The Role of the Fist Language Acquisition in the Second Language Acquisition

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 23 | Comments: 0 | Views: 325
of 15
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

The role of the Fist Language Acquisition in the Second Language Acquisition

Contents: What is Second Language Acquisition (Theoretical review in SLA) ................................ 3 The Process of Second Language Acquisition !asic "uestions ...................................... #
1

What is a $irst Language% .................................................................................................... & 'elating $irst and Second Language Acquisition ............................................................... ( The )ature of Linguistic *nowledge .................................................................................. +, Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. +, 'eferences ............................................................................................................................. +&

What is Second Language Acquisition (Theoretical review in SLA)

2

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ((Muriel, 2005)) refers both to the study of individuals and groups ho are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children, and to the process of learning that language! "he additional language is called a second language (L2), even though it #ay actually be the third, fourth, or tenth to be acquired! $t is also co##only called a target language ("L), hich refers to any language that is the ai# or goal of learning (Muriel, 2005)! "he scope of SLA includes infor#al L2 learning that ta%es place in naturalistic conte&ts, for#al L2 learning that ta%es place in classroo#s, and L2 learning that involves a #i&ture of these settings and circu#stances! 'or e&a#ple, (infor#al learning) happens hen a child fro# *apan is brought to the +S and (pic%s up) ,nglish in the course of playing and attending school ith native ,nglishspea%ing children ithout any speciali.ed language instruction, or hen an adult /uate#alan i##igrant in 0anada learns ,nglish as a result of interacting ith native ,nglish spea%ers or ith co- or%ers ho spea% ,nglish as a second language!(Muriel, 2005) ('or#al learning) occurs hen a high school student in ,ngland ta%es a class in 'rench, hen an undergraduate student in 1ussia ta%es a course in Arabic, or hen an attorney in 0olo#bia ta%es a night class in ,nglish! A co#bination of for#al and infor#al learning ta%es place hen a student fro# the +SA ta%es 0hinese language classes in "aipei or 2ei3ing hile also using 0hinese outside of class for social interaction and daily living e&periences, or hen an adult i##igrant fro# ,thiopia in $srael learns 4ebre both fro# attending special classes and fro# interacting ith co- or%ers and other residents in 4ebre ! (Muriel, 2005)

The Process of Second Language Acquisition

!asic "uestions

$n trying to understand the process of second language acquisition, $ ill try to ans er three basic questions5
3

(6) 7hat e&actly does the L2 learner co#e to %no 8 (2) 4o does the learner acquire this %no ledge8 (9) 7hy are so#e learners #ore successful than others8 "here are no si#ple ans ers to these questions : in fact, there are probably no ans ers that all second language researchers ould agree on co#pletely! $n part, this is because SLA is highly co#ple& in nature, and in part because scholars studying SLA co#e fro# acade#ic disciplines hich differ greatly in theory and research #ethods! "he #ultidisciplinary approach to studying SLA pheno#ena hich has developed ithin the last half-century has yielded i#portant insights, but #any #ysteries re#ain! ;e findings are appearing every day, #a%ing this an e&citing period to be studying the sub3ect! "he continuing search for ans ers is not only shedding light on SLA in its o n right, but is illu#inating related fields! 'urther#ore, e&ploring ans ers to these questions is of potentially great practical value to anyone ho learns or teaches additional languages! SLA has e#erged as a field of study pri#arily fro# ithin linguistics and psychology (and their subfields of applied linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and social psychology), as a result of efforts to ans er the what, how, and why questions posed above! "here are corresponding differences in hat is e#phasi.ed by researchers ho co#e fro# each of these fields5 <Linguists e#phasi.e the characteristics of the differences and si#ilarities in the languages that are being learned, and the linguistic co#petence (underlying %no ledge) and linguistic perfor#ance (actual production) of learners at various stages of acquisition! <=sychologists and psycholinguists e#phasi.e the #ental or cognitive processes involved in acquisition, and the representation of language(s) in the brain! <Sociolinguists e#phasi.e variability in learner linguistic perfor#ance, and e&tend the scope of study to co##unicative co#petence (underlying %no ledge that additionally accounts for language use, or prag#atic co#petence)!
4

<Social psychologists e#phasi.e group-related pheno#ena, such as identity and social #otivation, and the interactional and larger social conte&ts of learning! Applied linguists ho speciali.e in SLA #ay ta%e any one or #ore of these perspectives, but they are also often concerned ith the i#plications of theory and research for teaching second languages! ,ach discipline and subdiscipline uses different #ethods for gathering and analy.ing data in research on SLA, e#ploys different theoretical fra#e or%s, and reaches its interpretation of research findings and conclusions in different ays!

What is a $irst Language% "here is also so#eti#es a need to distinguish a#ong the concepts first language, native language, pri#ary language, and #other tongue, although these are usually treated as a roughly synony#ous set of ter#s (generali.ed as L6 to oppose the set generali.ed as L2)! "he distinctions are not al ays clear-cut! 'or purposes of SLA concerns, the i#portant features that all shades of L6s share are that they are assu#ed to be languages hich are acquired during early childhood : nor#ally beginning before the age of about three years : and that they are learned as part of gro ing up a#ong people ho spea% the#! Acquisition of #ore than one language during early childhood is called si#ultaneous #ultilingualis#, to be distinguished fro# sequential #ultilingualis#, or learning additional languages after L6 has already been established! (>Multilingualis#? as used here includes bilingualis#!) (Muriel, 2005)! Si#ultaneous #ultilingualis# results in #ore than one (native) language for an individual, though it is undoubtedly #uch less co##on than sequential #ultilingualis#! (Muriel, 2005)! $t appears that there are significant differences bet een the processes and@or results of language acquisition by young children and by older learners, although this is an issue hich is still open to debate, and is one of those hich are e&plored!

5

"he intriguing question of why so#e L2 learners are #ore successful than others requires us to unpac% the broad label (learners) for so#e di#ensions of discussion! Linguists #ay distinguish categories of learners defined by the identity and relationship of their L6 and L2A psycholinguists #ay #a%e distinctions based on individual aptitude for L2 learning, personality factors, types and strength of #otivation, and different learning strategiesA sociolinguists #ay distinguish a#ong learners ith regard to social, econo#ic, and political differences and learner e&periences in negotiated interactionA and social psychologists #ay categori.e learners according to aspects of their group identity and attitudes to ard target language spea%ers or to ard L2 learning itself! 'elating first and second language acquisition "he question of hether or not different types of language acquisition share essential properties as not addressed in a syste#atic fashion until the late 6BC0s! +ntil then, it apparently see#ed self-evident to #ost researchers that first (L6) and second language (L2) acquisition are funda#entally different! 2ut this belief as not based on e#pirical research! $n fact, L6 research did not pay #uch attention to L2 acquisition at all, and, surprisingly perhaps, this has not changed significantly since then! "he idea that #erely by contrasting different types of acquisition e can hope to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the hu#an language capacity began to spread only #uch later (cf! 7ode 6BD6)! +ntil the 6BC0s, the research agenda of language acquisition studies, 3ust li%e that of psychology and linguistics in general, as strongly deter#ined by behaviourist learning theories! An e&planation referring to #ental capacities of the learner did not see# to #a%e #uch sense in that conte&tA it ould, indeed, have been regarded as a non-scientific approach to the proble#! Enly after the constraints and restrictions of behaviourist psychology had been sha%en off could the language sciences begin to understand language learning as a #ental activity happening in the cognitive syste# of the individual! 0ho#s%y?s (6B5B)
6

fa#ous and influential revie of S%inner?s (6B5F) boo% Verbal Behavior is a #ilestone on this road to the cognitive turn! 7hat this ter# is #eant to convey is that it is the study of hu#an cognition, hich is no identified as the #a3or tas% of linguistics, in close cooperation ith other sciences, especially cognitive psychology and philosophy! 7ith respect to the language faculty, the issues put on the research agenda by this change of perspective include, a#ong other things, the proble# of ho to characteri.e the %no ledge syste# represented in the #ind of a person ho spea%s and understands a particular language, as ell as to e&plain ho this %no ledge is used and, #ost i#portantly in the present conte&t, ho this linguistic %no ledge and the ability to use it are acquired! "he Language Acquisition Gevice, then, represents the initial state of the language faculty, that is, prior to any e&posure to the language to be acquired (see 0ho#s%y 6BDD)! "his ne approach had an enor#ous i#pact on L6 research, and as early as in the early 6BC0s appeared the first of an ever increasing nu#ber of publications applying these ideas to the study of first language acquisition! L2 research, on the other hand, too% so#e hat longer to liberate itself fro# the do#inating influence of behaviouris#! "his is partly due, perhaps, to the fact that for a long ti#e it had e&clusively been occupied, and still continues to be pri#arily concerned, ith foreign language learning in classroo# settings, rather than ith naturalistic L2 acquisition! "he idea that learning crucially i#plies changing previously acquired behaviour see#s to have been deeply rooted in language teaching! $t is therefore not surprising that interference fro# L6 as, and in part still is, regarded as the #a3or factor deter#ining the shape of L2 speech! "he research paradig# hich elaborated this idea in considerable detail is 0ontrastive Analysis (0A)! 0ontrastive Analysis continued a line of thought hich had been e&pressed quite clearly as early as 6BH5 by 0harles 0! 'ries in the follo ing frequently quoted state#ent5
7

The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner. (Fries 19 !" 9# "he ne&t step as ta%en by 1obert Lado, a for#er student of 'ries, in assu#ing that >individuals tend to transfer for#s and #eanings, and the distribution of for#s and #eanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture? (Lado 6B5F5 2)! "his assu#ption, hich Lado as ell as #any others at the ti#e regarded as an uncontroversial generali.ation based on e#pirical observation, as turned into a prediction, perhaps the #a3or theoretical clai# of 0A, hen Lado (6B5F) and 7einreich (6B59) before hi# argued that >those ele#ents that are si#ilar to his Ii!e! the learner?sJ native language ill be si#ple for hi#, and those ele#ents that are different ill be difficult? (Lado 6B5F5 2)! $t should be added that 0A researchers ere not content ith this so#e hat naive one-to-one and yes-orno for#ulation of the prediction, but ere able to #a%e far #ore sophisticated suggestionsA for e&a#ple Larsen-'ree#an and Long (6BB65 59) ho present a su##ary of the proposal by Stoc% ell, 2o en and Martin (6BC5) distinguishing bet een structural and functional@se#antic correspondence! $n spite of i#prove#ents #ade over the years, researchers beca#e increasingly dissatisfied ith 0A! 2ut hat ulti#ately led to profound disappoint#ent as the fact that its prognostic po ers turned out not to be satisfactory! After all, 0A had been advertised as a scientific #ethod, not 3ust another intuitive ay of dealing ith language teaching and learning! $t as based on a theoretical clai#, the transfer hypothesis, and on a scientific description of the ob3ects of its study, the native and the foreign language! Most i#portantly, this enabled researchers to for#ulate predictions about difficulty and ease of learning, not #erely post factu# >e&planations?! 2ut it beca#e increasingly obvious that, in spite of certain refine#ents

8

in these clai#s, prognosticated errors ere not found in the data, hereas learners clearly encountered difficulties here 0A did not foresee any! Loo%ing at it fro# today?s perspective, 0ontrastive Analysis does not necessarily appear as funda#entally rong! $ts #a3or shortco#ings, direct consequences of its behaviourist descent, ho ever, are such that it could not, in principle, lead to insights about hat the learner has to %no and do in order to acquire a second language successfully! "his is pri#arily due to t o proble#s! 'irst, the role of transfer as grossly overstated! "he proble# is neither the fact that t o languages are contrasted nor the clai# that transfer #ay occur! $t ould be absurd to ignore the fact that L2 learners, as opposed to #onolingual and even bilingual children acquiring their first languages, have access to previously acquired linguistic %no ledge and that, as a consequence, the L6 #ight interfere ith the learning of the L2! 2ut transfer fro# L6 occupied everybody?s #ind so #uch that other factors deter#ining L2 acquisition ere severely neglected or si#ply ignored, a point hich is also stressed by Selin%er (6BB25 B)! 7hy such undue stress as put on a single factor is difficult to assess! $t is believed, ho ever, that it is, to a large part, caused by a notion of >learning? defined pri#arily by habit for#ation! As Selin%er (6BB25 F) points out, 'ries (6BH5) already sa the goal of the >first stage of language learning? as >the building up of a set of habits for the oral production of a language and for the receptive understanding of the language hen it is spo%en?! Since learners are clai#ed to transfer habits fro# the native to the foreign language, L2 learning #ust crucially i#ply changing so#e of these habits of learners (Lado 6B5F)! Again, this is not in itself an unreasonable assu#ption! 2ut the 0A approach goes seriously rong hen learners? linguistic co#petence is equated ith and reduced to sets of habits!

The )ature of Linguistic *nowledge
9

"his brings us to the second point5 the nature of linguistic %no ledge! 7hat 0ontrastive Analysis contrasts in order to predict difficulty and ease of learning are abstract linguistic syste#s, or rather gra##ars ritten by linguists! "hese researchers did not clai#, ho ever, that their gra##atical descriptions captured so#e %ind of psychological reality! $n fact, #ainstrea# linguistics, at the ti#e, e&plicitly re3ected #entalist considerations of this sort! Ket this inevitably leads to a parado&! 0A clai#s that >the gra##atical structure of the native language tends to be transferred to the foreign language? (Lado 6B5F5 5D)! "he question, ho ever, is not only fro# here and to here transfer could happen! "he crucial issue is to deter#ine the nature of hat is transferred! $n our understanding today, transfer #ust necessarily happen in the #ind of the learner! (Meisel, 2066) $n other ords, transfer cannot go fro# one abstract linguistic syste# to the other! $f e ant to postulate that it plays a part in the language learning process, e cannot avoid referring to psycho linguistically plausible entities! $f the gra##atical structures involved do not qualify as such, e should e&pect the above #entioned habits to do so! 2ut this is a reasonable alternative only if one is ready to #a%e strong psycholinguistic clai#s ith respect to the parsing, processing and production #echanis#s hidden behind the ter# >habit? : a solution not available to an anti#entalist theory of language and of learning!

Conclusion 7e can su# up by saying that second language research suffered longer than first language research fro# its behaviourist heritage! 2y focusing on the co#parison of linguistic structures 3ustified e&clusively in gra##atical ter#s rather than ith respect to their psycholinguistic plausibility, and, #oreover, by defining learning pri#arily in ter#s of habit for#ation and changing of habits, questions relating to the possibility of a co##on underlying language #a%ing capacity for the various types of language acquisition could not
10

even be for#ulated! As a result, the role of the native language in second language acquisition as seen e&clusively as a possible source of transfer! $t should be e#phasi.e, once again, that this is not to say that 0A did not #a%e a significant contribution to our understanding of second language acquisition or that contrastive analyses could not be used as a tool for second language research! $n fact, later develop#ents in this field tend to incorporate previous hypotheses, #ethods and findingsA they do not really stand in sharp contrast to earlier ones! Ene #ight, in fact, argue that #ore recent approaches to L2 acquisition, according to hich para#eters of the L6 gra##ar are transferred to early L2 gra##ars (e!g!, 7hite 6BD5), follo research strategies rese#bling those of classic 0A, for e&a#ple, contrasting structures fro# both languages and e&ploring the transfer hypothesis! "he crucial difference, ho ever, is that in this theoretical conte&t, gra##atical structures are indeed interpreted as hypotheses about #ental representations of the i#plicit linguistic %no ledge of the learner! An e&plicitly cognitive orientation of second language acquisition research as initiated in the late 6BC0s! "he only point of interest, in the present conte&t, is to see ho language acquisition studies ca#e to be interested in parallels and differences bet een first and second language acquisition! "he change is best illustrated by =it 0order (6BCF)! 4e refers to the child?s >innate predisposition to acquire language? and the >internal #echanis#? hich #a%es the acquisition of gra##ar possible, and then raises the question of hether the child?s language #a%ing capacity re#ains available to second language learners! Although he is careful about the conclusions to be dra n fro# these assu#ptions, he leaves no doubt about the fact that he favours a positive ans er, postulating >the sa#e #echanis#? for both L6 and L2 acquisition, and proposes as a or%ing hypothesis that so#e at least of the strategies adopted by the learner of a second language are substantially the sa#e as those by hich a first language is
11

acquired! Such a proposal does not i#ply that the course or sequence of learning is the sa#e in both cases! 7hat e&actly 0order #eans by >strategies? is not entirely clear, nor does he elaborate on the last point, that is, hat #ight cause the e#ergence of different learning sequences in spite of the clai# that the underlying #echanis#s are the sa#e! 4e does, ho ever, list hat he sees as differences bet een the t o acquisition types, na#ely that (6) children acquiring their L6, as opposed to L2 learners, are inevitably successful, (2) L6 develop#ent is part of the child?s #aturational process, (9) at the onset of second language acquisition, another language is already present, and (H) the #otivation for language acquisition is quite different in the t o cases! 0order suspects that this last factor, #otivation, is the principal one distinguishing first and second language acquisition! $n order to gain insights into the nature of the underlying #echanis# and of the strategies used in second language acquisition, 0order suggests studying the errors found in L2 speech! 4e distinguishes bet een rando# #ista%es and syste#atic errors! "he latter, he clai#s >reveal his Ithe learner?s, *MMJ underlying %no ledge of the language to date, or, as e #ay call it his transitional co#petence?! $f, for e&a#ple, learners use the for# thin%ed, this suggests that they have acquired %no ledge about tense #ar%ing in ,nglish, even if this particular for# is an error, deviating fro# the target nor#! "he study of errors has attracted the attention of L2 researchers ever since and continues to do so! $n vie of the rather li#ited success of error prognostications based on contrastive analyses, researchers concentrate on actually occurring errors, atte#pting to or% their ay bac% to the sources of such errors! As should be obvious, ho ever, this type of ,rror Analysis (,A) lac%s the predictive po er of 0A, unless error sources other than L6 transfer are identified hich can be sho n to lead to ne predictions about possible learning difficulties!
12

Ket since in ,A transfer continues to be the single #ost frequently studied source of errors, little is gained and #uch is lost! 'urther#ore, by concentrating on errors, ,A tends to underesti#ate learner achieve#entsA on the other hand, in cases here learners avoid difficult structures, ,A is li%ely not to detect this lac% of %no ledge or of s%ills and overesti#ates the %no ledge of learners! "he truly sti#ulating ideas in 0order (6BCF), ith respect to the present discussion, are that he e&plicitly suggested the sa#e underlying #echanis# for L6 and L2 acquisition, introduced the notion of >transitional co#petence?, and de#anded that the focus of L2 research should be on the learner, rather than on learners? productions! "his can only be achieved if acquisition studies strive for psycho linguistically plausible gra##atical analyses of learner utterances! $n other ords, L2 learners are assu#ed to acquire syste#atic %no ledge about the L2A a >third syste# in addition to the ;L Inative language, *MMJ of learners and the "L Itarget language, *MMJ to be learned? is introduced, to use Selin%er?s (6BB25 6D) ords! ;ote, ho ever, that assu#ing a %ind of transitional co#petence does not oblige us to subscribe to the idea of one and the sa#e #echanis# underlying L6 and L2 acquisition! Suggestions si#ilar to the >transitional co#petence? ere indeed #ade by a nu#ber of authors, proposing >appro&i#ative syste#s? (;e#ser 6BF6), >idiosyncratic dialects? (0order 6BF6) or >interlanguages? (Selin%er 6BF2)! "hese ter#s are not synony#ous, but they coincide in so far as they postulate a structured transitional %no ledge base in the L2 learner! $t contains ele#ents of the target gra##ar, possibly also ele#ents of the L6 gra##ar (>interlingual errors?, 1ichards 6BF6), and, #ost i#portantly, ele#ents different fro# both source and target syste#s, >develop#ental errors? (>intralingual errors?, 1ichards 6BF6) hich prove that the learner is actively and creatively participating in the acquisitional process! "he ter# #ost generally adopted is Selin%er?s (6BF2) >interlanguage? ($L),2 and $ ill therefore also use it in this volu#e, although it is so#e hat #isleading since it refers to
13

the product of language use, in spite of the fact that it is intended to capture properties of the learner?s linguistic co#petence! >Appro&i#ative syste#? renders the intended idea better but is perhaps not as elegant an e&pression and is less co##only used in the #ore recent L2 literature!

'eferences: 0ho#s%y, ;oa#A Syntactic StructuresA "he 4ague5 MoutonA 6B5B 0ho#s%y, ;oa#A Lno ledge of Language $t?s ;ature, Erigin and +seA =raeger =ublishersA +SAA 'irst =ublished 6BDCA 0order, S! =! >"he significance of learner?s errors?, $nternational 1evie of Applied Linguistics 5 A 6BCF 0order, S! =!A $diosyncratic dialects and error analysisA $nternational 1evie of Applied
14

Linguistics BA 6BF6 'ries, 0! 0! "eaching and learning ,nglish as a foreign language! Ann ArborA +niversity of Michigan =ressA 6BH5! *Mrgen M! MeiselA 'irst and Second Language Acquisition - =arallels and GifferencesA 0a#bridge +niversity =ressA 2066 Lado, 1obertA Linguistic across culturesA +niversity of Michigan =ressA 6B5F Larsen-'ree#an, G! and M! 4! LongA An introduction to second language acquisition 1esearchA Long#anA LondonA 6BB6! ;e#ser, 7!A Appro&i#ative syste#s of foreign language learners, $nternational 1evie of Applied Linguistics BA 6BF6 1ichards, *! ,rror analysis and second language strategiesA Language Sciences 6FA 6BF6! Selin%er, L! ‘$nterlanguage’, $nternational 1evie of Applied Linguistics 60A 6BF2! Selin%er, L! 1ediscovering $nterlanguageA Long#anA LondonA 6BB2 S%inner, 2! '! Nerbal 2ehaviorA ;e Kor%A 6B5F Stoc% ell, 1!, *! 2o en and *! MartinA "he gra##atical structures of ,nglish and SpanishA 0hicago +niversity =ressA 0hicagoA 6BC5 Muriel Saville - "roi%eA $ntroducing Second Language AcquisitionA 0a#bridge university =erssA 2005 7einreich, +rielA Languages in contactA =ublication of the Linguistic 0ircle of ;e Kor%A ;e Kor%A 6B59! 7ode 4enning - Learning a Second Language5 An integrated vie of language acquisitionA =erga#on =ress, 6BD6

15

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close