First-language-influenced errors here are also in the domain of word order (Selinker, Swain, and Dumas, 1975; Plann and Ramirez, 1976).

This suggests that it is not simply the case that adults show first language influence while children do not. We would expect to see first language influence in situations where child second language acquirers obtain less intake or where affective conditions prevent or inhibit acquisition (where the affective filter "filters" the input; see Chapter 2).

Conclusions

We now attempt to integrate these findings and fit them into the Monitor Model for performance. First, let us reconsider Newmark's (1966) proposal for a mechanism for first language influence. According to Newmark, first language influence is not proactive inhibition, but is simply the result of the performer being "called on to perform before he has leaned the new behaviour". The result is "padding", using old knowledge, supplying what is known to make up for what is not known. Newmark suggests that the "cure for interference is simply the cure for ignorance: learning" (in terms of Monitor Theory, this would read "acquisition").

What can be concluded from the above is that the L1 may "substitute" for the acquired L2 as an utterance initiator when the performer has to produce in the target language but has not acquired enough of the L2 to do this.

First language influence may therefore be an indication of low acquisition. If so, it can be eliminated or at least reduced by natural intake and language use. This is what apparently occurred in Taylor's ESL subjects, who showed less first language influence with more proficiency (Taylor, 1975).

Perhaps the "silent period" observed in natural child second language acquisition (Hakuta, 1974; Huang and Hatch, 1978) corresponds to the period in which the first language is heavily used in

67