I provides a fre-
Igbo, English, or either Igbo or English (am- quency distribution of each grammatical cate-
biguously), or to intralingual factors in gory tested for each source of interference.
French; 2) analyzes the errors made according Examples of test sentences from each source
to the nature of structural similarities in the of interference follow, with a brief discussion
base and target languages; and 3) examinesof each.
the influence of relative proficiency in the tar- Interference from Igbo (Item 10): Maisje vous ai
get language in susceptibility to interference.8 dit que ma mere allait marche hier; But I told you
that my mother was going market yesterday
METHOD
(English translation); Ma a gwara m gi na nne m
nara eje ahia nyaa (Igbo translation). In both
English and French, the preposition "to" (au)
Subjects. Two experiments were plus conducted
an article is required to make it gram-
two years apart. In the first, all ofmatically
the students
correct. In Igbo, on the other hand,
(N = 40) in their second year in the Depart- no preposition or article is required, so knowl-
ment of French at Alvan Ikoku College of edge of the Igbo rule could lead incorrectly to
Education (AICE), Owerri, Nigeria, consti- judging this sentence to be "correct" French.
tuted the subjects. Of those, twenty subjects Interference from English (Item 50): Oko parlera
had no previous instruction in French before a son fils quand il arrive; Oko will speak to his
attending AICE (Group A). The remaining son when he arrives (English translation). In
twenty subjects had all had five years of in- French, the future tense is used after quand
struction in secondary school prior to matricu-(when) in the context illustrated. In English,
lation at AICE (Group B).9 the present tense is used. Igbo uses the perfect
In the second experiment, twenty subjects tense. A student who did not mark item fifty
from each category (Group A or B defined incorrect, therefore, may have applied the
above) were randomly selected from a class of English rule of tense agreement.
second year students matriculating in AICE Interference from both Igbo and English (Item
two years later. Except for one change in pro- 13): Tu aimes riz; You like rice (English trans-
cedure (described below), these subjects pro- lation); Osikapa na adi gi nma (Igbo transla-
vided a replication of the first experiment. For tion). In item thirteen, the correct French ver-
all eighty subjects the native language was sion is: Tu aimes le riz. In this context, French
Igbo; English was the second language. No uses a form of the definite article le, la, or les
languages other than Igbo, English, and (the) after the verb aimer (to like), if a generic
French were spoken by these subjects. reference is intended. This practice does not
Instrument. The items for the grammar test, hold true in Igbo or English. In both lan-
written especially for this study, each con- guages the article is omitted.
tained one structure that had a parallel but Overgeneralization from French (i.e., Intralingual
differently executed structure in Igbo or Eng- Errors) (Item 28): Pour la fete, elle a acheti des
lish. The test was thus designed to reflect jolies chaussures; For the feast she has bought
errors that could be attributable to interfer- beautiful shoes (English translation). Here the
ence from each of the following sources: I - error is in the use of des, in place of de before a
Igbo, but not English; E-English, but not preceding adjective. This error is an overgen-
Igbo; B-both Igbo and English; F-incorrect eralization of the French rule that adjectives
applications of rules in French, not reflecting agree in number and gender with the words
Igbo or English patterns. The structures se- they modify. Since no corresponding form
lected for testing were based on observed exists in Igbo or English, the error is probably
classroom and examination errors; correct a result of previous learning in French.

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Interference Effects in a Third Language 283

TABLE I

Frequency of Incorrect Items in the Test by Grammatical Category and Source of Interference

Source of Interference
Igbo and
Grammatical Category Igbo English English French Total
Semantic 2 4 2 1 9
Syntactic (Word Order) 5 6 4 3 18
Preposition 3 1 2 2 8
Article 1 1 1 - 3
Adjective 3 1 - 1 5
Tense - 1 1 2 4
Quand + Future - 1 - - 1
Object Pronoun I - - 1 2
Subject-Verb - - - 2 2
Negative - - 1 1 2
Partitive - - 2 1 3
Infinitive - - - 1 1
Reflexive - - I - 1
Adverb - - 1 - 1

Total 15 15 15 15 60

Correct to be in error; and 3) incorrect

French items were
(Item
la salle; The profes
changed in a way that did not correct them in
lish translation). Experiment II.
Pilot Test. Prior to using the test in the Most errors were of the first type. Since stu-
study, the seventy-five item test was presented dents incorrectly judged the item to be cor-
to two lecturers in French at AICE. All items rect, they of course would make no change.
that were not judged correct or incorrect byThus the requirement in Experiment II to cor-
both lecturers were eliminated or rewritten rect items added no new information, though
until both judges agreed with the senior it suggested additional errors to be followed
author on the correctness or incorrectness of up in later studies.
each item. Evidence of the validity of the scoring de-
Procedure. The test was administered to pends on: 1) the content of the items and
Groups A and B on the same day, but at agreement
dif- by the two additional French in-
ferent class periods. Subjects were not in- structors also fluent in English and Igbo; 2)
formed beforehand that they were to be tested.
replicable empirical evidence of differential
To ensure that they took the test seriously performance
the on the different error sources;
exercise was completed as part of an in-class
and 3) differential performance by the experi-
assignment. enced and the inexperienced students. Evi-
The test was administered by the experi- dence of each type is presented in this paper.
menter who read the following instructions to
both groups of students; "Study the following
RESULTS

French expressions carefully and on the line

provided mark plus if the statement is a cor- Table II presents the mean number of
rect French expression and minus if it is not
errors and standard deviations for each of the
correct French." One hour was provided, four sources of interference, as well as for the
which was sufficient time for each subjectfifteen
to correct French items, for Groups A and
answer all items. The only difference between
B in each experiment. Immediately obvious is
Experiment I and II was that, in the second,
that the fewest errors occurred in recognizing
subjects were asked to correct any errors they
correct French items. In addition, we noted
found. no significant differences between: 1) the
samples
Scoring. Items were scored as incorrect if: 1) of Experiments I and II [F = 2.56; df
those containing an error were judged to be p > .10]; 2) between the beginning
= 1,76;
correct; 2) correct French items were judged
and more advanced students of groups A and B

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 Ahukanna, Lund and Gentile

TABLE II
Mean Errors and Standard Deviations for Each Interference Source and Correct French for Groups A and B
in Each Experiment

Source of Interference
Groups Igbo English Igbo and English French Correct French
(4)** (1) (3) (2)
Exp. I A Mean* 4.90 5.70 5.30 5.60 2.25
S.D. 1.65 1.59 2.39 2.46 1.86
(4) (1) (3) (2)
B Mean* 2.20 5.20 3.00 3.10 1.50
S.D. 1.58 1.51 1.84 1.59 1.57

(4) (1) (3) (2)

Exp. II A Mean* 7.70 8.85 8.10 8.75 1.60
S.D. 3.67 2.62 3.14 3.37 1.19
(3) (1) (2) (4)
B n* 2.70 5.55 3.80 2.45 1.10
S.D. 3.29 2.14 2.17 1.90 1.12

*N = 20 in each cell.
**The numbers in parentheses are ranks of the means from greatest to least number of errors within each group.

TABLE III
Summary 2 x 2 x 4 Factorial Analysis of Variance With Repeated Measures on the Last Factor*

Source of Variation df MS F

Between Subjects 79
A. Exp. I vs. Exp.II 1 208.013 13.83**
B. Beginning vs. Advanced Group 1 904.513 60.12**
AB. Interaction 1 148.512 9.87**
Ss Within Groups (Error) 76 15.045

Within Subjects 240

C. Source I vs. E. vs. F vs. (I + E) 3 53.946 19.74**
AC. Interaction 3 0.912 <1
BC. Interaction 3 23.812 8.71**
ABC. Interaction 3 2.546 < 1
CxSs Within (Error) 228 2.733
*From Winer (1962), pp. 337-48.
**p < .01.

respectively [F = more
3.63;than thirty-three
df percent
= 1,76; as contrasted
p > .
with fifty percent
3) the interaction of 1) and 2) errors on the average).
[F Why < 1].
this difference
results indicate that all groupsoccurred is not clear, but it was
recognize
rect French about reflected
equally in the significant
well AB interaction
forin this the s
of items, althoughrepeated measures analysis effect
a ceiling of variance re- ma
occurred-that is, ported
the in Table
itemsIII. Significant
weremain effects
not
ciently difficult toalso showed up between
induce Groups A and B as
a spread ofal- sco
The other columns in Table II bear on the ready described, and between Experiments I
main issue and provide variability of scores and II, indicating -that the original sample
(i.e., show no evidence of a ceiling effect). In made fewer errors of all kinds than the later
both experiments, for example, the advanced sample.
students (Group B) made fewer errors than the Of greatest interest is the differential per-
beginners (Group A); overall Group B'S errors formance on the interference sources. For all
averaged about twenty percent. The original groups, the greatest number of errors (i.e., the
Group A sample, however, was much better most times subjects judged an incorrect sen-
than the replication Group A sample (slightly tence to be correct) occurred on the items

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Interference Effects in a Third Language 285

traceable to interference from English. And under examination, the sums of ranks would
with one exception, the least number of errors be lowest for English interference and highest
always occurred on Igbo items. This overall for French interference with the other two
regularity was responsible for the significant sources between. Table IV presents the
main effect for Error Source in Table III [F = summed ranks for each A and B group indi-
19.74; df = 3,228; p < .01] and implies that vidually and combined, along with the results
French items were most likely to be incorrectly of the Friedman Two-Way ANOVA by Ranks. 12
judged correct if the structure of the item These data give a slightly different picture
would be correct in English. In fact, for both of the susceptibility of the various subjects to
beginning samples (the A groups), the rank interference from the four sources, showing
order was the same. The rank order of fre- more consistency within the advanced group
quencies of French item structures being in- than within the beginning students. For each
correctly judged correct was as follows: 1) group, nevertheless, English provides the
English; 2) French; 3) Igbo and English; 4) most interference, and Igbo the least.
Igbo.
These results are somewhat complicated by DISCUSSION
the fact that the B groups did not replicate as
perfectly as the A groups, resulting in the sig- The above results suggest that suscept
nificant BC interaction in Table III. Neverthe- to interference effects in language lear
less, they also found the items that conformed related to a number of factors. The amount of
more correctly to English semantics or syntax experience with the target language is one; be-
more convincing of correctness in French than ginning language learners show more interfer-
any other inter- or intralingual interference. ence from base languages than do more profi-
As a further check on these data, the errorscient language users. Another factor is that
made by each subject were ranked for each of some languages appear to cause interference
the four interference sources. For example, if more than do others, possibly due to their
a subject made eight errors traceable to Eng-greater degree of similarity to the target lan-
lish, six to French, five to Igbo plus English,guage.13
and three to Igbo, his errors would be ranked The type of similarity between the target
one, two, three, and four, respectively, for and the base language appears to be a factor in
English, French, Igbo plus English, and Igbo. interference. An attempt was made in the
The ranks within each category can then be present study to write items representative of
summed across all twenty subjects in each many linguistic patterns, as Table I indicates.
group to detect whether a similar trend is oc- However, the number of items is not suffi-
curring for all subjects. Under the null hy- ciently balanced to allow a systematic analysis
pothesis the sums of the ranks for each error of the results by grammatical forms. Of the
source would be equal. With the hypothesis sixty items having interfering effects, nine (or

TABLE IV

Sums of Ranked Errors by Interference Source for Beginning and Advanced Groups

Source of Interference
Group Igbo English Igbo and English French x,2*
A (Beginners)
Exp. I (N- =20) 56.5 41.5 51.5 50.5 3.51
Exp. II (N= 20) 58.0 42.0 52.5 47.5 4.21
Combined (N- 40) 114.0 83.5 104.0 98.0 7.53**

B (Advanced)
Exp. I(N= 20) 68.0 27.0 46.5 58.5 28.12**
Exp.II(N = 20) 63.0 25.5 48.5 63.0 28.21**
Combined (N= 40) 131.0 52.5 121.5 95.0 55.56**

*Xr2 refers to the Friedman Two-Way ANOVA by Ranks Test

**p < .05, one-tailed test.

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
286 Ahukanna, Lund and Gentile

15 %) were semantic interference effects, ference effects is likely related to the high pro-
eighteen (30%) were based on word order, portion of English-based semantic items.
and the remaining thirty-three (55%) were of There is less evidence of interference from
varied syntactic forms. syntactic similarities between the target and
In contrast to this distribution of items, base languages. These results are consistent
however, was the actual proportion of errors with other observations that studies which re-
made. The percentage of errors to each of strict their investigations to syntax have not
these three categories of items ranged across demonstrated interference. 14
the four subject samples (i.e., Groups A and B There are admittedly many limitations to
in both experiments) as follows: Semantic Items:this study; most notable is the exclusion of
21%-38%; Word Order Items: 26%-31%; Syn-data on errors in discourse to determine: 1) if
tactic Form Items: 32%-46%. Clearly, the the errors on our test accurately reflect natu-
semantic items were more difficult than those rally occurring errors; and 2) if our test of
based on similar syntactic forms, at least ac- comprehension corresponds to errors of pro-
cording to the relative frequencies of errors duction. One can only generalize with ex-
expected on the basis of the number of items. treme caution from a contrived, structured
An example of a semantically-produced in- task to hypothesizing the processes through
terference concerned item seven: Mes sujets which the language learner actually goes. It
preferes a l'ecole sont le francais et l'anglais (My appears, however, that a potential for interfer-
favorite subjects at school are French and ence increases with the number of languages a
English). Structurally and grammatically, this student knows. The potential for interference
sentence is correct in both English and from semantically-related items in other lan-
French. However, in French the word "sub- guages appears to be particularly strong. This
jects" does not refer to school subjects as it interference can be counteracted by the in-
does in English. The French prefer "matieres" structor of the target language if the learners'
in place of "sujets." In accepting the above sen- other languages are known. Fortunately, the
tence as correct, subjects had interference more skill students develop in the target lan-
from an English semantic form. guage, the more resistant they become to all of
The fact that English had the largest inter- these sources of interference.

Yorio & Ruth H. Crymes (Washington, DC: TESOL,

NOTES
1977), pp. 159-71; see also Schachter (1974) and (1976),
note 3 above.
'Appreciation is expressed to Carol Hosenfeld and 5Schachter found support for interference, while loup
Joseph Zampogna for their comments. & Kruse (note 4 above) did not.
2Heidi C. Dulay & Marina K. Burt, "Natural Se- 6M.A. Adekunle, "National Language Policy Plan-
quences in Child Second Language Acquisition," Lan- ning: The Nigerian Situation," West African Journal of
guage Learning, 24 (1974), pp. 37-53; Dulay & Burt, Modern Languages, 1 (1976), pp. 23-30.
"Errors and Strategies in Child Second Language Acqui- 7G. Ajayi, "Analyze contrastive des Systemes
sition," TESOL Quarterly, 8 (1974), pp. 129-36; and vocaliques francais et yarouba," Le Francais au Nigeria, 6
Nathalia Bailey, C. Madden & Stephen D. Krashen, "Is (1971), pp. 18-21; I.K. Chinebuah, "Grammatical De-
There a 'Natural Sequence' in Adult Second Language viance and First Language Interference," West African
Learning?" Language Learning, 24 (1974), pp. 235-73. Journal of Modern Languages, 1 (1976), pp. 67-78; E.C.O.
3K. Hakuta, "On Becoming Bilingual at Age Five: Chuku, "Etudes contrastives des Systemes verbaux igbo
The Story of Uguisi," Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1975; Jac-et francais," Unpub. MA Thesis, Univ. de la Sorbonne,
1974.
quelyn Schachter, "An Error in Error Analysis," Language
Learning, 24 (1974), pp. 205-14; and Jacqueline 8We recognize that contrastive analysis (CA) as utilized
Schachter, A. Tyson & F. Diffley, "Learner Intuitions in this
of study has come under serious criticism in recent
Grammaticality," Language Learning, 26 (1976), pp. years. 67-76. Opponents of CA have generally advocated Error
4Georgette Ioup & Anna Kruse, "Interference versus Analysis (EA) which uses a corpus of errors committed by
Structural Complexity in Second Language Acquisition: speakers learning a second language rather than syste-
Language Universals as a Basis for Natural Sequencing," matic comparison of the base and target languages. EA
Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language. Trends in has also come under critical scrutiny for its tendency to
Research and Practice, ed. H. Douglas Brown, Carlos A. analyze errors out of context, for the basis on which

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Interference Effects in a Third Language 287

causes of errors are assigned, and for inadequacy of with many audio-visual aids in the target language.
samples-e.g., Jacquelyn Schachter & Mariane Celce- Group B'S prior instruction in secondary school was a tra-
Murcia, "Some Reservations Concerning Error Analy- ditional textbook approach to learning grammar, taught
sis," TESOL Quarterly, 11 (1977), pp. 441-51. We feel each in English.
of these approaches has serious shortcomings when at- l?The complete test is available in a pre-publication
tempting complete descriptions of the language learner's version of the paper for $1.00 from the Learning and In-
knowledge, although both together can be used produc- struction Research Group, 379 Baldy Hall, State Univ.
tively to aid our understanding of second language learn- of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260.
ing processes. For a description of a language system, we 1"B.J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design
recommend structural analysis of samples from a prag- (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962).
matic perspective. See Nancy J. Lund & Judith Duchan, 12Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statisticsfor the Behavioral
Language Assessment: A Structural Approach (Englewood Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956).
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, in press). 13K. Sey, Ghana English: An Exploratory Survey (London:
9All subjects were receiving instruction in French at Macmillan, 1973).
Alvan Ikoku College of Education by a direct method '4Ioup & Kruse (note 4 above).

Late Announcements of Professional Meetings

THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PROFES- Seminar will be held from 3-7 November 1981
sional meetings were received in the MLJ in Washington,
office DC. This intensive five-day
too late for inclusion in the Calendar section Seminar will provide the theoretical back-
of "Notes and News." Conference leaders are ground and hands-on experience necessary to
reminded that the MLJ "Notes and News" enable participants to make practical use of
editor normally needs such announcements at microcomputer-assisted instruction and course
least six months prior to the starting date of development. For further information, con-
conferences or meetings in order to ensure tact: David H. Wyatt, CAI Seminar Director,
timely notice to the profession. American Language Academy, Catholic Uni-
YOUNGSTOWN STATE CONFERENCE
versity of America, Washington, DC 20064.

The 5th annual Conference for Foreign Lan-

NEW ROUTES TO BILINGUALISM
guage Teachers will be held on the campus of
Ysu on 24 October 1981. All teachers of for- The Bilingual/EsP Program of William
eign languages at all levels are invited to Paterson College, Wayne, NJ, is offerin
attend. Many different workshops and presen- two-day conference, "New Routes to Bilin-
tations will be offered. Most sessions are con-
gualism: Teaching Students of Limited Eng-
cerned with foreign languages in general, but lish Proficiency," on 16-17 October 1981. The
several focus on one particular language. two main speakers will be Joshua A. Fishman
Methods, new techniques and approaches,(Yeshiva University) and Wilga Rivers
creativity in the classroom, bilingual educa-
(Harvard University). The conference offers
tion and study abroad are some of the major practical workshops for professionals who are
topics. The registration fee of $9.75 includes
teaching students of limited English pro-
all materials and the coffee hour. For more in-
ficiency, including language arts, assessment,
formation, call the Department of Foreign cultural components, the affective domain,
Languages at YSU, (216) 742-3461. Pre-regis-
curricular options, etc. One graduate credit is
tration forms should be mailed no later thanavailable to participants. The conference is
October 17 with a check for $9.75 to: Foreignsponsored by the Georgetown Bilingual Edu-
Language Teachers Conference, Department
cation Service Center and the New Jersey De-
of Continuing Education, Youngstown State
partment of Higher Education-Bilingual Pro-
University, Youngstown, OH 44555. grams. For information about registration,
MICROCOMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION AND contact: Office of Continuing Education,
INDIVIDUALIZED LANGUAGE TEACHING William Paterson College, Raubinger Hall,
Wayne, NJ 07470, (201) 595-2436.
The American Language Academy CAI

This content downloaded from 190.9.219.214 on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 23:03:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms